An Informal look at Format Size

-

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.

Popular posts from this blog

Nikon D800e Vs. Nokia Lumia 1020

-
Image
I will be the first to admit that the choice of title is a bit absurd. The D800 sits near the top of DSLRs with astounding dynamic range, interchangeable lens, and a sensor that's nearly 15 times the size of the 1020. So why even consider comparing such different machines? One word: Resolution The Lumia 1020 sports a 41 mega pixel "Pureview" sensor and optical image stabilization (OIS). In 4:3 this gives a working resolution of 38 mpix, and at 16:9 a working resolution of 34 mpix. This puts it 2 mpix on either side of the D800’s very impressive 36 mpix sensor. These two cameras which are worlds apart share nearly identical pixel counts.  While not all megapixels are created equal, we can’t help but wonder in a practical sense, how does a 36mpix image on a phone stack up when compared to the likes of a dedicated SLR of similar resolution? But exactly what would be fair wasn't easy. The Nikon is a very versatile machine producing images no smart phone cou...
Read more

CineStill 800T: General Impressions

-
Image
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 ...
Read more

DSLR Film Scanning

-
Image
If you shoot film, the worst part of the entire process has to be getting the images into a computer. While there might still be some purists who preserve a completely analogue workflow between capture, development, print.  I respect people who do that, as it's becoming a much rarer art form itself. Most people these days want their photos to exist on a computer to edit and/or share. There are a few options to accomplish this, but the traditional method was to scan with a dedicated scanner. And scanning is its own entire subject with its own considerations separate from simply taking the photo. There is an entire process you have to learn for any given scanner to get results you can be happy with. I actually put together a short piece on that about a decade ago on my minor annoyance with people comparing scanners more-so then the film: Mindful of Film Scanning Which to bring this all back around is to say, scanning and scanners are really annoying, fiddly, and generally the worst s...
Read more