Does this image scream DIGITAL?

[markjwyatt]

I see a lot of mages that scream digital. When I process digital images I do not use tons of post-processing (sharpening, lots of local tweaking, etc.), but tend to use as little post processing as I can. Some images seem too perfect. For digital work I use a Fujifilm XT-2. I believe Fujifilm has tried to develop digital technology that can produce film like images. I produced this image this weekend, and really like the way it turned out. I can see some clues that seem digital to me, but not sure. I do not feel this is an over-processed image. The most radical thing I did was clip highlights a bit to be sure I did not go to pure white in the clouds (I also tend to purposely under expose a bit for this reason). I did no sharpening nor added structure. I did tweak contrast and played a bit with spectral sensitivity (mainly tweaking blue and yellow analogous to using a filter).

Take a look and if you can identify "digital" clues or artifacts I would be interested in reading your opinion. I put it here to be sure film as well as digital users could comment. I added a poll also.

trail

• markjwyatt
• Feb 20, 2019
• 5

Nice view along a trail...
#[Digital: analogous to darkroom process]

 

[markjwyatt]

Here is an example of an image on Flickr that I saw as being digital. It is a beautiful image, and maybe it is just because the optics and resolution are so good that it looks so perfect, but I suspect there is some sharpening and other techniques used to really bring out the wheat.


landscape by Raffaele Camardella, on Flickr


Another. In the Flickr description, the photographer describes the processing:


What's that coming over the hill by Mike Murphy, on Flickr

"For processing I tonemapped 3 brackets using Photomatix, sharpened and added a contrast boost in CS6, and then used selective brushing of the Urban Sickness & Cybercool filters from OnOne’s Perfect Effects; this was finished off with a little brushing in of Low Key shadows from Color Efex Pro and finally a denoise via Topaz."

 

[darkosaric]

I love Sebastiao Salgado, but the latest work "Genesis" scream digital (at least for me).
I went on exhibition in Paris couple of years ago, and pictures were big, and wow, and super sharp, and nice ... but this "digital scream" somehow spoiled the whole experience. I think the problem is in me, hard core analog guy, something like professional deformation. Others enjoyed the exhibition, and my friend photographer (younger guy, analog + digital) even bought the book.

 

[markjwyatt]

...I think the problem is in me, hard core analog guy, something like professional deformation. Others enjoyed the exhibition, and my friend photographer (younger guy, analog + digital) even bought the book.

Agreed. It is what we are used to seeing. Film is imperfect. Digital, even carefully manipulated can capture so many details so accurately. It is like when I first saw really hi definition television- it just looked unreal, but not because it was not accurate, just the opposite. I do not think digital photography should be chained to film appearances. It needs to define its own space ultimately, and that space can include film appearance.

 

[jtk]

Of the three, I prefer the ice even tho it could look more "realistic" if that was important (it's a little blue-magenta). I don't like the wheat because I don't see any reason (other than limited skill) for the cyan/green sky. I "like" the B&W but if it was mine I'd want more zippy detail, which I'm sure is available in the original file.

NONE of them "scream" anything in particular to me.

I don't care how something is printed unless its shortcomings get in the way of my appreciation of the image.

It's not common for B&W photographers to print well on conventional silver paper....because, I think, that time has passed.

It IS common for digital photographers to exaggerate things.. I often do that in order to more sharply define certain details and forms. I don't like digital artifacts (such as white outlines on horizons) and I don't like muddy, unsharp silver...tho I do like some of the ultra-unsharp alt work and I do like lith very often (I intend to try to simulate that with IR film and certain NIK options.

 

[removed account4]

Mark:
It IS digital, it is an image we are looking at on the internet which HAS to be a digital image; its still nice ..

 

[markjwyatt]

... I "like" the B&W but if it was mine I'd want more zippy detail, which I'm sure is available in the original file...

I do have an issue that I adjust things to my liking in ON1, but the 8-bit jpg always looks a bit flatter and duller. I have adjusted my screen to be similar to test prints, but this is all on screen. Here is a zippier version (scaled down in size)> I may need to recorrect in GIMP (where I resize, add watermark, etc.)

:

 

[markjwyatt]

Mark:
It IS digital, it is an image we are looking at on the internet which HAS to be a digital image; its still nice ..

Thanks! I can sometimes tell from a digital image on the web whether the image originated digitally or from film (not always).

 

[Eric Rose]

It's all art as represented and presented by the artist. I could care less if it's digital or not. I do not have the same appreciation for lith prints that some do. Does that mean all analog prints are over done crap? Certainly not! Some digital stuff is over done imho. Does that make it's an inferior process? Absolutely not!

It's about learning the tools and applying them effectively. Some get it and some don't. The same could be said about both analog and digital.

If an images screams digital and the artist didn't intend that, then they need to refine their skill set.

 

[removed account4]

Thanks! I can sometimes tell from a digital image on the web whether the image originated digitally or from film (not always).

weird .. i can't tell squat. you must have DREW WILEY eyes ! he can spot an ink jet print from across a room... oscar goldman i think helped him though .. he won't admit it but he can run faster than a mountain lion with his 8x10 !

 

[Patrick Robert James]

For black and white I can usually tell but not always. Usually the highlights look wrong with digital images and there is too much contrast in the wrong places. There are a few photographers that were known for contrasty images and their digital images kind of fall off a cliff. Salgado, Gibson and Moriyama all took a step backwards. On the other hand I saw some of Clyde Butcher's digital prints and they are better than his silver prints.

Color images are usually easier to tell. Peeps can't leave those sliders alone. Push push push! More! Cracks me up. Color film has a beauty about it that is pretty hard to reproduce with a digital camera.

But it doesn't really matter. I guess it only matters if those things are important to you. I use both. Just depends.

 

[awty]

How can something be too digital, unless its very pixelated maybe. Can you be too analog.
Editing is very hard to do well, some are good at it as with the colour examples, most aren't.
Good editing starts with a picture worthy of editing in the first place.

 

[jtk]

I do have an issue that I adjust things to my liking in ON1, but the 8-bit jpg always looks a bit flatter and duller. I have adjusted my screen to be similar to test prints, but this is all on screen. Here is a zippier version (scaled down in size)> I may need to recorrect in GIMP (where I resize, add watermark, etc.)
View attachment 217704 :

I'd forget GIMP and step up to PS with NIK. For this image I might vignette a bit to draw attention to the path and away from the corners...and maybe a visual half-stop darker overall. NIK makes that almost intuitively easy, as in a darkroom. I rarely work directly with PS, but sometimes I find it easier than NIK for small bits of dodging/burning.

 

[markjwyatt]

I'd forget GIMP and step up to PS with NIK. For this image I might vignette a bit to draw attention to the path and away from the corners...and maybe a visual half-stop darker overall. NIK makes that almost intuitively easy, as in a darkroom. I rarely work directly with PS, but sometimes I find it easier than NIK for small bits of dodging/burning.

Thanks, jtk. I was thinking I could bump the contrast up more, then drag the exposure back down to bring the clouds back in (the information is there), and maybe raise the shadows a little (defeating some of the contrast added). I went with ON1 due to the controversy surrounding using Lightroom with Fuji X-sensors, but it sounds like with the "enhance" feature this may no longer be an issue. I will stay tuned and see how it turns out. I need to look into NIK also. If you use PS with NIK, you still need Lightroom or something else right (I guess I could use ON1 as it plugs into Lightroom/PS also).

 

[ced]

The image may benefit from less USM wherever it is coming from, or in camera or uploading etc. the micro contrast in the fine details "scream" digital. Your sample of the wheat is a very bad choice for everything.
If you were to use PS & NIK then LR is not needed, unless the Fuji raw files are not supported by PS RAW...

 

[Ko.Fe.]

OP image doesn't scream at all
Looking at it on the phone and from this POV it could be one of these film LF shots.
Others two are digital for sure.

 

[markjwyatt]

OP image doesn't scream at all
Looking at it on the phone and from this POV it could be one of these film LF shots.
Others two are digital for sure.

I was thinking that it could fit LF look to some degree, but this could also be the microcontrast @ced is noticing. I did bump the small scale contrast a little using ON1 "dynamic contrast", but not that much (and I did not add USM, but it may come through somewhere else, not sure). I like the acutance that a relatively small sensor can give in digital (APS-C in my case). That is one thing I was noticing and thinking LF-like or micro-contrast type effects, especially in the shrubs right and left in foreground and the fence. I did not want to preload my thoughts though so just waited for comments.

 

[Ces1um]

Take a look and if you can identify "digital" clues or artifacts I would be interested in reading your opinion. I put it here to be sure film as well as digital users could comment. I added a poll also.

To be honest, I can't tell if this is a digital or film image. It does look like it was sharpened via software but I can't tell you if that's straight from your digital camera or if it was scanned from film and then manipulated. It's a nice image though.

*edit*
I take it back. To me it looks more like film. Just looks like it was developed for contrast. I guess my skills in differentiating film from digital are poor.

 

[ced]

Would love to see a small section straight from the camera no anything in another software.

 

[removed account4]

Color images are usually easier to tell. Peeps can't leave those sliders alone. Push push push! More! Cracks me up. Color film has a beauty about it that is pretty hard to reproduce with a digital camera.

But it doesn't really matter. I guess it only matters if those things are important to you. I use both. Just depends.

I know what you mean I am totally guilty as charged ! You forgot about having too much fun burning and dodging too. Completely guilty as charged.
AND it doesn't matter to me LOL maybe that's my problem, if i can do the massive "Hand of Zeus" to dodge out and image in the dark why not with the squeaker.

 

[markjwyatt]

Would love to see a small section straight from the camera no anything in another software.

What does that mean? One of the possible jpeg outputs? Only I saw what the camera saw, and that is kind of hard to transmit (maybe I could paint it ).

Here is a scaled down file from the original jpeg using the default color choice:
The B&W image was processed from RAW.

 

[ced]

There is some sharpening going on somewhere, converting from RAW you need to turn everything regarding the sharpness off.
Just look at the micro details, this is not possible directly off the captor.
Mark would you mind private mailing me and perhaps letting me have the raw file as it came out of the camera please? This is just a matter of personal interest and have no aim to use your image for other gain.
cedmus@gmail.com
KR..

 

[Theo Sulphate]

In the original photo (post #1), I thought the trees on the left, in the middle, had a bit more contrast than the rest of the scene - that was my only small doubt about whether it was film or not.

As for the wheat -- that looks totally computer generated to me, not even like an image from a digital camera.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I think you're focusing on the wrong thing. The picture is very dull. You shot it in the middle of the day. The lighting is flat. There's nothing much interesting in the shot. There's no subject. It's a field. OK. Film or digital doesn;t matter. You should have waited for magic hour when the lighting adds contrast and interest. Maybe you should have isolated a section rather than show everything. Your first concern should be content and lighting and composition. I also get caught up in technique too often rather than aesthetics. That's a dead end. The viewer is not going to care what it was shot with, where it was shot, or whether the photographer got frostbite shooting it. They are only going to be concerned with the two seconds they view it whether they like it or not. Digital or film won;t matter.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

There's a Chinese saying "It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white. As long as it captures mice."