>>2671633Alright, since you can't seem to operate the search engines at the sites I mentioned, I'll do it for you.
This shot is a relatively well done emulation. No, it's not perfect. The grain is a little too pixelated, the colors aren't 100% reproduced, and the shadows are a little too light for the exposure, but the overall aesthetic is pretty similar to what I would expect out of film.
You may disagree, and that's perfectly fine. I'm not trying to make you agree with me; Just trying trying to get you to open up your narrow thought process of "digital can't look like film at all", or however you're perceiving this topic.
And once again, I'll reiterate: The photos will never be 100% equivalents, but I am talking about an overall aesthetic that could pass as a film-esque photo. No matter how you feel about digital emulation, I would say it's hard to argue that this photo (along with hundreds of thousands of others), doesn't come anywhere close to recreating a film aesthetic, even if there are technical errors and inconsistencies.
That's all I'm trying to say; That you can digitally emulate film to the extent that it looks more like film than digital. That's the point of "spend continuous amounts of money for a real film photo" versus "spend a somewhat fixed amount of money and recreate what looks similar to a film photo"
If continuing costs are a concern (which they are to most people), there's a reasonable effectiveness to film emulation of digital photos, virtually for free.
