>>4120066>Pleasing color is relative. I personally like the accurate colors of digital for my own work. All the color films I've shot(I've shot all the ones available today) have weird color casts. >With digital, I get sharp, low noise, color accurate, flexible digital files out of the gate. Dude, you do art reproduction. It's only natural that you don't want those characteristics. But if you were out shooting sunsets for example, then the film is allowed to shine. Just look at Burke's photographs, they're great and part of the look is thanks to the way film stocks render the light (without diminishing his vision, in fact I'm complimenting the way he takes full advantage of the special characteristics of film).
>Basically any edits digitally are simple and easy to make. Sounds like you can get to where you want with 4 layers in photoshop AT MOST. While some film stocks do produce "pleasing" for some subject matter, I found myself having to muscle the scans into anything usable, espically in poorly lit scenes. Also, the shadows are unironically the worse part film's color/tonal response. If you would have said nice skin tones/pastel colors or highlight roll-off you would have had something to stand on.I care very little about people photography, but genuinely don't mind the deep shadows of film and think they look good. I don't really bother with photoshop layers, more effort than it's worth. If I can't get it right on lightroom the image wasn't good enough to begin with, let alone if Premiere/AE aren't enough to salvage some footage.
>Unlike you, I have experience with RA4 printing. It sucks. It's interior to modern inkjet in everyway. From the trash-tier RC "paper" base to the gamut, black point, lightfastness, and especially the edits you can make its a worse process. Shit, you have to change your developer chemistry to get more or less contrast!The results are tangibly nicer though.
>>4120072How am I tragic? Yeah, I have caffeine dependency so what?