I stumbled upon this image on wikipedia and it looked like i

>Date August 1989

its film, m8

>>3062931
taken with a fuji judging by how waxy the picture looks

>>3062931
Why do you think this looks processed?

File: N'anga.jpg (764KB, 1646x1074px) Image search: [Google]

764KB, 1646x1074px

>>3062948
His skin and the horn looks overly smooth and the texture of the different furs, the hut wall, and the ground seem to have a repeating texture that reminds me of paint filters. The area around legs looks especially strange to me.
I guess I haven't looked at enough film.

>>3062934
Obviously it was uploaded at a later date.

>>3062951
Oh, I guess I could see how you are seeing that now, it just doesn't look to me like editing. But I am also on my phone and so if you are looking at a larger version that might also explain it. It is difficult to detect repeating patterns and stuff at this size.

To my eyes this looks like aggressive noise reduction.

check out topaz labs, they have filters for this kind of over the top smoothing "noise filtering" stuff.

>>3062931
>>3062951
It looks like a scan of slide film that's had some pretty aggressive noise reduction applied to it.

The colours and 'fade' are very much a product of the emulsion and not a filter applied in post-processing

>>3062937
underrated