I recently photographed the same scene (roughly) using my trusty Nikon FE (with a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, Kodak Ultramax 400) and my Sony A7CII (paired with a Tamron 28–75mm f/2.8). Afterward, I applied my film simulation workflow in Darktable—using the AGX tone-mapper—to the RAW file from the Sony, taking inspiration from the actual film image. That film photo scan, by the way, is completely unedited.
Can you guess which is which? What details gave away the film shot versus the digital one? And of course, the big question: which version do you prefer?
I’ll give everyone a full day to weigh in with their guesses—which one’s film and which one’s digital—and then I’ll reveal the truth! Anyone who figures it out correctly earns serious bragging rights
I’m gonna say opt 1 is film judging by grain in the shadows and lack of artifacts in what I think is a blown highlight on the upper right. But I’m on my phone’s not very good screen.
Option 2 is digital I say. There are things that look like moiré, which shouldn’t exist in a film scan, and there’s something about the highlight falloff that seems more digital.
Hi,
film is option 2. There are many tellers (e.g. halation around bright edges, a more believable grain pattern, no sharpening artifacts), but also (and unfortunately), you forgot to strip the metadata, so when I opened them in geeqie I was told immediately which was which
Both close in looks. I personally don’t feel the need to chase the look of film but you certainly have achieved that here. I feel # 2 is digital because it looks a tiny bit sharper, but I wouldn’t bet my house on my guess here.
Option 2 is film. Option 1 has digital grain (on the hanging bells), and you could pull more from the shadows which you cannot on film.
I happen to like 1 better because the person with glasses is smiling nicely. Otherwise, frankly, I would not care to name one or another as better.
The other day I was doing a similar test for my own purposes: comparing a zoom and a prime lens (at the same aperture and focal length), for differences in sharpness. Pixel peeping would tell me that the prime was a bit sharper, but just looking at the whole image on a FHD screen would not make a difference.
According to metadata (FireFox right-click) View Exif Data, First one is a camera shot, second on is a scanned image as most have said, probably color film.
Alright, here’s the big reveal: Option 1 is the digital shot, and Option 2 is the analog one. Thanks for playing everyone!
Some of you can take bragging rights for sharp eyes others for their tech savviness (or both)! I’m also proud that I managed to fool some people
The analog picture was from the first (and so far only) roll of film I ever shot. I thought the pictures would be less contrasty blacks would be more gray and overall colors would be less saturated. Instead black came out inky and the whole photo is super saturated and contrasty!
So now my workflow is applying my ultramax style: (reduced dynamic range, with nice contrast and colors) and then pivot from there (adding some dynamic range back, playing with exposure and colors). This way the results of my edits are more “organic” for lack of a better word.
Edit: Posted a playraw with the same raw file if you want to play around with the picture too.
Yes. Digital cameras eclipsed the dynamic range, and contrast of color film by the mid-2000s. Since the early-mid 2010’s, they were about 2x as much dynamic range. So just looking at areas of high and low contrast areas intersecting tells you what was used to record the image. There’s other methods too, even in the early 2000s, when performance was much closer, looking at how over-exposure is rendered is a huge give-away. you will still find some details in the blown out highlights. a ghostly edge of a cloud, etc. While digital sensors over-expose to flat white quite linearly.
