Are Modern Digital Cameras Too Sharp to Look Like Film?

Over the past few days, I’ve been conducting a test that has left me genuinely shaken—and deeply curious about the direction of photography in 2025.

I’ve been comparing three cameras: the Leica M11-P, the Ricoh GR III, and the Ricoh GRD IV from 2011 (with its legendary 10MP CCD sensor). Alongside them, I’ve been looking at good old Kodak Tri-X 400 processed in D-76 1:1. And here’s what I’ve found: replicating the look and feel of film—especially something as iconic as Tri-X—is nearly impossible with today’s top-tier digital cameras. Why? Because they’re simply too good with regards to resolution.

Let me explain.

When you shoot with the Leica M11-P, what you get is an image that’s almost unnervingly sharp. The micro-detail and micro-contrast are off the charts. It doesn’t matter what lens you put on it—it cuts through the scene with clinical precision. And while that’s technically impressive, it’s also the very thing that makes it difficult to achieve that classic filmic feel. The images are so sharp, so “perfect,” that no amount of digital grain or post-processing seems to bring them back into the aesthetic world of analog film.

Even the Ricoh GR III, with its 24MP APS-C CMOS sensor (no AA filter), delivers an image so crisp and contrasty that it almost feels too clean. It’s beautiful, yes—but unsettling. It’s not just detail; it’s hyper-detail. The images feel… louder than life. And maybe that’s part of the problem.

In contrast, the GRD IV from 2011—only 10MP and CCD-based—has an elegance that feels closer to film. There’s a softness, a gentler falloff in the tones. And, of course, real Tri-X has a depth, an irregularity, and a humanity that no software seems able to mimic convincingly.

This brings me to a larger question: Has our visual aesthetic as a culture changed?

We know film photography has seen a resurgence over the past five or six years, but in the grand scheme, it’s still a tiny sliver of the overall photo market. Digital dominates. And yet, many of today’s digital tools and presets aim to emulate film—but they can’t fully hide the fact that the underlying image is just too sharp. Most emulation software simply overlays grain onto a razor-sharp digital file. It feels fake. It looks fake. And we can see that it’s fake.

That’s why I turned to Real Grain 3 by Imagenomic for this test. It was the only software I found that actually reduced structural detail in the digital file in a meaningful way before applying the grain. It felt closer to the real thing—not perfect, but better. Because true film isn’t just about grain—it’s about the relationship between grain, light, focus, and depth. It’s about imperfection.

I don’t know what this all means just yet. I’m still processing (pun intended). But what I do know is that we’re living in a time where cameras are producing images so sharp, so clinically perfect, that it may be time to ask: Is this the look we want for photography going forward?

Or is there a growing desire—conscious or not—for images that feel less precise and more emotional?

The masters—Koudelka, Cartier-Bresson, early Salgado—shot on film. Their images breathe. They have edges that aren’t always sharp. Grain that adds to the story. I worry that we’re losing that sensibility in favor of sheer technical brilliance.

This is just me thinking aloud, but maybe it’s something we all should sit with.