Poll: digital or film (not what you think)

[natatbeach]

I found the post about digital beef interesting---enough that after 10 hours at work I'm actually posting(upadate on life will follow in about a week....still finishing up some stuff that I need to wait a week for to fill you all in on.) miss having the time to come on here regularly.

Anway here's the poll
which of these images were taken with my D70 andwhich were taken with my Pentax K1000 and scanned in ;)

Film has a distinct quality to it but can we at a glance really judge a book by it's cover....

[tijean]

Morning!

I have to go with the first and last as ol' K shots and the middle two for D70. It is hard to tell wish 'net-sized pictures, but those two (the first in particular) have that old K-mount feel about them.

[Speed]

I found the post about digital beef interesting---enough that after 10 hours at work I'm actually posting(upadate on life will follow in about a week....still finishing up some stuff that I need to wait a week for to fill you all in on.) miss having the time to come on here regularly.

Anway here's the poll
which of these images were taken with my D70 andwhich were taken with my Pentax K1000 and scanned in ;)

Film has a distinct quality to it but can we at a glance really judge a book by it's cover....

OK, you stumped me! With images only 640 pixels across, it's hard to tell.

The first one has a slightly soft look to it, which I would expect from a film scan. But there's something about the tonal range of the second one that leads me to believe that may be the film one.

"Difficult to see" as Yoda would say.

[Photo-John]

This is a good post, Nat. Cause I'm conviniced most people don't know the difference. But I'll go with the second photo. I'm not 100% confident in my choice. But I think the second image looks softer and flatter than what I expect from digital.

[Dzerzhinski46]

I think one clue is that digital cameras usually use extremely short focal lengths, hence a huge depth of field. So, that said, I think number one is D70. But then again, I can't always tell. Quite a "shot across the bows" Nat.

Drew

[Trevor Ash]

These tests are sometimes good, sometimes not. It all depends. One thing you've proven here as far as I'm concerned is that when images are sized for the web it's difficult to tell whether it originated from film or not.

I'd venture to say that other variables affect our perception of whether it's digital or not including the scanner used, quality of film (especially the grain quality, for example black and white 100 film can be awesome for detail).

If you were to point a gun at me I'd guess number 3 was film. But like PJ I don't have a lot of confidence in that answer either.

[Lava Lamp]

#2 for me.

[mjs1973]

I also voted for #2 being the one shot on film. My choice was based on the color and sharpness of the photo. To me, it just has a dif. look than the other three. It is just a guess tho.

[Photo-John]

I also voted for #2 being the one shot on film. My choice was based on the color and sharpness of the photo. To me, it just has a dif. look than the other three. It is just a guess tho.

After reading your post and looking again, I think it has a "Kodachrome" look. The colors are a bit flat and less saturated than most new films and digital cameras produce. That might be part of the reason I chose it. It might also be the clothes - and they could be steering me very wrong. They don't look current and so I think that's making feel like it's an older image. But like I said, that could be a big mistake one my part. I'm no fashion expert ;)

[another view]

Number 2, really? That was the first one I ruled out - of course I have no idea either, it's just my guess. Fourth was the next one I ruled out because of the highlight on the shoulders, and third I wasn't too sure of but looked a little more digital than film - but the first shot really looks like color neg film to me.

I can't stand the suspense! Hope you've been well, Nat!

[opus]

huh, I thought the first one definitely looked digital to me. There's no way I figured that one could be film. Also, the fourth one looks "converted" ... a little softer in greyscale range than I'd expect B&W film to give (although I'm certainly no expert on B&W!!!)

I chose the second one when I voted for many of the reasons stated above (tonal range, muted colors and clear edge definition without a "sharpened" look), but now I'm thinking I was probably wrong, and it's probably the third one.

However, I can't say that the age of the child and the nagging thought of "she probably didn't own a digital camera when her daughter was that age" isn't a factor in my decision ...

[paulnj]

I found the post about digital beef interesting---enough that after 10 hours at work I'm actually posting(upadate on life will follow in about a week....still finishing up some stuff that I need to wait a week for to fill you all in on.) miss having the time to come on here regularly.

Anway here's the poll
which of these images were taken with my D70 andwhich were taken with my Pentax K1000 and scanned in ;)

Film has a distinct quality to it but can we at a glance really judge a book by it's cover....

ALL ARE DIGITAL FILES ;) HAHAHA

[Photo-John]

ALL ARE DIGITAL FILES ;) HAHAHA

You're so smart.

Smart-assed

[tomasito]

#4 for sure is analog (film)... just look at the texture...

regards, tamas

[Asylum Steve]

...we had a chat about a similar subject a little bit ago, and I think many of us agreed that ANY pic posted on the web is in essence a digital image.

I truely (for once) am NOT trying to be funny, but simply feel this kind of comparison and choosing cannot be done this way, looking at a pc monitor, but rather must be done examining prints.

On the other hand, I also feel that well made digital prints are virtually indistinguishable from darkroom film prints, unless of course you have obvious the telltale grain or noise.

In any event, I think this is a fun post nat and is leading to some interesting replies...

[another view]

...we had a chat about a similar subject a little bit ago, and I think many of us agreed that ANY pic posted on the web is in essence a digital image.

True, and almost all (like 99%) of prints made from negatives at a mini lab or pro lab will be digital prints. Just to be a stickler for detail, the poll was about which image was captured on film though. Film (especially neg film) captures shadows and highlights differently than digital - to my eye.

Paul, there's one in every crowd!

[Lionheart]

I found the post about digital beef interesting---enough that after 10 hours at work I'm actually posting(upadate on life will follow in about a week....still finishing up some stuff that I need to wait a week for to fill you all in on.) miss having the time to come on here regularly.

Anway here's the poll
which of these images were taken with my D70 andwhich were taken with my Pentax K1000 and scanned in ;)

Film has a distinct quality to it but can we at a glance really judge a book by it's cover....

Honestly, I can't tell. I'd guess #2 and #4 are the film shots because they're a little softer than the others. The consistent difference I've noticed between film shots from my 1V and the 1D (mks I and II) is that the digitals seem slightly sharper/cleaner than my slide and print shots using the same lenses. Again I'm guessing. Good thread Nat!

[drg]

I will be the first to admit that at this resolution I don't know. Then again I've been looking at hundreds of digital and film comparisions lately not with an eye towards which is which but towards other technical issues including detail. I've got these moire patterns sort of covering everything I look at with my left eye closed. This to shall pass as they say.

I'm voting for the third image because I've seen some scanning anomalies that remind of something I think I'm seeing in this photo. Again at this scale I'm not sure there's a hundred percent eyeball certainty for anyone.

By the way, I won't and didn't cheat and use software. There are grain analysis techniques that if you know the resizing ratios can come a lot closer statistically to determination of source.

An interesting test in this vein is to used photos of the same thing taken with both film and digital and tweaking them to the best possible image. Gets real intense. Particularly with Noise Filters and the like applied to both!

Good idea for a post. We ought to do this again to further convince the naysayers of digital of the error of their ways.

[Speed]

ALL ARE DIGITAL FILES ;) HAHAHA

Do you work for Microsoft?

Cause that is a technically correct, yet totally useless answer!!!!

Smart aleck!!!!

:-D

Really, I'm jealous that I didn't think of that one. ;-)

[paulnj]

JELOUSY HUH

Trevor is the only one correct so far ;)

[tijean]

So if we turn the post upside down, will we see the answer? I'm dying over here!

And I'm going to be ashamed of myself if I don't get at least one right, considering that the difference isn't just film and digital, but also Nikon and Pentax.

[92135011]

gah!~ the last one with the girl is not in focus!
anyways...it also depends on the type of scanner. A drum scanner obviously does a lot better than consumer film scanners. Plus resolution is a factor. And we are all looking at these from a 72 dpi screen

[natatbeach]

gah!~ the last one with the girl is not in focus!

;)

the original is actually in focus just a low quality upload

Plus resolution is a factor.

see number one

And we are all looking at these from a 72 dpi screen

my point exactly in response to the beef about digital versus film and the worthiness of the shot being critiqued

Just having some fun to see what the responses are...

now go vote----

[natatbeach]

none of them...they were all taken with my D70/or my Dimage g500....


wonder who will be able to read the answer....I have great confidence in Paul's problem solving skills...the force is strong with that one ;)

Hope you guys had fun and continue the discussion...now that you have the answer

[Trevor Ash]

I've started a new vote