>>3249512OP here
>Limited hues and very little color variance, like in OP's image the blues are all similar, same with the greens and the reds. there's also no weird false colors splattered around.Are all film stocks like this? I've never really thought about that. What about the whole "[x] film is known for color rendition"? Maybe I'm looking at all of this wrong, but I do visually see what you mean. So my example might be flawed, given that films do react to color differently. But I chose a very consumer friendly film stock so maybe that's why I'm not seeing it in the preset, that or its literally just because it can't be emulated with a preset like I asked in OP.
Pic is snapshit of paint color cards when I was walking through Lowes. Both set AWB, top is unedited and bottom is VSCO Fuji Superia 400 preset minus the grain, applied to both is 100% noise reduction and zero sharpening so its only color. Which by looking at it, it really doesn't look like anything was done to it. Unless you crop it and overlay the top with the bottom switching between will you see the colors change.
>Increased vibrance and decreased saturation in the highlights and shadows, opposite in the midtonesI read that earlier today and forgot to include it in
>>3249404 How would you manage that in post? Masking only the highlights and shadows and desaturating/saturating them? I'll have to look into that later.
>opposite in the midtonesCan you clarify that "opposite" bit?
As for the rest of your post, I'll add that to the list. P.S. I also read today that if you want to /stay true/ to film, use either tungsten or daylight WB in digital, which that would make more sense. Then again, the presets are looking more and more memey than I'd originally thought so it probably doesn't even matter now. kek
