>>4107599to add a bit more to this, film colors ARE better because they add abstraction and manipulation, film is also the LEAST accurate. Better colors, better texture, its almost like a painting, many people do not find ultra realistic painting that impactful beyond the artist capabilities. But people fail to understand cameras before the digital age was a collaboration between companies. Kodak specialized in color film and the rendering of the film itself, with a lot of pride and almost a century of work behind it. Digital has been mainstream for maybe 20+ years, and companies are also doing there own color science. While film has been developed for hundreds of years. I think digital is still very very early, i mean they are just NOW making medium format sensors the size of digital ones, yet digital has already objectively surpassed film in many ways, resolution, affordability, mass production, versatile chooses, documenting scenes and media, dynamic range, capturing colors accurately, and these have been photography objective since the beginning. Tools to accurately capture a moment. Photographers back in the day who shot film were shitting on the same thing we are complaining about, it's so ironic. I think in the next 10 years if this "film is better" community continuous to exist and get bigger, companies will start engineering more way to capture what we are looking for, I mean look at fujifilm, i believe if they truly wanted to and had the money, they can 100% replicate a sensor to emulate film extremely accurately but they are just not big enough to afford it maybe? Thats why i feel like they are in this in between stage where you cant tell who or what they are committed to.
just my 2 cents
