Hmmm ... sing glories of DR, as if it is the God of all things photography ...
Actually it is. Colour reproduction is what it is all about. Why do you think there was more than one film back in the day? And that photographers preferred to use one film over another? Graininess and colour reproduction.
Well we didn't have an iso button for a start, then we might be shooting for slides (I have never gotten over the loss of slides printed via Cibachrome), negatives, or B&W, so that takes care of 12 or so emulsions, then the different manufacturers each had patents on their particular brews, so multiply that by three or four, for 36-48 emulsions as a basic.
Then and only then, do you get down to colour differences, I suspect you have never printed with a colour enlarger onto colour paper, if you had you would know the intrinsic limitations of global CMYK adjustments. Ever wonder why the number of emulsions available dropped dramatically long before digital cameras became cost effective? It was because scanning beat them to the party, once we could scan a colour negative we could print it B&W (on native high quality B&W paper), colour, on Cibachrome via Lightjets etc etc. A semi skilled operator can partially correct colour, do global adjustments, dodge and burn all very quickly at a computer, compare that to a skilled printers abilities in a darkroom. Heck most printing machines could do their own auto colour corrects automatically, I used to pay an extra 30cents to get each of my wedding proofs hand (human) graded and adjusted, how fast do you think the techs had to do that.
Different emulsions gave different colour responses, all of them are comparatively easily replicated in a digital post process if you have the RAW data to a remarkably discerning eye.
Hah, ever count sprocket holes in a partially exposed roll of film in a light tight bag so you could use the rest of it? If you haven't, forget your film references.