Canon or Nikon can you tell

[robski]

Well if the file name is a big clue it must be Lucca -Tuscany - Italy.

The only trade name in the file is Adobe so it is unlikely the file has come directly from a Nikon DSLR - Unless Stephen has been very crafty in hiding information embeded Not even a version of Adobe ??

I'll stick my neck out and say I suspect this image has come for a scanned source.

Normally sensor shot and thermal noise is a clue to digital camera images.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by robski

Well if the file name is a big clue it must be Lucca -Tuscany - Italy.

The only trade name in the file is Adobe so it is unlikely the file has come directly from a Nikon DSLR - Unless Stephen has been very crafty in hiding information embeded Not even a version of Adobe ??

I'll stick my neck out and say I suspect this image has come for a scanned source.

Normally sensor shot and thermal noise is a clue to digital camera images.

HaHa you are too clever for your own good Rob, I had forgotten about the file name though, but the exif data was stripped out in PS CS2 using Save for Web. I can't remember the last time time I scanned an image for web use though

[robski]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I can't remember the last time time I scanned an image for web use though

Which must be a BIG hint it is digital camera

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by robski

Which must be a BIG hint it is digital camera

Sorry Rob you must have missed message 10

[robski]

Indeed - Also I thought it was not clear if the Canon was film or Digital. I suspect that some people could tell the difference by comparing indentical crops from original images of the scene if they know the quirks of Canon and Nikon. I can see a difference in colour and tonal range using different lens on my 20D.

When I was in the TV industry I could tell if the TV had a european or japanise CRT fitted by looking at the image colour only.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by robski

Indeed - Also I thought it was not clear if the Canon was film or Digital. I suspect that some people could tell the difference by comparing indentical crops from original images of the scene if they know the quirks of Canon and Nikon. I can see a difference in colour and tonal range using different lens on my 20D.

I think in the case of Canon and Nikon images, it was the silky smooth noise free tones created by the Canon CMOS sensor, whilst the Nikon seemed to be a little more contrasty and gritty. I think that now with the D200 the difference is less notable.

Originally Posted by robski

When I was in the TV industry I could tell if the TV had a european or japanise CRT fitted by looking at the image colour only.

I can often pick out the images from Fujifilm cameras for similar reasons. The skies often are often more Cyanish than from other cameras.

On a different note, I was quite pleased that some people were more interested in the aesthetics of my photo, there is hope still

[robski]

Originally Posted by Stephen

On a different note, I was quite pleased that some people were more interested in the aesthetics of my photo, there is hope still

Don't run yourself down mate, I trawled through your gallery when you joined us. Some very nice work there.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by robski

Don't run yourself down mate, I trawled through your gallery when you joined us. Some very nice work there.

HeHe, there is always much lost in the written word Rob

I was meaning hope for some of the 'techno babble' folk here. No offence intended guys.

[robski]

I think we all appreciate an aesthetic shot. Sometimes it getting the local materials to work with is the problem.

[Canis Vulpes]

I simply cannot tell so I need more information to be certain. Stephen Anstey's website informs me he has been using Nikon and Canon gear but more recently Canon. I am going to pin my answer on Nikon as in post 1 it was taken a few years back. I assume Stephen switched to Canon for the 20D and now 1DSMkIIn and I think the photo predates this move.

I wonder if I am correct