Comparing films

[alanrockwood]

One thing I would like to see is some good film comparisons. By "good" I mean films that are developed to the same contrast index after shooting the same object, and then the images are directly compared in various ways, such as the look of the overall scene, graininess in a zoomed in region, detail capture in zoomed images, and so forth. Film density curves as a function of exposure would also be nice.

I have seen very few studies of this sort. There was one I saw comparing fp4+ and fomapan 200 shot at about the same or nearly the same iso. The results were pretty similar, but not quite the same. There are a few others out there as well, but I haven't seen many. There seem to be more film density curves as a function of contrast seem to be more common than comparisons based on pictoral (or is it pictorial?) scenes.

A similar study using different developers would be useful. In this case the same scene should be shot using iso should be adjust for each developer to give the same contrast index, and then the resulting images compared in various ways.

What do you think?

 

[trendland]

I made such tests years ago.It was a normal procedure of some photo magazines during the 70th.
I remember it was most exiting with some films in regard of grain.
I did the comparison of grain structure with zoom in prints of original (wall projected) sizes 2,80 Meter x 4,60 (around this size) with 35mm films.
And I can tell you PanF was one of the best in that way (smalest grain).
Agfa 25 wasn't the faivourite in this comparison (both with E.I. 25 Asa).
Today they are allways mixing it with digital because a full film comparison is to expansive.
But perhaps you will Do this next with some new bw emulsions?
with regards

 

[Doremus Scudder]

... What do you think?

Alan,

I think you should go for it. Please post your results here after you do your tests for the rest of us to marvel at!

Doremus

 

[David Brown]

I went through a period of testing about 10-12 years ago. (Inspired a lot by discussions in this forum!) Different films, different developers; different papers, different developers, etc.

One thing I stuck with was only changing one variable at a time. Multiple films by using a camera mounted on a tripod and changing film backs. Multiple rolls of the same film in the same way to do different developers. One negative on different papers in one developer. Same paper in different developers.

And?

There were differences – some very subtle. Which was “best” or “better” was simply a matter of taste. But the most important thing I learned was that no one (No One!) could tell what film/developer/paper I used simply from the prints. There are so many variables in actual use and variations in technique that one can almost make anything look like anything else.

Sure, Rodinal gave me more grain. T-grains films gave less. Ansco 130 looked different than Dektol. But you had to have side by side labeled comparisons for anyone, including experienced darkroom workers, to really tell big differences, and then, as I said, it became subjective.

So, no conclusions. I went back to KISS. Industry standard developers, papers that are readily available, film based on needed ISO for the lighting conditions, and I just keep making photographs.

 

[trendland]

Alan,

I think you should go for it. Please post your results here after you do your tests for the rest of us to marvel at!

Doremus

I am a little confused Doremus ?
What is to say against Alan's point?
with regards

PS : Perhaps I just missunderstood your - so it is a good idea on comparable film tests with different parameters (without scanning ) ?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The problem with such comparisons is that they would be completely subjective. The are too many Joe Blow's already on APUG giving their opinions. As far as photo magazines once doing it -- they had the equipment to do it properly. Joe Blow doesn't.

BTW, Part of the problem is people using scanners!!!

 

[faberryman]

It's not rocket science: shoot a couple of different rolls and see what you like the best. The fact that there are many fewer options now just means the job is easier. If you are shooting MF or LF, it is even easier still. Honestly, if you are going to pick films by looking at scans on the internet instead of personal evaluation, you are already traveling down the wrong road.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

The problem with such comparisons is that they would be completely subjective. The are too many Joe Blow's already on APUG giving their opinions. As far as photo magazines once doing it -- they had the equipment to do it properly. Joe Blow doesn't. Part of the problem is using scanners!!!

I agree with you. It is subjective. Saying a film is the "best" is like saying the same for wine. After years of trying various types of film, I find my favorites. What I do know is that I don't like tabular grain film. But for some, they love it. To make things a bit more complicated, film developer is part of the equation too. But playing is always fun. Lately, I've been partial to Foma film and paper.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

It's not rocket science: shoot a couple of different rolls and see what you like the best. The fact that there are many fewer options now just means the job is easier. If you are shooting MF or LF, your job is even easier.

+1000

 

[MattKing]

I agree with you. It is subjective. Saying a film is the "best" is like saying the same for wine.

It is more fun to test wine.

 

[Colin Corneau]

I defy anyone to look at a print, or even a negative under a loupe (without seeing the film labelling up top), and tell me which is which and what developer.

Anyone.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I defy anyone to look at a print, or even a negative under a loupe (without seeing the film labelling up top), and tell me which is which and what developer.

Anyone.

It's like a blind wine tasting. But I would think like most test it would have to side by side comparison of the same shot but with different developer and film combos.

 

[alanrockwood]

It's like a blind wine tasting. But I would think like most test it would have to side by side comparison of the same shot but with different developer and film combos.

Yes, that's what I have in mind, with things standardized in certain ways so they are truly comparable, such as developed to the same G-bar or contrast index and also photographing the same image under the same lighting conditions. This type of standardization of image acquisition and processing adds more objectivity to the process but still allows subjectivity at the evaluation stage of the image, so each person can decide what they like best.

Also, regarding comparing different film types and developer types there are a couple of ways to approach this. One is to do the 2x2 matrix of film and developer type. This approach is the Rolls Royce approach that takes a lot of effort and resources. A less complete but more manageable way would be to compare different films with the same developer, and then compare different developers with the same film. The risk here is missing the magic combination of film type and developer. An in-between method would be to gather a few anecdotal opinions on which films work best with which developers, and then make the comparison using the anecdotal combinations.

On the other hand if the property of interest is film speed one might standardize against the same film speed using the manufacturers recommended processing time rather than contrast. Alternatively, one might process to the same process and compare the speed based on the toe of the curve. It really all depends what properties one wants to compare, but some sort of standardization in the process is really the only way to be able to make meaningful comparisons.

What I don't find particularly useful are comments that some people make, such as "I like Quadruple-S Pan developed in superduperal better than Maxi-Z-Pan developed in not-bad-enol because of the superior tonality of Quadruple-X Pan" because there are no proper comparison images that I can look at to make my judgement, and beside that, I don't even know what "tonality" means. Also virtually useless (to me at least) are comparisons showing photos using different films but photographing subjects that are not the same or taken under lighting conditions that are not the same.

 

[foc]

I defy anyone to look at a print, or even a negative under a loupe (without seeing the film labelling up top), and tell me which is which and what developer.

Anyone.

I agree although looking at the film base (without edge markings) of a neg can give an indication of brand and speed.

I like the wine analogy.

 

[alanrockwood]

I agree although looking at the film base (without edge markings) of a neg can give an indication of brand and speed.

I like the wine analogy.

The wine analogy is interesting because a number of studies have shown that it is almost impossible to rank wines according to "quality" in blind taste tests. For example, even an "expert" can seldom reliably rank wines by price or other perceived quality measure based on a blind taste test alone. I don't drink wine, but if I did this would be a good reason to not pay the extra price for the premium bottles... or maybe cheat and buy one expensive bottle and refill it with the cheap or medium priced stuff when the expensive stuff runs out. Your guests will never know the difference.

 

[Colin Corneau]

The print is everything. And you can't look at it and distinguish much at all.

Find what works for you. What fits with your aesthetic and preferences. That's the difference between a gadget twiddler and an artist.

 

[alanrockwood]

the difference between a gadget twiddler and an artist.

...the difference between a gadget twiddler and an artist.

Mea culpa. I guess you could call me a bit twiddler and artist wanna be that isn't much of an artist, or a very good bit twiddler for that matter.

 

[alanrockwood]

I made such tests years ago.It was a normal procedure of some photo magazines during the 70th.
I remember it was most exiting with some films in regard of grain.
I did the comparison of grain structure with zoom in prints of original (wall projected) sizes 2,80 Meter x 4,60 (around this size) with 35mm films.
And I can tell you PanF was one of the best in that way (smalest grain).
Agfa 25 wasn't the faivourite in this comparison (both with E.I. 25 Asa).
Today they are allways mixing it with digital because a full film comparison is to expansive.
But perhaps you will Do this next with some new bw emulsions?
with regards

Was Panatomic-X still in production when you did the test? If so, was it in the test, and if so how did it compare?

 

[Colin Corneau]

Mea culpa. I guess you could call me a bit twiddler and artist wanna be that isn't much of an artist, or a very good bit twiddler for that matter.

Was not meant, at all, as an attack on anyone, yourself most of all.

I just lament what gets lost when we lose sight of what photography is and what it can do.

 

[alanrockwood]

Was not meant, at all, as an attack on anyone, yourself most of all.

I just lament what gets lost when we lose sight of what photography is and what it can do.

No offense taken... more of a joke than anything with a bit of self realization reality included.

 

[trendland]

Was Panatomic-X still in production when you did the test? If so, was it in the test, and if so how did it compare?

You got me Alan : Pantomic-x might have had smalest grain in comparison.
But I can't remember - perhaps it wasn't
just avaible in 135 ? (late 70th).
with regards

 

[John51]

Everybody knows by now that Apples have to be compared to Apples. You do a load of tests to determine how best to process 'Apple' but through no fault of your own, 'Apple' is no longer available. The closest you can get is 'Apple+' and it is not quite the same so you have to start testing all over again. We are not going to live enough to shoot/process enough film to know the absolute truth.

Choose a 'Standard'. eg. FP4+, D76 1+1 developed for x minutes with y agitation.That is your baseline. Every other film, or maybe one film in three, do something different. If a regular 'Alternate' keeps giving you more pleasing results, upgrade that to your 'Standard' and junk FP4+/D76/1+1/whatever.

 

[alanrockwood]

Here's an example that comes pretty close to what I am talking about. It does not have all of the elements of a standardized test comparison, but it comes closer than any others I have been able to find. This particular one compares fomapan 200 to fp4+

https://whystoptime.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/foma-200-vs-ilford-fp4/

One thing I would criticize about the test is that it looks like the two films were not processed to give the same contrast. The fomapan 200 had darker shadows and lighter light tones. Nevertheless, at first glance the prints look pretty similar. I'll bet if they were processed to the same contrast index or gbar the two prints would be even more similar.

Somewhat greater differences are seen when zooming in.

I think comparisons like this are very useful information to help someone choose a film, or even to just study for sake of curiosity. To me it beats spending a lot of my time and money by providing some useful information without me needing to go through all of the testing myself, or as a preliminary survey before doing my own testing.

 

[Rudeofus]

There is a very interesting comparison between different film/developer combinations here. After reading so many times, that developer choice doesn't make all that much of a difference, I was stunned to see how different results actually are, and how different films have different optimal developers.

 

[alanrockwood]

There is a very interesting comparison between different film/developer combinations here. After reading so many times, that developer choice doesn't make all that much of a difference, I was stunned to see how different results actually are, and how different films have different optimal developers.

That web page is great.