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.

The comparison between the Lumia and a similar spec'd DSLR drew a bit more attention then I would ever expected. It is nice to see so much interest in such a great pock-able camera. While I stand by the original test I thought I might revisit it once more for a moment. Addendum   There is so much more to making great images then cameras, and there is so much more to great cameras then megapixels. It's a fairly established morsel of common photographic knowledge that quality is often preferred to quantity when speaking about the pixel. So then why even compare such machines, since they are so wholly different. It's because it's hard not to be curious what 38mp on a phone looks like compared to a SLR with a similarly impressive marketing number. After shooting with 36mp I've come to learn that pixel perfect sharpness provides more elusive and such a camera is prone to bringing out weaknesses in both lens and photographer patience. In reality most ph...