The Electrical Engineer

Generally there isn't too much exciting happening with films. Mostly the less popular ones go away, but the people at CineStill have done something fun. They've taken a few of the newest stocks from Kodak and did a good job repackaging it for normal color chemistry and use. The one that had the most interest to me was the  800Tungsten . It's pretty much the VISION3 500T stock use for cinema (You can see the 5219 markings on the negatives), but it's had the REMJET removed making it safe for C-41 processing. The question I had was what is it like to shoot, and is it worth the extra expense a roll. I had a hard time finding details of the sorts of quirks of this film, so I thought I would share my own experience. ISO 800 or ISO 400 First I would say I am not sure I agree with the speed rating. The very first roll I shot at 800 and felt generally the results were on the underexposed side. It doesn't make or break a shot, but generally shooting at

Last October I was photographing San Francisco from Twin peaks as the city lights came on. During this time I had both my phones with me which I used to preview the scene. I happened upon the photos recently and realized there was an informal demonstration to be had. They where all taken within a few minutes of each other from the same location, but since exposure settings don't match this is hardly an accurate test and more of an interesting demonstration. iPhone 5s - f2.2 - 1/15th - ISO 1600 - Area 17.5mm^2 -7:17pm Lumia 1020 - f2.2 - 1/5th - ISO 800 - Area 58mm^2 - 7:15pm RZ 67 - Provia 100 - f 4 - Area 3752mm^2 - ~4sec *Because I can just hear the outrage over the difference in ISO (4 stops) a quick flickr search (of images that I felt looked nice) gives an idea that 800  or  1600  wouldn't have drastically made a difference for the 6x7, or that the phone shot at 160 would be drastically better.