login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > Is this film or digital? Search   Reply
123last
Retoucher
Rob Mac Studio
Posts: 1,105
London, England, United Kingdom


http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8490/8182513515_2a134ba22a_b.jpg
Nov 13 12 08:53 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
PicBack
Posts: 621
New York, New York, US


Film
Nov 13 12 08:56 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Robert Kildare
Posts: 92
New York, New York, US


film
Nov 13 12 09:06 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,152
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  Quote 
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  Quote 
Photographer
Robert Jewett
Posts: 2,435
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  Quote 
Photographer
Hector Fernandez
Posts: 1,152
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  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Broughton
Posts: 2,211
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  Quote 
Photographer
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,152
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  Quote 
Photographer
L A U B E N H E I M E R
Posts: 8,462
Seattle, Washington, US


it's full frame JPEG Digital.
Nov 13 12 10:04 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Camerosity
Posts: 5,085
Saint Louis, Missouri, US


My guess is film - very possibly a medium format SLR.
Nov 13 12 10:09 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gabby57
Posts: 394
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  Quote 
Photographer
Looknsee Photography
Posts: 21,021
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  Quote 
Photographer
SPV Photo
Posts: 767
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Neither -- it's a cat!
Nov 13 12 10:53 am  Link  Quote 
Hair Stylist
Platform Artist
Posts: 157
Chicago, Illinois, US


looks digital ...
Nov 13 12 10:54 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
L A U B E N H E I M E R
Posts: 8,462
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  Quote 
Photographer
Jhono Bashian
Posts: 2,432
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  Quote 
Photographer
MC Photo
Posts: 4,144
New York, New York, US


The bokeh looks modern. I'll go with digital.
Nov 13 12 11:26 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
William Kious
Posts: 8,841
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  Quote 
Photographer
Carlos Occidental
Posts: 10,546
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  Quote 
Photographer
Mortonovich
Posts: 5,323
San Diego, California, US


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

Good kitty!
Nov 13 12 11:40 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Marty McBride
Posts: 3,132
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  Quote 
Photographer
dgold
Posts: 10,269
North Smithfield, Rhode Island, US


...image from film, then digitally "engineered/manipulated" is my guess.
Nov 13 12 11:40 am  Link  Quote 
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  Quote 
Photographer
JBerman Photography
Posts: 1,109
New York, New York, US


Digital - i wouldn't waste film on a cat tongue
Nov 13 12 11:41 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
The F-Stop
Posts: 1,453
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  Quote 
Photographer
Carlos Occidental
Posts: 10,546
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  Quote 
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  Quote 
Photographer
Catchlight Portraits
Posts: 289
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  Quote 
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  Quote 
Photographer
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,152
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  Quote 
Photographer
kane
Posts: 1,543
Biarritz, Aquitaine, France


digital
Nov 13 12 12:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
L A U B E N H E I M E R
Posts: 8,462
Seattle, Washington, US


if only cats could talk!
Nov 13 12 12:29 pm  Link  Quote 
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  Quote 
Photographer
JBerman Photography
Posts: 1,109
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  Quote 
Photographer
L A U B E N H E I M E R
Posts: 8,462
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  Quote 
Photographer
Camerosity
Posts: 5,085
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  Quote 
Photographer
fullmetalphotographer
Posts: 2,738
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  Quote 
Photographer
L A U B E N H E I M E R
Posts: 8,462
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  Quote 
Photographer
WMcK
Posts: 5,262
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  Quote 
123last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers