I don’t really shoot colour film these days because of the overheads of cost and processing. I shoot plenty of B&W film and process & print myself. It’s affordable which makes creative trial and error feasible.
But I feel I can always identify colour negative originated images whilst acknowledging that the best of slavish photoshopping might get past me.
In fact I think the idea that digital just ‘replaces’ what film does is highly questionable. Even more so than the distinction between vinyl and digital audio, Colour negative & digital sensors both produce images but they are quite different. Whilst digital has replaced film for most image production, it’s clearly not the same thing to educated eyes - a point of consensus on both sides of the partisan divide of digital / analog. Apart from the fact that they render images differently, there’s the other substantive fact i.e. that they ARE different. They are physically different materials with very different workflows. And in an age where A.I. Technology increasingly devours any last remnant of digital origination / acquisition, debatably the distinctions between digital and colour negative might in future become ever more significant as people loose faith their own capacity to believe in digital ‘photographs’ as factual vs synthetic.
Hold onto those cameras!