Upload & Sell: Off
This is a surprisingly good (IMO) preset for what appears to be Color Neg that has been lab-scanned. Doesn't particularly look any more like one film than another- just cheap 1hr photo scans.
I'm curious what about the picture looks specifically lab-scanned to you. Maybe you mean lab-developed? If you're looking at the relative softness of the image, that isn't the preset: this was a pretty significant crop of the original image, and obviously, there's a little subject motion.
I scan my own film on a consumer-grade flatbed, and I get color results pretty similar to that image, specifically for Portra (not for Ektar, or Fuji color negative films). Here's a scan of Portra 400NC on 120 format for comparison. To me, the skin tones are pretty close.
Untitled by alwang, on Flickr
This is why I don't bother with the film look on digital. Today's DSLR's and the like are SO much more capable of producing images than film ever has or will be, in almost every (technical) respect.
I agree in most aspects, though like I said, I still find reason to shoot medium format film, which apart from color, gives a look that is not easily emulated by preset. Another scan for comparison, this time of the newer Portra 400. This doesn't look anything like digital 35mm, to me.
wrapped by alwang, on Flickr
I do have several film cameras, and almost never shoot them, for a few reasons:
1) Workflow. It is just inconvenient. I don't have a scanner anymore.
2) Price. Labs here suck, don't want to pay $14+/roll at NCPS.
I agree on #1, I really dislike scanning. I just hate having to obsess over dust. As far as #2, for most shots, I send it out to Walmart/Fuji for $1.44 per roll (120 film), including a set of 3x5 prints.