Can you tell if a picture is Digital?

[daniel_smith6]

Come into the darkroom & when I pull out an 8x10 and a 7x17 inch neg to contact print on platinum & you don't have a negative that size, you aren't shooting with film. If you make an enlarged negative, that is fine & most can't tell the difference. If it is done well, it really doesn't matter any longer other than if the process is important to how you work.

I find shooting, processing & printing 8x10 a lot less expensive than all the computer hellbox accessories & programs for pixelography. It is a lot nicer to be able to relax in the darkroom than sit in front of the electronics all the time. That is just me, others like the feeling of the electronic hellbox... to each his own.

 

But, if the process is part of what attracts you to photography, whether film or pixelography, enjoy the process.

[Spearhead]

<i>Just have a look through these forums to find people earnestly discussing ways of simulating this or that film to spice up their bland digital images</i><p>

 

The reason people do this is that there is a "look" they have some familiarity with. It may even be important to retain some consistency with film work that someone has shot. I have no doubt that in a few years this will be far less common, your rude remarks ("humilation") will be ancient history. <p>

 

Most people mistake a lot of my digital shots for film. Big deal, it doesn't really matter. There are some things (music shows, for example) I would never think of doing again with film. <p>

 

In general, a lot of stuff that looks "digital" hasn't been shot or processed well. This is just like with film, except people just said it didn't look "right."

[claudia__]

slightly off topic but kinda funny i think. i have been using tmax 100 for some of my pinhole shots. sometimes i like to include the negative border that says KODAK 100TMX on it. i uploaded one of these pix to a fuji lab to have a bunch of 4x6 made to use as postcards and altho i indicated "no crop" they cropped the Kodak part off the top but left the arrows and numbers on the bottom. i guess they did not want to promote Kodak film with their digital lab. got a laugh out of it anyway.

[robert_g]

Well I suppose I should apologise for the "rude" remark - it was really meant to be tongue-in-cheek, although I guess it didn't read that way. (I also wasn't knocking digital.) I agree there's a "look" that photographers try to replicate, which was basically my point.

 

As the technology moves over to digital, some photographers seem to feel the need to replicate the behaviour of film emulsions.

 

Like others on here I don't want to enter into the film vs. digital debate, I was just pointing out that there's a market for these plug-ins because there clearly are people who can tell the difference.

[sabrina_h.]

Just went and dug up some old digital files. before I "converted", I had the pleasure of

using both film and digital for about 6 months (I used digital for over a year). I used both

cameras at the same time, shooting the same subject under the same lighting conditions

within seconds from each other.<p>

 

can you tell which one is digital or film? .. photo A or photo B? <br>I compressed the file

for increased loading time. apprx 72k

<a href="http://www.sabrinahartel.com/photo_net/film_digital.jpg" target="#">see

comparison</a> <br> This is just one comparison. I shot both simultaneously for about

6 months; indoors, outdoors, low light, high contrast, the works :D <p>I think there are

good images to be captured by both film and digital (obviously, these are not one of the

great ones :P) ... an artist should pick their brush!! ... and use it well (or at least try)

[Spearhead]

I don't really see any difference, conceptually speaking, between the plugins and developing recipes for black and white films. To get a certain look, we use specific chemicals in specific dilutions with specific times for developing and agitation. With plugins, we reduce the process to a single keystroke, but it's the same idea, except for referring to specific looks of film in some cases.

[hclim]

Photo A is digital, Photo B is film. Come on, Sabrina, give me a prize.

[pbizarro]

My personal experience:

 

1. I have recently started using one 8 Mp digital compact for "leisure type" photos. So I am still learning all the ins and outs of RAW, etc;

2. I almost exclusively shoot slide and B&W film, that I send in for processing at a trusted lab;

3. The images from the digi sensor are "clean", there is no grain, like I am used to in even the finest of slide films. This is particularly true in blue skies;

4. Personally, I prefer the results I get from film, because there is a certain "texture", or character, to it. I know that these can be reproduced via digital workflows.

 

Bottomline is, I don't care which image was shot with each light-capturing medium. the technology is here to make it possible to suit all sorts of people/tastes.

[sabrina_h.]

<i>Photo A is digital, Photo B is film. Come on, Sabrina, give me a prize</i><p> your

prize will be the most irrevocable presence on the face of the Earth ... knowledge ;)

[archie_alcantara1]

Sabrina, also picked photo A digital and photo B film, prize for finishing second ???

[sabrina_h.]

I'm curious how you guys came to the conclusion of which one is which? Share

some knowledge for those who can't tell the difference. I can tell about 95% of the time.

The samples posted previously, they look great, but I still can tell that their digital; not

that it's a bad thing. <p>

 

My observations on photo A and photo B;<p>

 

you are correct, photo A is digital, photo B is film. <p>

 

photo A doesn't look as "dense" to me, it looks more flat; 2 dimensional in a sense. It

looks more "clean" .. aka clinical. The texture of the skin is too smooth, it lacks fine detail.

When you turn a digital into b&w, the shadow area tends to get "muddy" and develop more

"noise" . (I know all the tricks of turning a digital image into b&w, but there's still the

"clinical" problem.)<p>

 

Film on the other hand looks more dense to me; solid. Shadow detail is more defined.

Highlight detail is usually maintained; "there's something in there," as my husband likes to

say. The graduation of tones are smoother from one to the other. It seems to me that the

graduation of tones from digital are not as smooth; the lines of demarcation are abrupt;

they don't blend well. <p>

 

anywho, that's my unscientific observation :D <p> on a side note, why on god's earth

would anyone want to make digital look like film? ... isnt that the beauty of digital? .. to

have it's own characteristics? <p> I'm gonna buy a Toyota and soup it up to look like a

Mercedes? ... why not just buy the Mercedes?

[Spearhead]

<i>why on god's earth would anyone want to make digital look like film?</i><p>

 

I explained that above.

[hclim]

Sabrina,

 

That was easy because the cigar in A has a pronounced black halo and that gave away thats its digital. Of course, a scanned print or neg/slide if oversharpened would have a similar artifact.

 

Richard Sintchak above mentioned the noise reduction giving rise to the plasticky look. Photo A has it. Thanks Richard for teaching me about this.

 

The DOF in A is large, every part of the dress is in focus. In B, you see softness at the edges. This is how the human eye sees things. Look around and see if anything other than your center of vision has edge sharpness. The subject in A is like you say, 2 dimensional.

 

Then, of course, B has better tonality. And A has, I believe what Scott Eaton says, compressed gradients. The lack of tonality or dynamic range also give sometimes rise to lack of the human shadow in outdoor photos when the sky is overcast. This has the effect of making the subject appear floating in the air and/or making the background look false.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[sabrina_h.]

<i>The DOF in A is large, every part of the dress is in focus. In B, you see softness at the

edges. This is how the human eye sees things. Look around and see if anything other than

your center of vision has edge sharpness. The subject in A is like you say, 2 dimensional.

</i><p>That's interesting you should mention this, I didnt notice that. I shot them at the

same iso, shutter

speed and aperture setting.<p> hmmmmmm, some food for thought.

[gaius1]

The way I see it, I could take digital shots and post-process them to look like Tri-X... or I could just shoot Tri-X and be done with it. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[charlie_vigue]

Can you shoot Tri-X and then decide to make it look like Velvia?

[gaius1]

I do all my colour shooting digitally - tha advantage of adjusting white balance on the fly or even after the picture's taken is just too compelling. With B&W, I pick a film to suit what I'm shooting. Now I am not saying that this is the "right" way, but for me, as much work as possible must be done when the shutter is released. I don't like doing manipulation, for me that crosses the line from "photography" and into "painting". I choose film, lens, DOF, lighting, composition and shoot, and if I don't get what I want when I inspect the negs, I go back another day.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with painting, it's just that I want to be a photographer not a painter. But hey, whatever floats your boat man, I'm not claiming that there is a "one true way" here. If the Velvia look makes you happy, go for it.

[charlie_vigue]

I think I understand what you're saying, but if selecting a specific post-process path makes a painter, does choosing a specific film/paper/process make a chemist? I'd say of course not, you?