On CXR you cannot distinguish the two. It's a must to remember what produces the roentgenogram - differences in density. Thus, "pulmonary infiltrate" is one of those non-sense jargon terms that lacks a true meaning but everyone who uses it means there's something on the film that shouldn't be there.
Certainly when tied to a clinical history and physical exam you can piece together what's happening more precisely, but to say just on the basis of the film it's a textural process or a fluid accumulation would be entirely inappropriate. Even blatant atelectasis, (obvious with volume loss and lung mass displacement) will frequently dictated by radiologists as an infiltrate - usually with them hedging "lobar pneumonia vs atelectasis, clinical correlation recommended".
A better term would be "opacification" or even just "density", as these are broader, and with less context or effect on implying disease process.