>>4278215Because what most people think of as "film look" is not anywhere close to professional level.
Most people's idea of "film look", even excluding people whose only idea of it is from sims and instagram filters, literally means "the look of snapshots from the 80s-90s". So, taken on shitty fixed-lens cameras, possibly (especially in 80s) using the roughly MFT sized 110 format), using cheap consumer-grade film, developed by some minimum wage workers pushing a button at the one hour lab, on cheap consumer paper, and then allowed to molder in an album on the bookshelf for 30 years. So anything with faded colors, the warm colors you get from using daylight balanced film under incandescent lights, out of focus, motion blur, weak little flash, obnoxious amounts of grain, processed so that the histogram looks like a bell curve and no real highlghts and shadows - all this looks authentic. Anything that makes a picture look "good", looks too modern and digital.
For many, the lower the dynamic range on a digital camera, the more noise it has at 1600, the more like a disposable the lens looks - the better. These people are not trying to look like kodachrome 64 shot on an SLR with real glass by even a hobbyist of the era. They maybe had one uncle who owned a japanese slr that he would annoy the fuck out of everyone with at family gatherings, using a hot shoe flash and making everyone sit for a family portraits when you just wanted to be off playing with the new toy you just for christmas or whatever. Nobody is trying to get that look. Well, I mean, the weirdos on /fgt/ are but not the masses who buy these things on youtube.
