>>4284722Some of them are actually pretty good. But the problem is that any given color film has one color balance/color temperature. Start on the "wrong" color temp and your film filter will give you something like the film, but not exact.
The other problem is that color film can start to respond in weird ways depending on light source, and I don't think anyone has mapped that out for any given color film. So your Portra filter might work fine under sun, clouds, maybe even most light bulbs, but will fail under something like halogen lights.
>>4284691For many people the "film look" is low DR, high contrast, punchy saturation. People like that. It's why slide film was popular and why Foveon is popular. Despite all the claims there's nothing special about the Foveon sensor...it actually has a smaller gamut and worse color accuracy than Bayer...but Sigma tuned all those cameras and their RAW converter to deliver slide like contrast/saturation out of camera. If you're not trying to precisely match a specific film but just get close, this is easy to do in PS and there are a billion plugins that will do it for you.
Take your sample pic for example: it's underexposed. Shadows are blocked up. Lots of contrast. Punchy colors where there is color. A modern FF or apsc digital would have more exposure, lots of shadow detail, and out of the camera would be flat, requiring editing or a profile correction. (Flat is so that you're free to do what you want.)
As for B&W: depends on the film but you're basically looking to apply a curve that results in the same DR, contrast, and tonal distribution. Tonal distribution meaning that your highlights/shadows are a bit bunched up with more separation and nuance in the mid tones.
>t. spent a college semester shooting digital and 35mm film side by side on every subject to try to learn how to manually match the film 
