>>2846814Shoot any high end film (Provia, Portra, Ektar, etc) and expose it nicely. Then scan it correctly, and get your color balance correct, and it will look a lot like digital. The typical things that make people flag it as film in their heads are usually flaws or obstacles in film, like color shifting, poor shadow detail retention in a poorly exposed shot, dust or scratches, low resolution, etc.
Film manufacturers worked their asses off for more than 100 years trying to get rid of all the quirks and get films that would look as "normal" and accurate as possible. People look back on films that had strange coloring and uneven saturation profiles with longing, but at the time, people were mostly annoyed by it (or just accepted that a perfect image wasn't possible) and getting film that would handle reds, greens, blues, oranges, etc. in an even balanced way was a huge challenge and a major goal. They started getting really close with the most modern stuff, to the point where even with the new portra formula, many people are disappointed that they don't get the "portra cream" without picking a scene, exposure, and light specifically for it. It's too well corrected in most cases.
The "digital" look is more or less "accurate to what was on the scene" with very little shifting or struggle, so to match the digital look with film, you need a well balanced modern film.
>spending this much time indulging a troll 
