Can you tell the difference between film and digital?

File: 1423642630696.jpg (10KB, 247x247px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 247x247px

It's digital. ;)

Easy digital

>>3041359
OP here. Left it out of original post by mistake.

>Please explain your reasoning behind your answer.

>>3041359
Yes.
That image appears to be digital.
The reasons for this are that his skin tone is breaking up due to clipped channels, and the noise in low contrast ares of the image seems to be uniform and just applied over the top.
Also, the in focus areas are very sharp, and it's pretty easy to presume that anyone making such a basic bitch thread would be more likely to have just discovered VSCO than to have just shot a roll of T-Max in a Fujica G690.

File: 1458237784854.jpg (43KB, 500x631px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x631px

>>3041364

because it is a digital image in the jpeg format.

File: tj7gukeidrt8giwgivpl.jpg (11KB, 200x182px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x182px

>>3041367

File: 3e2.png (87KB, 783x759px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 783x759px

>>3041368

whoa there man you gotta lotta nerve postin' old macros round here

>>3041359
too crisp to be 35mm film.

>>3041361
>>3041363
>>3041366
>>3041367
It's film.

>>3041427

No it isn't. >>3041367 is correct. You posted a digital image file.

>>3041359
It's digital because he post processed it.

File: Can you tell it op.png (346KB, 1000x662px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 1000x662px

>>3041359
Can you tell it OP?

>>3041359
Digital.

Literally every image posted in this thread will be digital.

>>3041427
No, it isn't. It is a photo taken by a digital camera of a film print.

File: fiona.jpg (88KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1280x853px

>>3041359
Digital

>>3041458
>png
Film I guess

>>3041433
>>3041460
>>3041431
>>3041367
Listen here you fucking bergs. Of course the fucking images are going to be digital. OP is referring to the original image if it was shot on film or digital.

File: DSC_0015.jpg (439KB, 1044x722px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 1044x722px

>>3041465
Is this a bait?
>or people here are really that stupid?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D5300
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	786
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:23 11:43:15
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1044
Image Height	722
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3041359
well im viewing it on my computer, so im 90% sure its digital (unless my computer as some analog capabilities im not aware of)

>>3041359
I think the hair gives away that it's film. I can't explain how exactly but the way film renders it is unique.

>>3041476
I honestly can't tell anymore

It looks digital

>>3041476
This is the only film image posted in this thread so far.

File: 1463652685929.png (16KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 650x650px

>>3041830
>This is the only film image posted in this thread so far.

>EXIF
>Camera Model NIKON D5300

>>3041849
Could be scanned with a dslr.

>>3041830
its a digital image because you're looking at it on a computer display
glad to be of help

OP post the negative if it really is film.

>>3041359
Film. What do I win?

File: __9_0276.jpg (2MB, 2996x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2996x2000px

Alright, I'm not op. But how bout this one?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	AgfaPhoto GmbH
Camera Model	d-lab.2/3
Camera Software	RB98k or later from AgfaPhoto GmbH d-lab.2/3
Photographer	Only the Best :-))
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	400 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:27 17:56:11
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2996
Image Height	2000

>>3041956
Digital.

>>3041956
I would wager it's film shot in some total trashcam like a disposable, or more likely with some russian lense wide open and focused at infinity, on neg film with a shitty lab scan.
I'd labour the point of the shitty lab scan, because the dynamic range in the shot is fucked, and there's a lot of noise reduction going on, and overexposing to shoot the lense at a wide aperture would give a neg too dense for a lab scan to deal with well.
The only other option, which could be indicated by the bad DR and NR, would be some trash tier digital p&s, however I think they would never give a file this low in saturation or this overexposed, and I can't think of any with a lense this bad.

>>3041973
You vastly underestimate my ability to take shitty photos. It was taken with a nikon n90s paired with a nikon 50mm 1.8 e series. Ektar 100 film if that interests you.

>>3041975
>ektar
KEK! I knew it was slide film but I guessed fuji because of the greens but now I see it's kind warm.

>>3041989
>knew
Thought*

File: 14467856373752676.png (74KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 300x256px

>>3041989
>ektar 100
>slide film

>>3041992
Yeah I don't know what he's talking about either

>>3041975
Serious?
That's fucked. Next time you want to take that shot, use f/11 and focus on that log, m80

>>3041992
>>3041999
I guess you two geniuses missed the post right after where he corrects himself.

>>3042141
I don't see that post, sorry. Please point it out to me.

>>3041359
Sorry, so was this thread just pure bait?
OP never returned?
Or he was too buttblasted by the fact that he was called out for being a VSCO babby?

>>3043758
He bailed out. Unless he was shooting with a leica or a contax with a planar lens he can't get that sharp. Just look at the hair and the zipper teeth, he can't do that with a normal 35mm camera.

>>3043758
>>3043860

Sorry guys, forgot about the thread, had a lot going on this week.

It is digital. Sony A7 with Batis 85mm. I can't believe >>3041532 said that it's film based on the hair, even with Leica glass, I've never seen film that sharp.

File: 1458356392964.jpg (60KB, 200x600px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 200x600px

>>3043898
>Batis 85mm
Now post it with the exif and I believe you.

>>3043898
>I've never seen 35mm* film that sharp

I fixed for you.

File: img-10-5.jpg (358KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 1000x667px

>>3043901
Here you go.

>>3043903
Thank you, haven't ever shot larger than 35mm film but definitely want to. 4x5 would be cool.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.8 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	85 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:21 21:46:08
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Brightness	5.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto Bracket
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3043907
>haven't ever shot larger than 35mm film
>>3041366
>anyone making such a basic bitch thread would be more likely to have just discovered VSCO than to have just shot a roll of T-Max in a Fujica G690
VALIDATED

>>3041956
Film

>>3041956
Film

Excellent highlight rendition, imperfect colour fidelity and an absolute trashcan lens.

>>3041520
Autism alert

>>3044493
nigger.

>>3042266
pls I don't see that post either