# Any way to tell if the original photo was on film or digital?



## Canoneer (Jun 18, 2014)

Obviously if a print is on photopaper, that indicates there was a photo taken on film, right?   But can you tell the difference between a print made from scanned film and one from an originally digital image?


----------



## Fred Berg (Jun 19, 2014)

I'm not sure if I can. Sometimes I think yes, because there are tell tale signs that hint at a film or digital origin, but even then it can be tricky. I have a Canon 10D, for instance, and when I fit an adaptor to use some of my old M42 lenses, the results sometimes look very like film to me. Also, there are ways to make digital look like film these days that can be difficult to spot.

If you're thinking of buying some prints that are more expensive because they are film, you could get a third party expert opinion before committng.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 19, 2014)

With a 10x loupe almost always.


----------



## e.rose (Jun 19, 2014)

Canoneer said:


> Obviously if a print is on photopaper, that indicates there was a photo taken on film, right?



Uhhhh... no?

Unless I've been shooting film this whole time and didn't realize it...


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jun 19, 2014)

You can always ask "Was this shot on film?"



But really, Derrel can, but I can't. I can tell what's a scanned negative printed from the digital file in my own work (AKA third generation looks like ASS and they're usually square), but otherwise... nope.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 19, 2014)

Amazon.com : Schneider 10x Magnifying Loupe : Photography Loupes : Camera & Photo

http://www.google.com/search?q=10x+...IDYawyASKjYDwBw&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1582&bih=892


----------



## photoguy99 (Jun 19, 2014)

If someone is trying to fool you and has access to a good set of tools, there's no way to be sure. They can definitely fool anyone.

If there's no attempt to fool you, then it should be reatdy to tell with a close inspection and some knowledge.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 19, 2014)

Try smelling them


----------



## runnah (Jun 19, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Try smelling them



Funny but true.

Get a loupe, CMYK printed photos consist of dots, film paper does not.

But if you scan and then print a developed photo it will have dots.


----------



## webestang64 (Jun 19, 2014)

Canoneer said:


> Obviously if a print is on photopaper, that indicates there was a photo taken on film, right?   But can you tell the difference between a print made from scanned film and one from an originally digital image?



Yes, I can. But I have to have the prints in my hand to view them.


----------



## KmH (Jun 19, 2014)

Canoneer said:


> Obviously if a print is on photopaper, that indicates there was a photo taken on film, right?


No.

Digital images, film negatives, and film slides can be printed on chromogenic photo paper (C-prints). Chromogenic color print - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Canoneer (Jun 19, 2014)

Thanks, everybody.   I would imagine that a JPEG photo would show interpolation patterns upon magnification of the print.  But when film is scanned, doesn't that happen too?   

Don't guess any of a digital pic's metadata shows up in a print?  (I mean, as some kind of artifact, not as an intentional label.)


----------



## timor (Jun 19, 2014)

Canoneer said:


> Obviously if a print is on photopaper, that indicates there was a photo taken on film, right?


Wrong.
DE VERE 504DS Digital Enlarger


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 19, 2014)

I could tell the difference in look and feel of the paper and gloss (and as Gary said smell). But I don't know that you can tell for sure if the original source was film once it's been scanned/reprinted. Hard to tell I think without being able to see or handle the original, but I can't say I've been out doing much comparing beyond what I observe with my own.


----------



## Canoneer (Jun 19, 2014)

Tell you a little of what this is about.  For 3-4 years now, I've been thinking of a story where part of the detective work involves discovering that a photo was taken on film, then "laundered" by scanning and printing to hide its origin.   The photo was of a night scene, taken with a noct.  A cagey old police photographer deduces the image was caught on film with expensive but old equipment, and those clues are enough for a search for hobbyists who buy film and have old fancy lenses.

Now of course there's the Nikon AF 58mm 1.4, that may give similar results to the noct.    Then there is the problem that software can imitate a pic taken by a noct.   Think I'll have to get at this another way.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jun 19, 2014)

There are really two different questions here.

The first is "can I, in general, given a random image file, tell if it was shot on film?" and the answer is "yes"
The second is "if someone skilled in the art is trying to fool me, can I tell if it was shot on film?" and the answer is "it depends on the skill level of the players"

It may be easier to turn a film photo into a convincing "fake digital" than it is to turn a digital photo into a "fake film" but both are possible, and there are levels of skill available where it is literally impossible to tell.

I would base your story around specific lens artifacts. There are old lenses out there that produce fairly specific distortions, flare effects, and other image artifacts. All of these could certainly be faked by someone with sufficient skill, but if you wrapped the story up with the right details, you can simply assert that the players didn't have that skill. "The plane of focus is not equidistant from the camera, indication that a large format camera was used, and the overall image characteristics are consistent with Petzval lens. The depth of field is consistent with at least a 4x5 sensor/film" which suggests some sort of field camera. All of which could be faked digitally, but _probably was not_ which puts the detective on the right track.

Substitute whatever technical bits you like in, of course.


----------



## compur (Jun 19, 2014)

Back in the day it was fashionable in some circles to print film negatives so that the data strip along the film edges appeared in the finished print. Many still do this. The original idea (I think) is to "show off" that the print represents the entire negative as it was shot and was not cropped, etc. That is, it represents the vision and skill of the photographer at the "decisive moment" of exposure and suggests that little or no manipulation was done in the darkroom.

  Nowadays, I guess, it also "shows off" that it is a film image.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jun 19, 2014)

Kids these days also use an Instagram filter thing that adds fake film data strips. It's... lame. The real deal is one thing, but faking it...


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Jun 20, 2014)

oddly enough smell is a pretty good way to tell. Even when its digital prints. My Epson paper has a different smell than my Red River, Moab or H&H paper.


----------



## timor (Jun 20, 2014)

runnah said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Try smelling them
> ...


This is an effect of inkjet printing, right ? How about prints made on FB paper with the use of the apparatus I mentioned already ?Digital enlarger ? It must be different to I think as the "negative" medium is a sort of LCD ? But for all practical reasons it will smell like silver gelatine print .


----------



## timor (Jun 20, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> Kids these days also use an Instagram filter thing that adds fake film data strips. It's... lame. The real deal is one thing, but faking it...


Oh... comm on. Give them break, this kids were born into digital, virtual world. Simulating, or faking, is all the fun. And if only picture making there will be no problem...


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 20, 2014)

Intriguing idea... is there some clue that your detective in your story could discover that would indicate that the suspect in the case shoots film - but not that a particular photo was done on film? Except obviously finding a print, that would be a dead give away.

A photo shot with an older lens may not necessarily have been done on film either - I have 50+ year old lenses I use interchangeably on my digital camera and on a film rangefinder. And to add further confusion I have a new Petzval lens. 

I love a good mystery story, this seems to be a humdinger! I say on a dark and stormy day watching Marlowe.


----------



## timor (Jun 20, 2014)

vintagesnaps said:


> And to add further confusion I have a new Petzval lens.


 I like that. Post some shots done with it sometime.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jun 22, 2014)

Film grain has an organic shape which is much different from digital noise.  So you can tell provided the original image is high enough resolution and hasn't had noise reduction applied.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 23, 2014)

Ive shown this to quite a few people and they think it was shot on digital


----------



## bhop (Jun 23, 2014)

Personally, I think it depends on the image you're looking at. Some, you'll be able to tell, others you won't.  Film filters such as VSCO and Alien Skin Exposure emulate it pretty spot on these days so if someone's used that on their digital print it'd be hard to tell I think.  I've done my own side by sides with a scanned Tri-X shot and a digital 'emulated Tri-X' and once printed it looks the same.  

I'll still shoot film because I can't afford a full frame digital Leica and I like shooting with a Leica. (film versions are affordable)


----------



## Canoneer (Jul 19, 2014)

Good points!   I was thinking about donut shaped bokeh and a Nikkor 1.2 lens as per Photoguy's lens artifact -- but as Vintagesnaps says, the donuts'd show up on digital too.   Hmmm.   

Ever see the movie "I am a camera"?    Think I saw it on TV as a preteen and it lurks in my unconscious.   Crime and photos.   Photographs pre- Photoshop were excellent evidence.   Now, well, you absolutely have to pair the photo with the testimony of the photographer that took it.   Photos do not speak for themselves as much as they might in the days of film only.

Some pretty good stuff written with photographer detectives.   What was the name of the Dick Francis mystery where the solution involved -- was it development chemistry?

Correction.  That's not the noirish movie I'm thinking of, set in NYC in the 30s-40s where a photographer is chased by the mob.   Think Weegee getting to the crime scene really early.  (One wonders, did Weegee ever get the goods on somebody?   Did he do a shakedown?   No slander intended, just wondering.)


----------



## dweazel (Jul 19, 2014)

Pretty much depends on the resolution of the scan and the resolution of the original image. If the original digital is fine tuned to mimic film..then . NO.  Very hard. Plenty of people will tell you they can but when presented with an actual blind test they pretty much fail...that said most digital images AREN"T made that well to look like film so in practice someone who knows what they're doing (Derrell) will be able to spot the difference.


----------



## oceanbeast (Aug 4, 2014)

the dynamic range of a wet print especially mf/lf is superior to dynamic ranges of screens and current printers


----------

