>>3703890>>3703890I think it comes down to a difference in approach to the medium. When I think of good colors or good light, I want what's in front of the camera - not inside it - to look good. I plan my photography excursions around which time of day or even which time of year the sun might be in a particular spot or the humidity might be lower and it makes things look different, especially during sunsets and sunrises. For the most part, I want the scene in front of me to be the thing that has good colors, and for the camera to capture those colors. It's never a struggle to get "good colors" on my digital camera when what's in front of me has good colors, it's only ever a struggle when the light is not quite right for me, and to me it's a waste of time to try and manipulate the image to have good colors since the point of it, at least for me, is to say "yes, the sky/water/subject etc. did really appear like that". I'll admit I tend to embellish scenes a little sometimes with just a bit more saturation and contrast, but never by too much.
All this is to say that I don't think the sensor or film has much at all to do with colors. I never cared about the "color science" thing with digital sensors nor did I care about film colors. The only thing I think of when I think of film colors or a film look is less saturated reds (I'll admit digital sensors saturate the reds too much for me but that's easy to fix), but otherwise it's stuff I don't want in my photos like green or cyan color casts, or over exposing several stops like on potra. Some peopoe love those looks and that's fine. I don't struggle with the "clinical" nature of digital because I want the scene to be re-created with more accuracy, not less.
