Most people scrolling through Instagram or TikTok lately have probably run into that specific, hazy aesthetic that feels like a lost memory from 1994. It isn't just a filter. It’s a vibe. Specifically, it's the i think i do film movement—a massive wave of digital creators trying to recapture the soul of analog photography without actually carrying around a bulky Pentax K1000 or paying $20 for a roll of Portra 400.
Honestly? It's kind of obsessed with nostalgia.
We live in an era of terrifyingly sharp smartphone cameras. Your iPhone can see better than your actual eyes can. But for a lot of us, that's the problem. It’s too clean. It’s too sterile. The i think i do film trend is basically a rebellion against the perfection of 4K sensors. It’s about light leaks, grainy textures, and that specific "halation" effect where bright lights glow with a soft, reddish hue. You’ve seen it. You probably like it.
People want their lives to look like a movie, even if they’re just buying a coffee at 2:00 PM on a Tuesday.
What is "i think i do film" actually about?
It started as a bit of a joke on social media. A creator would post a video that looked incredibly cinematic—lots of shadows, warm skin tones, maybe some jittery frame rates—and caption it "i think i do film now." It wasn't literal. Most of these people were using a Sony A7IV or even just a high-end Fuji camera with a specific "film simulation" recipe.
But it evolved.
Now, it’s a shorthand for a specific philosophy of content creation. It’s about intentionality. When you shoot on actual film, you only have 24 or 36 shots. You can't just spray and pray. You have to wait. You have to think. The i think i do film aesthetic tries to bring that slow-down energy to the fast-paced world of digital media.
Is it "fake"? Some purists think so. They’ll tell you that if it isn't silver halide on a plastic base, it’s just a lie. But they're kinda missing the point. The point is the feeling. If a digital photo makes you feel the same warmth as a Polaroid from your childhood, does the medium really matter that much?
The gear that makes the "fake" film look real
You can't just slap a "Vintage" filter on a photo and call it a day. That looks cheap. The people who are really killing it in the i think i do film space are using specific tools to bridge the gap.
One of the biggest players here is Fujifilm. Their X-series cameras are basically the kings of this trend because they have built-in "Film Simulations." You can set your camera to mimic Classic Chrome or Astia right in the sensor. It saves hours of editing. Then there are the "recipes"—settings shared by enthusiasts like Ritchie Roesch over at Fuji X Weekly. You plug in some numbers for grain, highlight tone, and color chrome effect, and suddenly your digital mirrorless camera outputs images that look like they were developed in a lab in 1978.
🔗 Read more: Anjelica Huston in The Addams Family: What You Didn't Know About Morticia
Then you have the lens filters. This is a huge secret. Black Pro-Mist filters or "CineBloom" filters from companies like Moment are everywhere. They're basically pieces of glass with tiny particles inside that catch the light. They bloom the highlights. They soften skin. They take that digital "edge" off.
It's funny. We spend thousands of dollars on the sharpest lenses possible, then spend another $80 on a filter to make them blurry.
Why we are so obsessed with the analog look
There is a psychological component to the i think i do film phenomenon.
Digital photos are metadata. They are coordinates and timestamps. They are perfect. But human memory isn't perfect. We remember things in fragments. We remember the way the sun hit the dashboard, or the way a friend's face was half-lost in shadow. Film—and the digital recreations of it—mimics the way our brains actually store "vibes."
Evidence? Look at the rise of the Dehancer plugin or the widespread use of apps like Dazz Cam or Huji. Dazz Cam has been downloaded millions of times because it randomizes light leaks. It adds "errors."
In a world dominated by AI-generated images that are mathematically perfect, we crave the error. We want the dust. We want the scratch on the negative. It proves a human was there.
Breaking down the visual language
If you want to understand the i think i do film aesthetic, you have to look for a few specific markers:
- The "Lifted" Blacks: In digital photography, "true black" is a value of zero. In this style, blacks are never truly black. They’re a dark, muddy grey. This mimics the way film paper can’t hold a pure black ink.
- Green/Blue Shadows: Take a look at the shadows in a photo by someone like Jamie Windsor or Joe Greer. They aren't neutral. They’re usually tinted slightly toward teal or green.
- The Red Halation: This is the "halo" around lights. It happens on real film when light bounces off the back of the film stock. Digital sensors don't do this naturally, so creators add it back in using software like Negative Lab Pro.
- The 4:3 Aspect Ratio: Ditch the widescreen. The i think i do film look loves the boxy, older TV-style frame. It feels more intimate.
It’s all about texture. Digital is smooth. Film is gritty. Life is gritty.
The backlash: Is it just a trend?
Of course, not everyone is a fan. There’s a growing movement of photographers who are tired of the "brown and grainy" look. They argue that by trying so hard to look like the past, we’re failing to create a visual language for the future.
💡 You might also like: Isaiah Washington Movies and Shows: Why the Star Still Matters
And they have a point. If every wedding photographer in 2026 uses the same i think i do film presets, will all those wedding photos look dated in ten years? Probably. But then again, so did the "Selective Color" trend of the 2000s and the "HDR" craze of the 2010s.
Trends are just tools.
The real experts in this space aren't just copying a look. They’re using the aesthetic to tell better stories. Look at cinematographers like Hoyte van Hoytema (who shot Oppenheimer and Interstellar). He uses real film, but he uses it to push what’s possible, not just to look "old."
For the average creator, saying i think i do film is a way of saying, "I care about the art." It’s a signal that you’re moving away from the "influencer" look of bright, saturated, over-sharpened photos and toward something more moody and contemplative.
How to actually get the look (The right way)
If you're looking to jump into this, don't just buy a $5 pack of presets from a random YouTuber. It won't work. Lighting is 90% of the battle. Film—real or simulated—needs light to breathe.
Start with "Golden Hour." The low sun creates the long shadows and warm tones that the i think i do film style thrives on. If you’re shooting digital, underexpose your shot. It’s much easier to "lift" the shadows in post-production than it is to fix "blown-out" highlights that have lost all their detail.
Also, look into "Negative Lab Pro" if you’re actually scanning real film, or "Dehancer" if you’re trying to make video look like it was shot on a 16mm Bolex camera. These tools are built by people who have actually analyzed the chemical makeup of film stocks like Kodak Gold and Fujifilm Superia.
It’s a rabbit hole.
You start with one filter, and six months later you’re on eBay bidding on a 1970s Leica because you’ve convinced yourself that the "micro-contrast" is better.
📖 Related: Temuera Morrison as Boba Fett: Why Fans Are Still Divided Over the Daimyo of Tatooine
Real-world examples of the style
Look at the work of Andre D. Wagner. He’s a street photographer who captures New York in a way that feels timeless. Or look at the cinematography in the show Euphoria—specifically season 2, which was shot entirely on Kodak Ektachrome (a film stock that had been discontinued and was brought back specifically because people loved the look).
These aren't just "vintage filters." They are intentional choices meant to evoke a specific emotional response. Ektachrome, for example, has incredibly high contrast and vivid colors. It feels like a fever dream. That’s why it worked for that show.
When you say i think i do film, you’re participating in that same lineage of visual storytelling.
Practical steps to master the "i think i do film" vibe
Stop worrying about gear for a second. The aesthetic is a mindset.
First, go to a museum or look at old photo books. Look at Stephen Shore or William Eggleston. See how they composed shots when they couldn't see the result instantly on a screen. Their "i think i do film" was just... doing film. They focused on geometry, color theory, and the "decisive moment."
Second, limit yourself. Next time you go out, tell yourself you can only take 30 photos. It sounds painful in the age of 256GB SD cards. But it forces you to look at the light. It forces you to wait for the person to walk into the frame.
Third, embrace the mess. If there’s a bit of motion blur? Keep it. If the focus is slightly off? It might actually be better. The i think i do film style is the antithesis of the "perfect" AI-generated image. It’s the beauty of the mistake.
Lastly, understand your tools. If you use Fuji, learn the "X-Trans" sensor quirks. If you use Sony, learn how to use "Picture Profiles" (specifically S-Cinetone) to get closer to a cinematic base.
The goal isn't to trick people into thinking you spent $100 on a roll of film. The goal is to make people feel something when they look at your work.
To actually start, download a film emulation app that allows manual control—like Filmic Pro or Halide—and turn off all the "smart" processing your phone does automatically. Capture the raw data. Then, use a tool like VSCO (specifically their "Film X" presets) or Lightroom to manually adjust the grain size and roughness. Focus on the "Green-Magenta" tint slider; shifting it slightly toward green often gives that classic Fuji Pro 400H look that everyone is chasing. Stop over-sharpening. In fact, turn the sharpness down to -20 or -30. That's the real secret to the "soft" look. Change your crop to 4:5 or 2:3. Suddenly, your feed looks less like a phone dump and more like a gallery. ---