The first one was captured by film
("analog" at time of light exposure) 
The second one was captured with a digital camera.

There are some interesting differences:

• in the digital picture, the focal depth is unnaturally large: Both near and far objects are clear in focus. For the human eye, focused on far objects like this church, the near objects would appear blurry. In that way, the left photo is more natural and doesn't appear super-real like the second one.

• In the film picture, a lot more details are recognizable on the hills behind the church. This may have to do with the nonlinear way film responds to light, giving it a greater 'dynamic range' as explained here. 

• in the digital picture, the grassy underground is shown in the same brilliant colors as the foreground, yielding an overall image that is flatter and not as layered as the film photo.

​

​​