Mark in Alaska

William, thank you. Alas I live in a little burg that that long ago had a HS with a darkroom but like it's all going these days, no more. These are nothing that have to do with anything legal or particularly important. other than to me. It is a collection I inherited that I was told were 'real' but had a couple of obvious digital prints mixed in. Simple me thought this would be 'simple.' I thought perhaps a small drop of water stirred on the surface or under a scope would reveal something. Thank you all for your time. I should have came here right off! R/Mark

NHSN, thanks for the reply. Use case is I have a bunch of older B&W photos that were said to be 'original' prints from film. I think I already know from your reply that I might be up against it?

I Signed up for this forum for one singular reason - after way too many permutational googs for this query: "How can one tell that the photo you have is the result of taking a film negative and developing it on photo paper and not a digital scan?" I thought I would have that answer at the top (after all the ads at least) instead the word scan, or digital lead to nothingville. Frankly I'm shocked and maybe because it's not possible? I'm hep to the obvious things like stamps and dates and borders, paper manufacturer etc. Is perhaps my dissecting microscope useful? I'm not a photographer. Put to rest or down the rabbit hole I'll be obliged. R/Mark