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

[photoguy99]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

View attachment 77356

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[djacobox372]

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]

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

 

[bhop]

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]

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]

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]

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