Telling the difference . . .

[Timmyjoe]

This is similar to another thread started recently, and for that I apologize. I am trying to determine something different than the other poster, so please bear with me.

Been working on trying to get a more "realistic" film look out of digital for a project I am working on. Below are two samples, one shot on Double XX Kodak film, and one shot on digital. Both using the same lens, but naturally different cameras.

I've stripped the EXIF data from the files, and would like input from anyone who is interested. First, which do you think was shot on film and which on digital? Second, how can you tell? What details do you look for when you are determining whether an image was originally a film capture or a digital capture? What are some telltale signs for you?

Thanks for any and all input.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Jockos]

Great job!
I'm guessing number 1 for digital - it seems to have more detail.

 

[mfogiel]

Thr Kasich photo is digital, and you can understand that easily by looking how the skin looks ( the digital skin disease syndrome) and also by the washed out teeth of the guy on the left. On film it is damn difficult to blow out the white on the teeth.
The second photo is shot on film, but in my perception not on a cubic crystal film, but rather one of the digital like t grain films like Tmax.
I think, that you need to kill the contrast on digital if you want anything remotely looking like film. Also, excesive resolution is not actually a boon, so you can mitigate that by using old, single coated and not terribly sharp lenses.

 

[back alley]

film first
then the digital

more guessing than not...

 

[Timmyjoe]

Thank you for the input so far.

Not saying which is which yet, as I'd like to get more input, but I will say that the film used is not T-Grain, but a very old school Kodak motion picture camera film from back in the 1960's and 1970's. It's called Double XX and there are a number of threads here on RFF about it.

Thanks again for the input so far.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Timmyjoe]

( the digital skin disease syndrome)

Can you elaborate on the digital skin disease syndrome, I'm not familiar with that?

 

[FrankS]

I'm with Joe on this. The first pic looks grittier as if made up with grains of silver. The second pic looks very smooth and plasticy.

However, I think that whatever content is in the pics that anyone takes is way more important than the difference in film vs digital appearance.

 

[Spanik]

First film, second digital for me.

 

[giulio stucchi]

First impression: first digital and second film

Second impression: first film and second digital

reason: the grain on the second one looks forced and the rendering of the banner has a digital look in it.

Giulio

 

[BillBingham2]

Following many of the older folks on this post, First Film, Second Digital.

The tones on the second one just look off. It looks like a digital conversion from color, contrast is too high and not enough transitions, just hard edges.

B2 (;->

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I have very basic computer in office. From this PoV first looks like digital. The way it seems to be over processed with typical digital processing mistakes. Second is more like film, but over processed digitally as well, due to difficult light and/or overexposure.

And the whole "film look" is the gimmick. Film is not the final result and never was. BW darkroom print is. On scans I'm getting load of grain. On prints it is clean, yet, not digital.

 

[giganova]

Its a trick question: they are both digital, otherwise I couldn't see them on my computer screen!

In any case, here's my guess:

1st one definitely digital: too much detail for film, teeth of the other guy washed out. Overall, it is too sharp for film, the zipper on Kasich's jacket gives it away 😀 There's something about the blurred bus in the background that tells me it's digital, too, even though I can't exactly tell why.

Strange thing is, I would have thought that the second one is digital, too! 😱 But then again, if it's film, it is a digital scan, so a digital-analog hybrid. 😛

 

[giganova]

On second thought, I think they are both captured digital! 😉

 

[mfogiel]

The digital has a tendency to raise microcontrast on the skin, so if the person in the picture has no make up and is no longer in the teens, you get this kind of effect:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/itzick/26389402402/in/pool-portraitsbw/

On the other hand, if you shoot a traditional cubic crystal film, particularly in MF and with a lens that has lower resolution ( e.g. when you shoot wide open), you are more likely to get this kind of result:https://www.flickr.com/photos/pixel...K4A-4SYXAJ-f1FSav-4SUJ8P-cg2vy7-aRmxy2-DY1UXm

 

[kxl]

There are just so many variables when looking at images on a computer screen that it is really hard to identify which one started out as analog. What developer did you use for XX? How was it scanned? What digital post-processing was applied to both images? There are so many ways these days to post-process a digital image (whether it was a digital capture or a scan) that the capture is almost irrelevant when the final output is digital.

In any case, Double-X can be characterized (in general) as grainier than Tri-X but a very sharp grain pattern, depending on developer. Obviously Rodinal would produce a very different image than, say Diafine. In any case, just looking at the gain and the high contrast, I would say the first one was shot with Double-X. However, I would not be surprised if that look was achieved via digital post-processing.

 

[Timmyjoe]

However, I think that whatever content is in the pics that anyone takes is way more important than the difference in film vs digital appearance.

Frank, I completely agree with you. The issue I'm having is that I passionately want to shoot this project with film, but logistically that is going to be very difficult. I'm envisioning shooting one to two thousand shots a day and the project will last two straight weeks. That's a lot of film and a lot of processing. So if I can come close to the essence of film with a digital camera, it will save me quite a bit of time and money.

 

[FrankS]

"...shooting one to two thousand shots a day and the project will last two straight weeks."

There's your answer: digital is required by the task at hand.

 

[BillBingham2]

14 to 28K images? How long do you have to edit them down? Just keeping track of what you like/kind of/don't with proofs would be, well Herculean for how quick folks want stuff today.

Gotta agree with Frank, digital.

B2 (;->

 

[Timmyjoe]

Thanks everyone.

Both images were shot with an old Nikkor-OC 35mm f2 lens.

I shot the second image (Protesters) first, with the Nikkor-OC on a Nikon F with the Double-XX and processed it in D-76. The late afternoon lighting was harsher than I would have liked, and the white banners were really blasted out. I did take them down a bit digitally after scanning the film with a Nikon Coolscan 9000. I really like the way the Double-XX works with that lens and wanted to find a way to get a similar look digitally, as the project I'm working on is going to require massive amounts of shooting.

The first shot (Kasich) was done with the Nikkor-OC on a Nikon Df and post processed using Aperture 3 and SilverEfexPro (1). I tried to get the "look" of the image as close to the Double-XX look as I could.

Wasn't trying to fool anyone. Just want to get a better understanding of what "reads" film and what "reads" digital. Thanks again to everyone who contributed to the discussion.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Timmyjoe]

14 to 28K images? How long do you have to edit them down? Just keeping track of what you like/kind of/don't with proofs would be, well Herculean for how quick folks want stuff today.

Gotta agree with Frank, digital.

B2 (;->

From what I know so far, the plan is to shoot a very active situation from about 10AM until about 10PM each day, with about an hour or so each night downloading the files from the cards, quickly throwing out the "bads" and dumping the rest to portable drives (Thank you Photo Mechanic). There's two travel days at the end of the first week, so I plan to use that time to weed out more "bads" from the portable drives. Then repeat. There will be a few hundred images over the two weeks sent to an agency, but the rest are for a longer term project I am working on, and will have more time to sort through. The stuff I'm keeping for my project is the stuff I originally wanted to shoot on film (was planning on bringing the digital to shoot color for the agency). If I can do all of it digitally, that will make my life a lot simpler.

Best,
-Tim