Simple question really.
I’ve always asserted that most of the time the answer is readily apparent, but is that the case here?
Now, I know many of you will assume that — since I’m asking — it must be digital. Others of you will identify a hint of reverse-psychology at play, and you’ll choose film.
So, for you brave ones out there, what’s it going to be? 🙂
—Peter.
↑Camera and lens information withheld.
[Update: Answer is here.]
Prosophos 
Looks like film to me, but I have a sneaky suspicion that you would not have asked this question unless it is digital (as you state above) so I’m going with digital 🙂
Digital 🙂
The grain looks very film-like, which is said of that of the M9. So this could be either 400 speed film (Tri-X presumably) or an M9 file taken at a high ISO (or processed to look like film, can’t rule that out.) Also, it does look post-processed, so even if it was taken on film, I’d say it was digitally enhanced afterwards.
I’m taking a chance and go with film 🙂
Just a wild guess…my take is digital:-)
I´m going with film, and it looks that it was taken with your 50mm summilux.
But probably I´m completely wrong.
Just playing
Peter,
It’s obviously both… Shot in film, then digitized… In truth I don’t have a clue.
(BTW… Do you see any magenta cast /edge on your VC 15mm lens?)
John
I guess digital, although John Parkyn is right the both part.
Thanks
Alan G
Oh I see that there are, indeed, brave ones among us! Thank you!
It’s also nice to see that a few of you are explaining the rationale behind your guesses (it would be good if others would too, because — once the answer is revealed — nobody will put much value in post-analysis!).
To encourage more guesses, I’m going to hold off revealing the answer just yet. Incidentally, I posted this image because I know I would have had a tough time correctly identifying the medium on which it was recorded.
—Peter.
Well, it has a digital look to it. But that can be achieved through filters. This actually looks like it was out through the ‘Drama’ filter in Snapseed. My guess, and I’m only looking at this shot on my iPhone, bleary eyed and still in bed, but my guess is M9. Beautiful shot, though.
I will go with digital. My reason for saying so is the grain that is exhibited in the shadows on the right side of the image. This could be added digitally but I will stick with film as my answer. If I am wrong and this is digital, please sign me up now for the first of your B&W conversion e-books or your one-on-one coaching on B&W digital processing. Great shot…By the way, I might add that this has that Life Magazine look which I find very appealing in black and white images. All the best — Bishop
So Bishop, just to be clear… your answer is film, correct? (The first sentence in your response contradicts the rest of it.) Thank you for mentioning the grain in the shadows, by the way.
Ah, you are right. My answer is film and that is what my first sentence should have stated…early and am still in need of some coffee!
I think it’s digitally sourced. On my phone(!) it looks very clean. It is a hard one though, as the scene dynamic range doesn’t appear that testing and on the web the file is small and, therefore, hides some of the normal telltales. The soft contrast is often seen in film pictures, but can be replicated in digital if the dynamic range is within the sensor’s and the file is clean enough – easy for an m9 at normal isos.
Peter,
This investigation begs the question… If all else is equal, is there much difference btw a straight digital shot and one shot in film and then digitized?
John
That’s a good question, John. I’ve always thought that film images, even those that have been subsequently scanned (“digitized”), have a different look from their 100% digital brethren.
Of course, when the stars align and you have the right subject matter, lighting, dynamic range, AND post-processing, it can be difficult to tell the two media apart.
As an aside, I’ve always tried NOT to make them look the same, as I don’t see the point of it. Each offers something a little different, which is the beauty of having the choice to use one or the other.
There are many potential differences. Film’s capture characteristics are utterly different from an imager sensor’s capture characteristics. There are so many processing steps required, for both, that it is a “directed coincidence” if the end results look terribly similar. 😉
I’ve been enjoying a bit of shooting with film cameras the past few weeks. Whether I see it as “just for fun” or not is mostly irrelevant as I am no longer looking to do photography to make a living :: in essence, it’s all “just for fun”, but I take my fun pretty seriously, and my “fun” is often closely connected with my photo-making efforts.
I find the difference between film and digital capture interesting and use it for aesthetic intent. If I were a working photographer, picking film or digital for a shoot would be a part of the shoot’s brief based on those differences.
“directed coincidence”… very nicely put.
It looks like a digital file to me as I see sensor spots. However, without those, it would be very hard to tell, the transitions from dark to light are really nice and consistent with film. However, the grain/noise looks a lot like digital – can’t really explain why, just seems that way to me.
Just to clarify, you wouldn’t expect to see sensor dust at large apertures. So what you are seeing isn’t sensor dust… it’s something else.
And, of course, it may not be digital 😉
Kevin, I appreciate your well-reasoned response, by the way.
Mmmh, I will use a psychological approach to support my answer. There must be something in this picture that impressed you. In my eyes it looks like usual M digital.
The noise, the rendering. It’s funny that there is no color feedback to help my feelings in this regard.
But showing a digital picture and trying to arouse analog feelings it’s too “SteveHuffesque” (pardonne moi, Steve 🙂
So It must be film, because it looks like digital (M9-like, read: CCD) but it’s true BW…
In my dumb opinion, this is why you were impressed by this image: it supports indirectly your love for the M9 sensor, hehehe.
My final answer: It’s film (or I can’t see the point of this post).
Best
Matteo
Thanks Matteo. I can’t say I was “impressed” so much by the image, as an image… you know, the way most people would view it. It really is meant to be part of a “just for fun” exercise, as indicated by the title of the post.
Having mentioned that, it’s interesting how you identify one element in the image as “noise”, while Bishop views it as film grain.
My guess is film, M2 and your Noct 🙂
🙂
I think film, the transition of tones in the books looks very gentle. I should therefore apologise to everyone who went for film as I’ve never been right with one of these type of questions.
Dear Floyd, you made my day :).
You should also be commended for guessing, despite your track record.
It doesn’t matter.
I think its digi 🙂
It looks like film. However, I didn’t find any dust on the scan. I’m going to guess digital. Leica Monochrome perhaps?
Whoa Ben! Thinking “outside the box” now! The Leica M Monochrom is certainly de rigueur, so yours is an inspired guess for sure.
It’s a good time for photography. We now have great tools that will allow us to concentrate on light and composition and worry less about the limits of our current gear. Cheers!
Yes… agree 100%.
Dear Peter,
I arrived after the battle … hoping that I could participate!
At first, I would say it is a picture with a top digital camera … Then, looking closer, even if you give us lot of black and white still impressive … I would say that this image is Your top with M2 + 50 cron .. And you may just change your scaner … BTW, great picture!
Your friend.
Hugues.
I’m going to chime in and say digital. This is a tough one – despite using both media extensively this last year, sometimes it’s easier to tell than others!
I’m looking at the falloff area on the right edge from mid-to-dark grey; to my eye this looks more like an image from a digital sensor at a high(ish) ISO than film…. there’s also very little grain in the highlights. But! The grain across the image looks very much like Ilford HP5 to me, so I’m really torn on this one.
To get off the fence though, digital – specifically M9*
*It’s bound to be flm and Tri-X now I’ve said all this!
Excellent response James. And I too having used both media extensively also believe this is a tough one!