[discountviagraman]

scanned 35mm film pic? or a digital pic?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3090/...78ea4b16_b.jpg

[Ferkilort]

well technically if it was scanned it would be digital anyway.

but its a scan. you can see the grain in the dark elements of the pic

[Grennios]

I'd say scan too, mostly beacause of the edges of the petals

[Nashhlkq]

You can see the texture of the photo paper so unless it's intentionally deceptive I'd say it's scanned.

[Scukonah]

I'd say scan too, mostly beacause of the edges of the petals

that has nothing to do with film vs non film, the edges are a result of poor glass... chromatic aberration.

[infollafago]

I don't even think it is possible to tell, at least not at this size.

[Finkevannon]

It is a very good scanner but alas it is a scanned photo.

[heennaRaf]

How can you distinguish between a scanned photo and and a post processed one?? (this size)

[Qahtwugc]

I don't even think it is possible to tell, at least not at this size.

I agree, but I'm going to guess digital. The chromatic aberration is pretty bad which seems to lean torwards digital. Also the noise seems more like digital... or jpeg artifacting.
though it does have weird lines at the bottom.

[bromgeksan]

I'm going with scan. This is because on the bottom right you can see an inch long mark on the paper.

Anyhow, the thing is 35mm scans especially from the negative still look very good. In fact before DSLR cameras were up to scratch a lot of pros were still shooting 35mm and then digitizing them with a negative scanner giving superior results to the digital cameras of the day.

However digital cameras really have surpassed 35mm on how flexible a photographer can be with his shots.

[warrgazur]

[thumbup] nice guesses and great reasoning behind the guesses indeed!
Now, this was a digital photo, taken with a nikon d70 with a sigma lens and some adjusting done as well.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3114/...2cb0f92cda.jpg