Amazing! Try getting away with that in the digital world!
Seriously! I'm quite astonished by film's overexposure latitude and overall beauty. Also, I think the lab must have fixed the color balance for me. I don't have an 85 filter (not sure if I'm fond of the look either) and planned on color correcting myself since I went the D.I. route.
The 85 filter doesn't really have or create a look if you are using it for tungsten film in daylight, it just converts 5600K light into 3200K light. Shooting without it and correcting it in post does create a subtle look shift because you've underexposed your reds in relation to your greens and blues without the filter. To my eyes, skin tones get a little more pastel and blues and greens get a little more intense, but conversely on some color-correction systems, attempting to get the blue cast leads to a slightly brownish image.
My general rule is to skip the 85 filter for movies that I want to be neutral to cool, and to use daylight stock or the 85 filter for movies I want to look neutral to warm. So I've skipped the 85 filter for winter movies shot in snowy landscapes but used it for desert movies.
Some of this is just about flexibility in color-correction because you have a big correction away from blue just to get a neutral image if you shoot in daylight without the 85 filter on tungsten stock, which makes it harder to time in even more warmth if you want a golden image. You may find, for example, that with an overexposed shot that also needs to be corrected for the missing 85 filter that your blue channel is so dense that it is printing at 50 points, so you can't correct anymore in that direction without trimming the printer. On the other hand, since the blue layer is the grainiest (fastest) on tungsten balanced film, by shooting without the 85 filter you do improve some of that graininess in the blues, but at the expense of a thinner red record, and faces contain a lot of red.
The other thing to keep in mind that 85 filters have some UV correction built into them, unlike other warming filters like Corals, so skipping the correction means you may have some UV washiness / haze in daytime landscape shots. Of course, you often need ND filters anyway outdoors and they have a little bit of UV correction in them.
This is one reason for the Tiffen LLD (Low-Light Daylight) filter as a replacement for the 85 for daylight interiors when you wouldn't need an ND -- it's basically a super Skylight UV filter with minimal light loss and it shifts your printer lights slightly away from having an over-dense blue layer.
Since most older movies can only be seen in a video transfer, the color subtleties of using or not using the 85 filter in daylight are near impossible to see. John Alcott was probably the most vocal proponent of not using the 85 filter and "Barry Lyndon" is a good example, if you can see a print in a theater. He specifically felt that the greens of nature were reproduced more vibrantly by skipping the 85; besides "Barry Lyndon" you might be able to see this Alcott's photography of "Greystoke". In fact, a number of U.K. cinematographers were fond of dropping the 85 filter, probably due partially to dealing with the lower daylight levels in the U.K. -- Alex Thomson was another cinematographer who often talked about why one should not automatically use the 85 filter outdoors, though he often warmed up the image instead with Coral filters. So in his case, I don't know if the Coral replaced the 85 or if he started with a base of no filter and corrected the image in timing and then added Corals to get warmth beyond that. I suspect he had sort of a halfway approach, using a light Coral as a base and then adding from there.
Dante Spinotti's "Heat" is another good example of a daytime movie shot on tungsten stock without the 85 filter.
Once daylight-balanced 50D and 250D stocks appeared by the late 1980's, you started to read less about shooting without the 85 filter, I think half of those cinematographers switched to the daylight stocks.
There are plenty of movies that went for a colder color cast by not using the 85 filter, "The Shawshank Redemption" for example, or "Saving Private Ryan", which used an 81EF instead of an 85.
Since most older movies can only be seen in a video transfer, the color subtleties of using or not using the 85 filter in daylight are near impossible to see. John Alcott was probably the most vocal proponent of not using the 85 filter and "Barry Lyndon" is a good example, if you can see a print in a theater. He specifically felt that the greens of nature were reproduced more vibrantly by skipping the 85; besides "Barry Lyndon" you might be able to see this Alcott's photography of "Greystoke".
This reminds me of Lubezki not using the 85 on "The Tree of Life," because it "homogenizes" the color. What causes that effect? Why is correcting in post different?
I wouldn't over-think this. The 85 filter just corrects 5600K to 3200K.
If using the correction is bad for colors then why shoot under 3200K lighting for an interior scene using 3200K film stock? You should put full blue gel on all your lights or use daylight HMI's and LED's instead, shouldn't you?
All that skipping the 85 filter does is give you a blue-ish image on tungsten film in daylight.
"Tree of Life" is timed on the cool side so they didn't completely correct for the missing filter anyway. Same goes for "Heat". Probably a better example is "There Will Be Blood" which was shot without the 85 filter and timed back to neutral.
Generally a colorist would rather start with a neutral base rather than have to start with a correction for a missing 85 before they then add more corrections on top of that, but you should do your own tests and go with what you like.
If you shoot a comparison test, I'd include a MacBeth color chart or something with RGB panels in it so that you can see the changes in noise in each color channel.
Keep in mind too that in the case of a movie using a lot of natural light, like "Tree of Life", it's annoying to have to pull off the 85 filter every time the light level drops below a certain point, just to get that extra 2/3-stop exposure, and it could be a matching problems if you remove the 85 filter in mid-coverage, so it makes sense to just shoot everything without the 85 unless you want to use daylight balanced stocks.
In terms of digital cameras, though, it is safer to shoot closer to the correct color temperature because a digital file doesn't quite have the hidden depth of color information as film negative has, it's a bit more of "what colors you recorded and see on the monitor is what you'll have to play with in post".
It's better today with 10-bit and 12-bit log cameras, but in the old days of 8-bit 3:1:1 HDCAM, if you shot a scene with a heavy blue cast, you'd find that there were no warm flesh tones recorded to bring back in post, you'd basically be taking grey skin and trying to put some magenta-brown color over them (and probably ending up with a magenta-brown tint to everything...)
Roger Deakins said on his forum that with the Alexa, there isn't much difference between using the correct colour temperature in-camera and using an 85 filter. He also said that on 'The Shawshank Redemption' he shot on tungsten and corrected in post because the shadows would be cooler than with an 85 filter.
Thanks. Not initially, but I went with it after trying stabilization in AE. Haven't used Resolve much, and wasn't even aware it included stabilization. To be honest, I'd like to circumnavigate the foible altogether by procuring a proper 16mm camera.