Film isn’t duplicated, even by dupe film,
which adds its own definition to the visual story; however, in a digital migration of picture making, we have sought to copy the “look” of film(s). Much of the success of small venture Instagram was its filter set. Of course, easy working for distribution of imagery is what had to be in place — that was a necessary function. The success factor was the feature need — those dream elements — components of a personal connection — if you will, a style. Those styles were the film look cliches. Film as a set of defects in optical recording.
All summaries are open to error by omission–true of any emulation by one process of another. Digital cannot be film, Doesn’t have to be, in my opinion. At some point in history film will be only an item of the past. During the transition time, digital is subjected to imitation role — not quite mime, but close enough in meme
The difference in factor, image structrue between processed film, and digital data is subjected to a LUT to impose an element of the past look onto the digital data. A table is made of values we want output for certain values — software loops through this, and outputs an altered rendering of the raw digital data. The LUT is necessary since an algorithmic answer isn’t available. Canon data isn’t even the same as Sony, as Ricoh, as … a LUT can be prepared to manage those differences, so it is.
I always thought that some items of a LUT could be calculated in place. A LUT could be a set of algorithms– a lookup procedure system — LUP [liLIPut was a tiny processing language I wrote to make developing LUTs and LUPs — never saw the light] —
The LUP may being used somewhere, that I don’t know. Still strikes me as a possible interim, however, I am much more interested in where digital gets, after it gets free of being a poor form of film.