Erwin Is my man! on the M8 part 4!

Very nice, especially that he sold his 5D for a M8. ;) He must be sorry now he sold is M lens collection. However Vladimer, I am sorry we live so far apart. I would love to discuss the merits of this review with you over a glass of beer. And I agree: it goes a long way to reestablishing Erwins credibility.
 
Well, it is fact and ervin proves it, eye is beauty in portra and it has alot of information in spur film, so 35mm is still better format and capable of doing anything desired and it is powerfull as never was, don`t see reason using digital format if not adicted to photoshop :)
 
But OMG am I the only one who thinks the Portra scan is not worthy of this article? Sheesh, I am not impressed with that.
 
Nachkebia said:
Well, it is fact and ervin proves it, eye is beauty in portra and it has alot of information in spur film, so 35mm is still better format and capable of doing anything desired and it is powerfull as never was, don`t see reason using digital format if not adicted to photoshop :)
Click to expand...
I cannot tell from this scan- it has tons of grain aliasing
 
Thanks for the link.
I'm looking forward to this one:

n the next installment I will analyze the performance of the M8 with a suite of Leica and Zeiss lenses. The results will be surprising: up till now no one has noted the facts I will reveal.
Click to expand...
 
Nick: I missed that ... I skim most of his articles as it's painful to really read.
 
RE: Portra 160

RE: Portra 160

Nobody would ever buy a roll of that film based on E.P.'s article. Heck, I wouldn't even load the free Kodak Portra...assuming it ever arrives. :D

Kodak should ask for a retraction of the scan. :eek:

The Spur film, on the other hand, looks tasty given the right subject matter.
 
Trius said:
Nick: I missed that ... I skim most of his articles as it's painful to really read.
Click to expand...

Sorry Earl.. not painful..

EXCRUCIATINGLY painful is more like it :D

Dave
 
jano said:
Portra 160 is speed once considered high? :confused: When?
Click to expand...
Back in the day of High Speed Ektachrome (same speed), to be precise. Don't want to remember that stuff...

And, somebody, please, send Puts a Minolta 5400 (either variety) pronto. That Portra scan's so bad Kodak should sue.


- Barrett
 
The Nikon can certainly do better ... MUCH better. Puts doesn't know what he's doing with the scanner.
 
amateriat said:
Back in the day of High Speed Ektachrome (same speed), to be precise. Don't want to remember that stuff...

And, somebody, please, send Puts a Minolta 5400 (either variety) pronto. That Portra scan's so bad Kodak should sue.


- Barrett
Click to expand...

You beat be me to it. HS Ektachrome, process E4, had grain the size of golf balls! KII was king then.
Tom
 
High speed Ektachrome was in the early/mid 70s. Regular Ektachrome was 64, same as Kodachrome X. The Ektachromes were E4, Kodachromes were K-12. I never shot with E3 films.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom