Film v. Digital - Can You Tell the Difference

[Agent M10]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Shoot the Blog has a post that asks, "One of these was shot with film, can you tell which one?"

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[waileong]

Sure, show me the negative. Or print the neg in a darkroom, then show me.

[fordfanjpn]

That was too easy. The difference is very obvious.

 

Bill

[35photo]

First image looks like film. Best skin tone of the bunch.

[Mark Antony]

What amazes me is that anyone couldn't guess the film shot, it so obvious.

I've done these guess things loads of times, most of the time people seem to be disbelieving that anyone can tell.

[jaapv]

Hardly a guess, this one is easy. Unless it is, of course, a trick question and he has done some dark and dirty PS work on them

[chris_livsey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The rather obvious sensor dust spot on the RHS of 2 and 4 rather gives away the game on those two

Given the shallow DOF on 2 to see that dust it must be big chunk.

[ndjambrose]

Doesn't it all depend on whether the images were post-processed?

 

I know which one looks like it was shot on film, but that hardly counts for anything these days. I often use film simulation filters (like Exposure 2.0) where I need a film look, but the emulsion isn't available or isn't a suitable speed. In many cases the results are so convincing that without looking at the file name even I can't tell which ones are real film and which are simulations.

 

And saying that 'there's an obvious dust spot that gives the game away' kind of misses the point. How do you know if it's dust from a sensor or an artefact from scanning? Marks on the scanning glass can look just like that too....

[chris_livsey]

Doesn't it all depend on whether the images were post-processed?

 

Is it not, as you point out, relatively easy to make digital "look" like film, but rather more problematic to make film look digital ?

Never having played with scanning I was unaware the dust/marks looked like sensor spots - you live and learn.

 

I went to see the HCB exhibition earlier in the week "Scrapbook" there was no doubt there we were dealing with film and silver gelatin prints.

[mike_j]

That was too easy. The difference is very obvious.

 

Bill

 

Well - what's the answer please?

[jacksparrow]

#1 was film, the answer is on the webpage (at the bottom)

[Dan States]

The color shift on the digital picture is pretty weird. Makes the guy look like he's wearing yellow pants and a purple sweater. Hilarious!

[Mark Antony]

Doesn't it all depend on whether the images were post-processed?

 

And saying that 'there's an obvious dust spot that gives the game away' kind of misses the point. How do you know if it's dust from a sensor or an artefact from scanning? Marks on the scanning glass can look just like that too....

 

Scanning dust is white and sharp, sensor dust is dark and diffuse especially at apertures lower than F16,

If scanning dust looked so diffuse on the glass then the scanner would be so out of focus as to be useless, as the image is placed on that glass.

Mark

[ndjambrose]

Scanning dust is white and sharp, sensor dust is dark and diffuse especially at apertures lower than F16,

If scanning dust looked so diffuse on the glass then the scanner would be so out of focus as to be useless, as the image is placed on that glass.

Mark

 

Mark - totally agree with you. That's why I said scanning marks - not scanning dust. For instance a dirty smear on the glass.

[Mark Antony]

Mark - totally agree with you. That's why I said scanning marks - not scanning dust. For instance a dirty smear on the glass.

 

Hi Neil

Not trying to pick a fight but I've been scanning for years and sensor dust is pretty easy to 'spot' (pardon the pun).

A dirty spot, or dark smear would be not only a rare occurrence but actually very different from the OOF sensor dust.

I'm not sure you could replicate it, even if you tried.

Another point is I'm seeing a huge increase in 'faux film' effects where digital users are trying to fake the 'film look'.

In 2003 I went completely digital, sold my Canon F1n, EOS film cameras, 'Blad and two Rolleiflex TLRs.

I spent the next two years trying to get a good film effect, especially Velvia and fast pushed B&W even borrowed film cameras and shot the two side by side, tried to nail settings.

I tried everything, digtal Velvia, Grain, PSCS plug-ins and all I could see was something that was a poor second.

I guess its OK for those occasions where scene contrast is low, and you only have your digicam with you, or you can't tell the difference between butter and margarine

Mark

[biglouis]

The rather obvious sensor dust spot on the RHS of 2 and 4 rather gives away the game on those two

Given the shallow DOF on 2 to see that dust it must be big chunk.

 

Chris

 

Funny you should mention that, it is exactly what struck me about images 2 & 4. But then, as a humble amateur, I assumed that no professional would make such a basic mistake with their processing so dismissed the blotches as oof areas which look like sensor dust. I mean, what do I know?

 

LouisB