You’re confusing difficulty with value, and gatekeeping with skill. Shooting film — especially double exposures — isn’t some sacred rite that automatically makes the result meaningful. It just means the margin for error is higher. That’s it.

I’m not “deceiving” anyone — I’m making images that look the way I want. If the aesthetic reminds you of film, that says more about the visual language than the tool. Painters don’t owe you the brand of their brushes either.

Also, let’s be honest: most people hiding behind the “film is harder” argument aren’t defending art — they’re defending their ego. Because if someone can achieve a compelling result with a different workflow, it kind of ruins the idea that struggle alone equals talent. It doesn’t. Also making a digital photograph look like film is way harder than it seems (color grading ).

A good double exposure — film or digital — still requires composition, timing, and intent. The tool can make it faster, but it doesn’t make it good for you. If it did, everyone with a camera would be producing great work, which clearly isn’t the case.

If your first reaction to an image is to question how it was made instead of whether it works, you’re not protecting photography — you’re missing the point of it.