The Electrical Engineer

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...

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 ...