Treatments or art is a good thing. Poor IQ is not.
This is all based on the “IQ doesn’t matter” theory and so not always true. If not always true then what have you?
Better to encourage someone to give you their old film camera, find a processor or dev yourself. Instant is as instant does.
Digital needs (to continue) and progress in the few areas where film out-does it. That is negative-film highlights latitude, tonality(and per total cost), built-in WB choices(no work), and freedom from modern hand-cuffs. Like batteries to name one. Of course the problem is costs, if you do a lot of pictures and we should. Learning is also faster on digital.
But it’s not until you find a film you like (Portra 400) that you then appreciate film and some things we have lost. Much more is gained though.
The real trick is comparing to film without comparing to film. Digital does not need to hold back. It needs to work on its weak points.
Then, the art of simulating film if and where you wish.
Started out doing photography at the age of 6 using an uncle's old 1940 kodak brownie box camera. At 15 years of age, I decided to buy my very own 1975 Praktica SLR camera. I now shoot with a Nikon D850. I do unpaid TFP and commercial paid work.