A good MUA knows that liquid base is for local HD TV news and that makeup in regards to skin needs to be transparent, and must blend naturally with the subjects skin, such that the line of demarcation is natural and doesn't look like a sun burn. AN MUA should contour, and and only ever paint eyes, lips and for runway, cheeks. The best MUA's I've worked with are painters by training.
My wife was GOOD. After a few shoots with me she was doing runway for fall fashion week, then for S/S fashion week was the key MUA for some smaller labels. She was the MUA for shoots I wish I had, working with many big name editorial shooters. I was jealous, of course! She used to paint, and that is how she approached it. Then we had kids and she hasn't worked since, except for me.
But I digress. My point is this: a good MUA is more valuable to a photograph than a good MFD. I'd shoot an editorial with a real stylist, a good MUA, adequate budget for lighting and sets and location with a Kodak disk camera if I had to. What goes in front of the camera and what goes on right behind the camera is what is important. The technical aspects and lens camera choice influence aesthetics. So use what ever helps you conceptually, be it film, digi, 35mm digi, crop frame, disc camera. Just remember its all to serve the photograph.
On a similar note I find it rather funny how there are endless claims of MF skin tones compared to even the newest Canon or Nikon skin tones.
Skin tomes are really far more about two other things. Casting the right model with wonderful skin tones that can be beautifully reproduced by film or digital
and then lighting. Keeping the damn MUA under control is also part of that.
This I found really funny... Hasselblads skin tone examples....
Pasty thick opaque make-up ..... not skin