>>2625214No, not really. So long as nothing is clipped at the top or bottom, the information is there. There is no reason it wouldn't be, that I can think of. It captures things in the same way, more or less. Light hits a certain spot and that spot records how much light has hit it. The difference is, Film will have a slight bias for colors, where digital will have a different bias, but again, so long as nothing is clipped, reds can be boosted, blues can be muted, etc.
In theory, film being analog means it can achieve color gradations that digital can't, due to stair stepping, but those stair steps are so ridiculously small due to 14 bit files that there's no real difference, especially considering screens and printers can't even handle the level of information in the files.
With enough time, patience, and skill, you could turn a non-clipped digital file into an exact replica of a Velvia image. Film emulators fail to look exact because they don't take granular enough control over the tones and exposure in the image. Certain colors react differently at different light levels, and highlights do different things at different intensities and so on. But if you go into every channel, and do your thing, you can do anything. People don't because A) It's time consuming and tedious, B) It's going to be different for every photo, and C) There's not really much reason to make a photo taken on a digital camera look like Velvia, or Provia, or Portra. Every film has flaws, just like digital does. With digital, you have the freedom to do whatever looks best for your individual photo, and film will never do that. With Portra, you get a photo that looks like Portra, whether it's best for the image or not. You can push it a little, or pull it some, or change the hue and tint a bit, but you'll never have the flexibility that you'll get with a raw digital file.
