Forums > Photography Talk > Is this film or digital?

Retoucher

Rob Mac Studio

Posts: 1105

London, England, United Kingdom

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8490/8182513515_2a134ba22a_b.jpg

Nov 13 12 08:53 am Link

Photographer

PicBack

Posts: 621

New York, New York, US

Film

Nov 13 12 08:56 am Link

Photographer

Robert Kildare

Posts: 92

New York, New York, US

film

Nov 13 12 09:06 am Link

Photographer

Kaouthia

Posts: 3152

Lancaster, England, United Kingdom

You're a retoucher, so I'm going to assume this is a trick question. big_smile

If it is digital, it does a damn good job of looking like film.

Nov 13 12 09:12 am Link

Photographer

PicBack

Posts: 621

New York, New York, US

Kaouthia wrote:
You're a retoucher, so I'm going to assume this is a trick question. big_smile

If it is digital, it does a damn good job of looking like film.

If it IS digital I would love to see what the file started off looking like and what camera/lens was used.

My money is still on it being a film 4x5 shot.

Nov 13 12 09:20 am Link

Photographer

Robert Jewett

Posts: 2462

al-Marsā, Tunis, Tunisia

It's digital because I am looking at it on my monitor.

What do I win? smile

Nov 13 12 09:38 am Link

Photographer

Hector Fernandez

Posts: 1152

Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico

I say its digital, the nose of the cat has that sharpness digital stench....

Nov 13 12 09:41 am Link

Photographer

Michael Broughton

Posts: 2244

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

obviously it's digital at this point, and i don't see any signs that it started out as film.

Nov 13 12 09:44 am Link

Photographer

Kaouthia

Posts: 3152

Lancaster, England, United Kingdom

Hector Fernandez wrote:
I say its digital, the nose of the cat has that sharpness digital stench....

It could just be artefacts from the scanning & JPG compressing process.  Even with 35mm, I see this happen a lot with my web-sized black & white scans.

Nov 13 12 09:53 am Link

Photographer

L A U B E N H E I M E R

Posts: 8797

Seattle, Washington, US

it's full frame JPEG Digital.

Nov 13 12 10:04 am Link

Photographer

Camerosity

Posts: 5317

Saint Louis, Missouri, US

My guess is film - very possibly a medium format SLR.

Nov 13 12 10:09 am Link

Photographer

Gabby57

Posts: 424

Coppell, Texas, US

Could be either, the very shallow DOF would tend to indicate a larger format (or sensor) but could also have been nudged in post processing, especially with a long tele.  Not that I'm an expert, but I'd expect better Bokeh from most medium and large format lenses, so, if forced to guess, I'll go with digital.

To my eye the scene doesn't have a lot of dynamic range nor a particularly large number of graduations, areas where film still excel.

Nov 13 12 10:45 am Link

Photographer

Looknsee Photography

Posts: 21687

Portland, Oregon, US

Silly wabbit -- without looking at it, I know it's digital, because only digital images can be shown in my browser.  Whether it started life as a film & paper image or not, as soon as it was scanned, it became digital, with all the digital limitations & characteristics.

Nov 13 12 10:51 am Link

Photographer

SPV Photo

Posts: 789

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Neither -- it's a cat!

Nov 13 12 10:53 am Link

Hair Stylist

Platform Artist

Posts: 157

Chicago, Illinois, US

looks digital ...

Nov 13 12 10:54 am Link

Photographer

L A U B E N H E I M E R

Posts: 8797

Seattle, Washington, US

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Silly wabbit -- without looking at it, I know it's digital, because only digital images can be shown in my browser.  Whether it started life as a film & paper image or not, as soon as it was scanned, it became digital, with all the digital limitations & characteristics.

so it's not a cat, it's a digital image.....

Nov 13 12 10:57 am Link

Photographer

Jhono Bashian

Posts: 2432

Cleveland, Ohio, US

It looks like film. In the background where the light wraps around something round there seams to be a grain structure between the the highlight and shadows

Nov 13 12 11:09 am Link

Photographer

MC Photo

Posts: 4144

New York, New York, US

The bokeh looks modern. I'll go with digital.

Nov 13 12 11:26 am Link

Photographer

William Kious

Posts: 8841

Delphos, Ohio, US

MC Photo wrote:
The bokeh looks modern. I'll go with digital.

Yeah... the refraction leads me to guess digital, too.

If it is digital, it's a very nice conversion. smile

Nov 13 12 11:35 am Link

Photographer

Carlos Occidental

Posts: 10546

Glendora, California, US

Looks like digital, shot with around 150mm lens at about three feet away.   Did you tell us yet?  I'll go see...

Nope.   I guess I'll have to check back later.

Nov 13 12 11:38 am Link

Photographer

Mortonovich

Posts: 5559

San Diego, California, US

I'm gonna guess film. But hard to say.

Good kitty!

Nov 13 12 11:40 am Link

Photographer

Marty McBride

Posts: 3132

Owensboro, Kentucky, US

Only because I can't get my scanned film to look anywhere near this clean, I'll go with digital, which all too often looks too clean!

Nov 13 12 11:40 am Link

Photographer

dgold

Posts: 10273

North Smithfield, Rhode Island, US

...image from film, then digitally "engineered/manipulated" is my guess.

Nov 13 12 11:40 am Link

Photographer

David Mittelstadt Photo

Posts: 96

Chattanooga, Tennessee, US

Looks digital to me. Not sure the grain intensity would be so uniform across tones if it were film.

Nov 13 12 11:41 am Link

Photographer

JBerman Photography

Posts: 1113

New York, New York, US

Digital - i wouldn't waste film on a cat tongue

Nov 13 12 11:41 am Link

Photographer

The F-Stop

Posts: 1510

New York, New York, US

Show me the print, I'll be able to tell you in a second.

The pictures posted on sites are generally nice, but not so true for film where the originals will blow your mind as compared to scanned images... an issue I am dealing with here. 

So... if you scanned it, retoutched it.. well it IS digital now isn't it?

.



.

Nov 13 12 11:43 am Link

Photographer

Carlos Occidental

Posts: 10546

Glendora, California, US

Tell us, dammt!  I can't continue my day until I have an answer here.

Nov 13 12 11:44 am Link

Photographer

Exterminate

Posts: 65

Seattle, Washington, US

Carlos Occidental wrote:
Tell us, dammt!  I can't continue my day until I have an answer here.

^^ xD

Nov 13 12 11:46 am Link

Photographer

Catchlight Portraits

Posts: 294

Salt Lake City, Utah, US

Film.

Ilford Delta 100, to be precise.  120 format.  Shot on a Pentax 645NII (moderate brassing on the bottom), with the SMC 200 mm f/4, wide open (no signs of fungus, minor dust, won't affect picture quality).  Shutter speed 1/500 sec.  Handheld.  Developed in Perceptol, diluted 1:1.  Scanned on a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi II, using Vuescan version 8.5.38.  The moon was waxing gibbous.

Of course, at this size, it's difficult to say for sure, so it might be digital.

Nov 13 12 12:04 pm Link

Photographer

PicBack

Posts: 621

New York, New York, US

Catchlight Portraits wrote:
Film.

Ilford Delta 100, to be precise.  120 format.  Shot on a Pentax 645NII (moderate brassing on the bottom), with the SMC 200 mm f/4, wide open (no signs of fungus, minor dust, won't affect picture quality).  Shutter speed 1/500 sec.  Handheld.  Developed in Perceptol, diluted 1:1.  Scanned on a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi II, using Vuescan version 8.5.38.  The moon was waxing gibbous.

Of course, at this size, it's difficult to say for sure, so it might be digital.

lol

Nov 13 12 12:21 pm Link

Photographer

Kaouthia

Posts: 3152

Lancaster, England, United Kingdom

MC Photo wrote:
The bokeh looks modern. I'll go with digital.

Wait, you mean I can't put shiny brand new Nikon glass (that have an aperture ring, obviously) on my 45 year old Nikkormats?

Nov 13 12 12:24 pm Link

Photographer

kane

Posts: 1570

Albertville, Rhône-Alpes, France

digital

Nov 13 12 12:28 pm Link

Photographer

L A U B E N H E I M E R

Posts: 8797

Seattle, Washington, US

if only cats could talk!

Nov 13 12 12:29 pm Link

Photographer

l l

Posts: 88

Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Ha, the 645 comment is great but it might be right (which would be even funnier).  I'm guessing medium format film.  The shallow DOF and great bokeh are possible with digital but unlikely...

Nov 13 12 12:30 pm Link

Photographer

JBerman Photography

Posts: 1113

New York, New York, US

give us the answer before someone wraps that cat in caution tape and places it on railroad tracks in a gas mask!!!!

Nov 13 12 12:35 pm Link

Photographer

L A U B E N H E I M E R

Posts: 8797

Seattle, Washington, US

l l wrote:
Ha, the 645 comment is great but it might be right (which would be even funnier).  I'm guessing medium format film.  The shallow DOF and great bokeh are possible with digital but unlikely...

hmmm.....alien skin bokeh......done.

Nov 13 12 12:36 pm Link

Photographer

Camerosity

Posts: 5317

Saint Louis, Missouri, US

l l wrote:
Ha, the 645 comment is great but it might be right (which would be even funnier).  I'm guessing medium format film.  The shallow DOF and great bokeh are possible with digital but unlikely...

Mark Laubenheimer wrote:
hmmm.....alien skin bokeh......done.

Let's see... We want the cat's left ear and whiskers to be pretty sharp and the right ear and whiskers not so sharp. Piece of cake.

Nov 13 12 01:14 pm Link

Photographer

fullmetalphotographer

Posts: 2789

Fresno, California, US

My first guess is that it is a cat. My second guess would be captured on film then scan so it is now digital.

Nov 13 12 02:14 pm Link

Photographer

L A U B E N H E I M E R

Posts: 8797

Seattle, Washington, US

l l wrote:
Ha, the 645 comment is great but it might be right (which would be even funnier).  I'm guessing medium format film.  The shallow DOF and great bokeh are possible with digital but unlikely...

Camerosity wrote:
Let's see... We want the cat's left ear and whiskers to be pretty sharp and the right ear and whiskers not so sharp. Piece of cake.

yup.

Nov 13 12 02:21 pm Link

Photographer

WMcK

Posts: 5287

Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom

I remember a similar post on another website a few years ago asking the same question, except that it was a portrait of a young lady. No-one got the answer right, as it was actually a pencil drawing by an artist who did photo-realistic images in that medium, complete with realistic DOF effects. It had everyone fooled.
So I will stick my neck out and say neither, it is a drawing.

Nov 13 12 03:28 pm Link