Can you tell the difference?

eas

Hi all,

inspired from humberklogs post on his customers perception on film vs digital I thought it would be fun to perform a little test.

this is only for fun, but it would be curious to see just how accurate we are when it comes to telling the difference.

was the following shot on celluloid or CCD?







.

johnayo

eas wrote: »

Hi all,

inspired from humberklogs post on his customers perception on film vs digital I thought it would be fun to perform a little test.

this is only for fun, but it would be curious to see just how accurate we are when it comes to telling the difference.

was the following shot on celluloid or CCD?







.

How about putting 2 shots of the same subject side by side, One film and the other digital and running a poll. Some rather interesting results I suspect.

Fenster

There isn't enough empirical data available to definitely tell either way, although the lack of attached meta information weighs slightly toward this being a scanned film image.

sineadw

I'm not sure testing on a monitor is going to yield the same results. Humberklog was talking about prints, which are a whole different kettle of fish altogether. This by its nature is a digital image.. and a small one at that.

humberklog

~Oooh hard to tell on screen. Hard too in the hand...and it doesn't help as you're a bloody good photographer who knows the difference...damn you Eric!



Digital....maybe.

Digital.

sineadw

I was actually thinking digital too, although I've no idea why

DaireQuinlan

johnayo wrote: »

How about putting 2 shots of the same subject side by side, One film and the other digital and running a poll. Some rather interesting results I suspect.

Probably not. OP's shot for example, blind chance will probably dictate the results more than anything else. There's not much you can actually make out from a web sized processed digital scan of a negative or print that'll reliably distinguish it from a processed digital shot of the same thing.

humberklog

Definately...tripod.

Fenster

I don't see any point in making a distinction. Either format is simply a different means to the same end: A digital image.

duffarama

Fenster wrote: »

I don't see any point in making a distinction. Either format is simply a different means to the same end: An image.

Fixed that for you

paulusdu

I voted Celluloid, mostly because i have no idea what ccd is, and i am too lazy to search on the internet.

Morrisseeee

My initial reaction is : its a cleaned up film scan, but............it could also be a digital image thats processed to look like film.

mostly because i have no idea what ccd is

What ? you are kiddin aren't you ? ;-)

Ghost Train

Can't be sure one way or the other, said film because one or two of the detailed areas looked a bit grainy but that could be sensor noise or something else

I think if it was bigger or a different type of subject it might be a easier to choose

eas

Fenster wrote: »

There isn't enough empirical data available to definitely tell either way, the lack of attached meta information weighs slightly toward this being a scanned film image.

how much data do you need to make a call one way or the other? The fact that you looked for metadata in the first place kinda puts your opinion out of it anyhow!

& PS's "save for web" strips out all meta info -

sineadw wrote: »

I'm not sure testing on a monitor is going to yield the same results. Humberklog was talking about prints, which are a whole different kettle of fish altogether. This by its nature is a digital image.. and a small one at that.

I agree different kettle of fish, however, I would think that the qualities of each would remain intact regardless if viewed on screen or on print? Quite similar to the online fake or real boob quizzes - I can't touch them, but can still tell.

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Probably not. OP's shot for example, blind chance will probably dictate the results more than anything else. There's not much you can actually make out from a web sized processed digital scan of a negative or print that'll reliably distinguish it from a processed digital shot of the same thing.

I think you're right - it's too small to make an educated decision, but I'm not sure that's what matters. - what size is sufficient to accurately tell the difference?

Chorcai

paulusdu wrote: »

I voted Celluloid, mostly because i have no idea what ccd is, and i am too lazy to search on the internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device

Promac

I think that if film is so obviously superior to ccd then it shouldn't be that difficult to spot. Clearly is though.

I voted for celluloid as I think it looks a little "glassier" than a ccd image normally does. I've honestly no real idea though.

humberklog

Promac wrote: »

I think that if film is so obviously superior to ccd then it shouldn't be that difficult to spot. Clearly is though.

I voted for celluloid as I think it looks a little "glassier" than a ccd image normally does. I've honestly no real idea though.

It's a bit more complicated than that though. You can kinda make dig. look like film...kinda. Most people can't tell my nudes are taken on dig. Hell...I even forgot.

This photo is one of those rather ambiguous ones...If it's digital I don't think it's made to look digital but the hand on the camera and the eye in PP is a knowing one and understands how to draw the image towards the domain of film representation.
Or it is film. And the hand on the trigger has pulled towards dig.

AnimalRights

No Atari Jaguar option?

charybdis

CMOS.

smelltheglove

To clear things up before I start I know practically zip about film as I am from teh digital age. I have been told the film produces a more dynamic range than digital and there have been occasions where I have looked at an image and thought wow knowing it was a film image, quite recently actually with a film image from ovr 20 years ago.

So to this image, it could be digital processing to give it a grainy effect and confuse us or it could be film. I am actually going to guess on the digital side though, I dont know why my gut is telling me film but my head is telling me you are trying to catch us out, heck I dont think I'll vote at all, I'm out!

eas

that's funny Rachel - you shouldn't let it stress you out!

Morrisseeee

Here's an example of a digital and film version of the same shot, on the same night, I think ye will agree its easy to see which is which !! but..........I must stress that they can be both processed (and also metered better) to look almost identical, especially if viewed on a small scale on a computer screen...

eas

well - I think Promac's & humberklogs last comments pretty much sum up the conundrum.

In any case, this self confessed skeptic was surprised to find that 75% or so of you are correct that this is celluloid. In fact, it's a scanned print - so digital twice removed...too easy.

elven

ah you gave in too soon!

it's really simple if you're looking at a big version online, or a print in your hand. Bad scans at low res though, had me stumped.

humberklog

knew it...:o

eas

elven wrote: »

Bad scans at low res though, had me stumped.

what bad scan?

I'll have you know that was scanned on my epson all in one. Does faxes too.

elven

i'm away back into my corner

Ghost Train

Here another example, taken different days, both iso 200

first one is film 24mmx16mm negative, second is digital 20mmx14mm

PCPhoto

I would have called it the other way (Reference to the spoiler)

melekalikimaka

i think the test is a bit pointless, physical prints would be a true test... tbh if the image is on a pc...its digital in my book. I've shot film... greatly preferred the quality... I found scanning (used nikon coolscan for 35mm) really drained the filmness (yes a word...ahem) outta it, I've seen digital prints on lovely fibre paper and tbh, its a whole lotta money and hassle to try replicate film, and its still trying just to replicate, I have 100's of prints at home, the only ones I care for are my film. I guess that sums it up

eas

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i think the test is a bit pointless

the test isn't pointless, the point was to have a bit of fun and see if people could guess whether the shot was taken on film or not. 75% of people guessed right, result.

you can set up your own tests and let us know how you get on.