There’s a frustrating comment I receive every now and then. It’s been going on for years and years—pretty much since I started making Film Simulation Recipes—and it continues to this very day. It goes something like this: “If you just learned to edit RAW, you wouldn’t need Recipes.” It can be said many different ways, but that’s always the gist of it. Sometimes it’s stated a bit nicer with a beating around the bush, and sometimes it’s said more harshly, occasionally with swearing. I’ve even been told once that I’m doing much harm to photography. Someone even threatened me physically, should they ever see me on the streets.
All of that is crazy wild. It’s bananas. Did Edwin Land get this reaction with the Polaroid? Maybe, I don’t know. It just seems like a weird response to someone else’s personal workflow choice. It’s gatekeeping.
Gatekeeping, which says that only photography done the “right” way is correct and all other methods are incorrect, is a big problem. To be clear: there’s no right or wrong way to do photography, only whatever works for you personally. Anybody who says otherwise is flat out wrong, and couldn’t be more wrong. But there are, unfortunately, many people who will tell you that photography must be done a certain way or else it’s less legitimate. There are a several reasons why people gate keep, so let’s look at some.
Photography is deeply personal, and many people tie their identity to how “skilled” they think they are. When someone else succeeds with a different method—shooting JPEGs, iPhone photography, etc.—it threatens the fragile belief that their way is the only legitimate path. It’s a defensive shield: If you do it differently and are successful, then my choices—and hence myself—might be less special.
Kind of similarly, people who learn a lot can mistake knowledge for superiority. You’re doing it wrong is a shortcut to feeling important. Unfortunately, this kills community. You see it all over the place in forums and comment sections of many websites. This is also used by trolls, who may think they’re knowledgable while oftentimes being quite ignorant.
Photography has a long, technical history. Many photographers were taught rigid rules, such as shoot RAW, use full frame, manual-mode is the only real mode, rule-of-thirds, sunny 16, and many, many more. These types of rules evolve over decades, but they always seem to exist. They serve a purpose: give structure to those early in their journey; however, over time, these types of rules tend to harden into what some believe to be absolute truths. Instead of guidelines that helped for a time, they become laws that must be followed. But, remember, in art rules are meant to be broken.
Photography used to be expensive, slow, and technical, which meant that only some people were photographers, and most were not. Now everyone has a camera in their pocket, and everybody’s making pictures. For some, that democratization feels like a loss of status. Gatekeeping is a way of preserving a hierarchy that no longer naturally exists. I’m a real photographer because I do it this way, and you’re not because you don’t. It’s a game of king-of-the-hill, except nobody else is playing.
Some photographers confuse process with vision. They think creativity comes from the mechanical steps—RAW workflow, layers and curves, editing rituals—rather than from seeing the world in a certain way. When someone simplifies the process, it feels like “cheating” to them. In the end, what matters is if the photo fulfills the photographer’s vision, not what specific steps it took to get there.
Gatekeeping in photography is almost always born from fear—fear of losing relevance, fear of being wrong, fear of being overshadowed, fear of loss of control, fear of competition, etc.. Creativity, on the other hand, comes from curiosity, play, and the freedom to break rules—rules that gatekeepers cling to as if they define the medium.
Getting back to the original statement that inspired this post—if I just learned to edit RAW—well, I shot and edited RAW for years. There are several pictures I’ve included in this article from that era of my photography when I did shoot and edit RAW. I know how to do it, I just don’t enjoy it, so I no longer choose to do it. I don’t personally find any fulfillment in sitting at a computer for hours making all sorts of various adjustments to my pictures. After doing it for years, I realized that it’s just not for me. And that’s ok. There’s no right or wrong way to do photography. I don’t feel that my photography suffers from a lack of RAW editing; actually, I feel that the restraint produces a more authentic result, which I’m quite pleased with.
Invariably, someone will drag Ansel Adams into this argument. Adams spent hours in the darkroom developing film and printing enlargements, with masterful dodging and burning. That’s how photography should be done, except now it’s Lightroom and not a darkroom. All of this ignores Adams’ love for Polaroid photography, which he called one-step photography. Typically, the first step is image capture, and the second is image development, but Polaroids only required the first step (hence, one-step photography). Adams wrote, “The effect of one-step processing on both amateur and professional creative photography has been revolutionary.” One of his well-known Yosemite pictures was captured on a Polaroid, and most who view it are unaware. He wrote a whole book about this topic. Using Film Simulation Recipes is a type of one-step photography, and it can indeed be revolutionary.
Anyway, just because someone chooses to shoot JPEGs on their Fujifilm camera with Film Simulation Recipes does not mean they don’t know how to edit a RAW file. And even if they don’t, that doesn’t make them any less of a photographer. It’s not how you arrive at the destination, it’s the destination itself—the photograph—that matters, and whether or not it fulfills the vision of the photographer.
Well said! I also am doing less and less editing these days since discovering recipes and those are mostly cropping. I’m now trying to do more visualizing and cropping in camera (aspect ratios). It’s kind of liberating to see the finish article pop SooC, at least I find it so.
Thanks so much! It is indeed liberating. Quite literally changed my life, no hyperbole. I appreciate your kind comment!
What’s funny is that many RAW supporters end up buying presents to apply to their pictures without even trying to learn seriously how to use PS 🤣
*presets
There’s definitely truth to that. Lightroom presets are a pretty big business—if it weren’t so, then not everybody would be selling them. I cannot tell you how many requests I get for them, probably two to five each month, going on for five or six years now.
Just yesterday I came across an AD on Instagram saying “do you like that Fujifilm style? Get this set of presets to achieve that unique look!” 🤣🤣🤣
🤣 I’ve seen that ad, too. 🤣
Agree with you on that subject Ritchie.
Surely there’s nothing wrong with recipes at all, and aren’t they similar to buying different film stocks with different ISO ratings that we could buy years ago before digital ? I don’t think I ever got beyond ASA 100 or 200, as it was then. More recipes the better in my opinion, like choice of film stock.
I’m still just an amateur though, and happy photographing with jpegs. I can’t be fluffing about with all that editing, other than perhaps the minimum needed on the Mac’s own programme. Mainly horizon straightening and maybe a bit of enhancement.
I suppose it’s different for professionals, or very keen amateurs, but I would have thought that jpegs certainly have their place for the vast majority of us. Most people just want to take pictures and for me the beauty is in the composition of the photo and not the ultimate in colour rendition through editing.
I remember when ISO 400 film was considered “high ISO” (in fact, on Fujicolor PRO 400H, that’s what the H stands for: High ISO). I only occasionally ventured beyond ISO 400, and only used Ilford Delta P3200 once, which has sandpaper grain. On digital, I don’t even put much energy into ISO considerations, as ISO 6400 on my Fujifilm is “better” (more sharp, more detailed, more clean, less grainy) than ISO 800 was on any 35mm film, maybe better than most ISO 400 emulsions.
Camera-made JPEGs is a format that should be for (as you said) “the majority of us”—and it is on Fujifilm and (to a lesser extent) a few other camera brands. I suspect that it will continue to be more-and-more as other brands improve their JPEG processing. But it’s not just for amateurs, there are many professionals now using JPEGs and even Recipes. The quick turnaround and reduced manipulation are major points for the working professional photographer. I’ve had a number of them tell me that it has tremendously helped their business.
I appreciate your thoughtful comment!
“If you just learned to use film recipes, you wouldn’t need to edit RAW files.”😉
You just flipped the script! 🤣😀
This is so true. I used to shoot slide film and not negative. You can compare slide film with the current jpgs: you have to do it right the first time. 5 to 5 1/2 stops dynamic range! All those ‘professionals’ who still have to correct from RAW images should try to photograph well in jpg in one go. They probably won’t succeed.
🤣
I would bracket any “important” picture captured on slide film… you had to nail it. Maybe you could be off by 1/3 or 1/2 stop, maybe. Really, it had to be spot-on, no room for error.
“I know how to do it, I just don’t enjoy it, so I no longer choose to do it. I don’t personally find any fulfillment in sitting at a computer for hours making all sorts of various adjustments to my pictures.”
Me too!! Well said.
Thanks 😀
I couldn’t agree more!
When I was little in the early 90’s, I shot film and took photos on an old QL-19 just because I enjoyed doing it.
Then in the early 2000’s I got a Canon EOS Digital Rebel, and since I could take more pictures than ever for “free”, I challenged myself understand every setting and what effect it had to try to optimize and “perfect” my technique. I loved that camera and so many of the images I captured with it; rarely did I make any edits beyond simple cropping.
But by the 2010’s so many high-end digital cameras were starting to shoot clinical, flat-looking, uninspiring RAWs, so that you could massage them any which way you wanted in Lightroom… and I fell out of love with photography entirely.
The joy for me was always getting out, exploring, appreciating and capturing moments in the wild; not sitting in front of a screen moving sliders around until an image looked good enough to impress strangers on the internet.
I’m so thankful that Fujifilm makes the kind of cameras that I fantasized a decade ago. I never wanted to waste precious hours of my life trying to recreate the colors, contrasts, and moods that were already right in front of me. I just wanted a camera that could capture it the way my memory was going to remember it the first time.
Now I love photography again.
I’ve heard that in the early days of digital (I was one of those stubborn digital holdouts, still shooting film throughout the ’00’s, so I missed this), the CCD sensors in the ’90’s and early ’00’s were programmed to more closely emulate film (the Kodak ones, in particular, were apparently modeled after Kodachrome specifically). As film died off, the replication of a film-like result became less-and-less the goal, until it was not a goal at all, which is where you get the clinical output.
I’m so glad to hear that you’ve rediscovered your love for photography through Fujifilm cameras!
Early digicams definitely had their own peculiar set of quirks and limitations, but I do agree that the early days of digital photography were generally trying to emulate film more. While the tech wasn’t there to actually nail it, the attempts gave early sensors/processing their own almost film-adjacent character which wasn’t always great, but wasn’t actually bad either.
While I do occasionally shoot film still, I don’t really feel the nostalgic pull to go back to early digicams; even if I deeply appreciate the what they gave me at the time and the contribution they made to the history of the medium.
If I *really* wanted to re-experience the odd frustrations of early digicams, I’d do it with one of Sigma’s beautiful but terrible Foveon cameras! XD
The Foveon cameras were so great and so terrible simultaneously. I used to own a Sigma DP2 Merrill.
May I add my 2cents to the debate. I learnt photography back i the day when it was purely film photography. If you wanted a certain style of print you would start by choosing which film you would use and this was your gateway. It could be as simple as black and white vs colour. (trying to keep it simple here).
When I learnt PS we were introduced to this notion of raw, and to have the largest file size available. Jpegs were seen as the spawn of Satan because they are, by nature, a degenarative image file, and 20 years ago when you were playing with 3million pixel images, this was a cause for concern. Your jpeg was like your print and the raw file was your negative.
In 2025 this is no longer the case. And if I may be so bold, nobody could give a flying fart how you made your image. They don’t care which camera you used. Or which expensive les you used. They look at the image and think how does this make me feel. Technical know how used to produced the image is irrelevant.
You might have a hard on because you used a Leica to get your image, but you’re the only one!
Yes, exactly. There was a time when the JPEG processor inside the cameras weren’t especially good, and you really needed to squeeze everything out of the RAW file to get a good print of a decent size. Those days are long gone. When people look at pictures, they never wonder what gear and settings were used, as the picture itself is what matters most. Thanks for the input!
It’s just an opinion and if I can annoy a purist it’s been a good day. I’m all about mindful photography. Slow down and enjoy the process…
Love it: mindful, slow, and enjoyable.
I am quite happy with film simulations and recipes.
That said, I created my own Ansel Adams style film simulations, so I get nice contrasts in what is on earth and beautiful clouds in the sky. I also take some of the recipes from Ritchie and modify them to my liking, e.g. the Cinestill 800T with increased clarity (i.e. less negative values).
I still always save a jpeg and a RAW file. The reason for that is quite simple, some photographs cannot be repeated, when you figure out, that the level of exposure is not okay, or the film simulation does not fit the image, or that the black and white photo you took, actually looks better in color, or when you figure out, that you would like more or less grain in a photo.
These cases are not very often, but when needed, having the option to tweak a photo in Capture One is priceless.
And, yes, I know, how to do darkroom work, did it from time to time for fifteen years, but I always found it very time consuming and prefer the possibilities in the digital world.
I also know, how to make use of a fully manual camera with hand held light meter, since when I started photography with my father’s Zeiss Contarex SLR, there was nothing automatic available. Nowadays, auto ISO, auto f-stop, auto exposure time and auto focus work well for me in most of the occasions, but when I want to do something, that would not work in automatic mode, I switch to fully manual. This possibility is a relief for me, it makes photography less stress and more fun.
There’s definitely nothing wrong with any of that—it’s about what works for you personally. What works best for me might not for another, and what works best for them might not for someone else. If “seasoning to taste” one of my Recipes produces results that you are happy with, absolutely do that. If it’s someone else’s Recipe, or your own creation, that’s super cool, too. If it’s editing a RAW file in Capture One, that’s great. Everyone has their own processes, and none are more correct than another, it’s only what works for each of us personally. I’ve learned over the past two years that people use Recipes in ways I never even considered, and I think that’s awesome. There’s a lot we can learn from each other, but if we are criticizing other people for not doing it “our way” we lose that opportunity. Thanks so much for you comment!
One of the things I like about Fuji cameras is that I can do both. I find the film simulation gives me a great place to start. Sometimes I don’t need to do a thing. Sometimes I need to do a few tweaks. And, sometimes I grab the raw file and go in a completely direction from the simulation.
Yes, and both a equally legitimate. You get to decide what you you want to do—it’s your art. You have that freedom, and nobody should think less of you for it. It’s up to each of us to decide what works best for us and our photography, and it can be many different things, and different things at different times. There’s no right or wrong way, only what works for us personally. Thanks for the comment!
Amen, brother. Gatekeepers suck, especially stupid ones that entirely miss the point of shooting. I’d love to just hand one of them a film camera with some Portra 400 loaded and ask them how they’re gonna edit that in Lightroom.
🤣 🤣
I think everyone should shoot film at some point in their life. At least a few rolls. I think it would be quite educational for a lot of folks.
I get your point, and could agree with it. I am not sooo familiar with Portra, but have used a lot of slide film.
The best example, where I have been able to get much more out of the slide by scanning it and treating the scan tif with Lightroom is a photo I took on Brooklyn Bridge around New Years’s eve in 1998/1999. The slide is well exposed and color rich with a beautiful blue sky and plenty of detail, but when treating it in LR, you could take a lot of information out of the slide and make a particular Porsche car crossing the bridge very visible. That photo was taking on Fujifilm Provia 100, using my Hasselblad 2000 FC/M. It might be a particular case, however it is part of my journey.
I would love to see that photo, if you have it available to share. That sounds like an image deserving to be hung on the wall somewhere around your house or office.