Filmulator VS Polarr

I'd also (re-)add: film is just one part of a transmission process. Film has to be developed into something. And that's a chemical process, which is non-linear. Developer, the bath you put film in to activate the still blank but exposed reel, to turn the grains into actual "developed" photo, is a complex analog process. "Developer" is expended while developing film & becomes less effective at developing, creating... - Source: Hacker News / 10 months ago

How does this compare to my Filmulator, which basically runs a simulation of stand development? https://filmulator.org (I've been too busy on another project to dedicate too much time to it the past year, and dealing with Windows CI sucks the fun out of everything, so it hasn't been updated in a while…). - Source: Hacker News / about 1 year ago

She's Got The Look! Many people spend so much time trying to make their digital photos look like film (and massive props to /u/CarVac for his development of Filmulator because it's awesome), but with film that's effortless and automatic. Want to make your photos look like they were shot on Ektar? Use Ektar. Portra? Use Portra. And Velvia, and Provia and Cinestill, and so on. Source: over 1 year ago

> I don't want to do elaborate stuff like working with masks / applying filters to sections of the photo only. Only thing I usually do is increase saturation, and, rarely, brightness/aperture. I don't think you're the intended audience for darktable. Try https://filmulator.org/. - Source: Hacker News / almost 2 years ago

There's a list in the FAQ. I try to stick to free and open-source software. Darktable, RawTherapee, and Filmulator have varying levels of complexity. Source: over 2 years ago

Polarr has versions for Mac and Windows and a free mode. Source: over 2 years ago