If you could design the perfect B&W comparison test?

[FoidPoosening]

What would it be? I've been thinking about doing this for a while, but think I may actually go through with it either this summer or next. Just picked up 30 different types of B&W film (brand, speed, etc) to start with. I think by the end it will be closer to 40-50 types in all. All 35mm for now. Let's say I have some other films stored away in the freezer.

Here's a few questions I'd like input on, and I'll probably pull a bit from everyone's responses:

1. What is your ideal test shot(s) for comparing B&W films?
2. What sort of details would you like to see in a writeup? Exposure data, crops at certain magnifications, other technical details, etc?
3. What sort of characteristics would you like evaluated? Grain, latitude, low-light performance, cost, etc?
4. Should this be done with just a single lens for simplicity sake, or?
5. What else?

Right now my idea is to keep as much constant as possible except the film as the only independent variable, so I'm thinking of the following:

• Same camera for all (M3, just CLA'd last month).
• Summicron 50mm f2 lens (see question #4 above).
• At least one, if not up to a dozen test/control shots of the same things keeping conditions as uniform as possible (re #1 above). Sorry, but the rest of each roll will be for my enjoyment.
• Having all the development and scanning done at my local lab in NYC. Would be open to developing myself, but feel I don't have the expertise to keep things as constant as a lab would.

At the end of the day, I'd like to do this for fun. But if I'm doing it for fun, I wouldn't mind encompassing in some suggestions from the community to make it all a bit more informative. Thanks everybody!

 

[MattKing]

Getting someone else to do the scanning may make your tests useless, unless you can work out with them a custom workflow that removes any "automatic" adjustments.
Shadow rendition, highlight rendition, mid-tone rendition and spectral sensitivity would be the things that would interest me.
Along with how much processed negatives tend to curl.
I would prefer results that involved a readily available, frequently used developer.

 

[FoidPoosening]

Getting someone else to do the scanning may make your tests useless, unless you can work out with them a custom workflow that removes any "automatic" adjustments.
Shadow rendition, highlight rendition, mid-tone rendition and spectral sensitivity would be the things that would interest me.
Along with how much processed negatives tend to curl.
I would prefer results that involved a readily available, frequently used developer.

Hmm, interesting. So unless the scanning is done in a custom workflow to essentially "turn off" any automatic adjustments, i'd be accidentally uniforming a lot of my results with said adjustment? Thanks very much, I would not have considered that.

Those I've put in bold, how would you suggest gathering data for them in a consistent way? Curl is a unique idea I have some old Kodak Recording film 2475 from the 70s and it is extremely curly and frustrating.

 

[MattKing]

As for spectral sensitivity, the fairly classic approach is to use as a subject something with a wide variety of colours and a wide variety of brightnesses - the proverbial fruit salad subject - post a colour version that is fairly faithful, and then post examples of how one film tends to favour (i.e. build density) of one colour more than another.
It is a comparative approach.
As far as the different renditions are concerned, the tests would be designed to show how the films actually look. They would be a comparative test too.
IMHO that is far more important than anything you can measure with a microscope or a densitometer.

 

[warden]

Here's a few questions I'd like input on, and I'll probably pull a bit from everyone's responses:

1. What is your ideal test shot(s) for comparing B&W films?

Wrigley field at sunset. Naked woman on a pony, have her play the ukulele.

Well you asked.

 

[spijker]

Wrigley field at sunset. Naked woman on a pony, have her play the ukulele.

 

[Bill Burk]

This was the best test shot I ever setup...

Plus you should include sensitometric exposures so you can graph the results effectively.

View attachment 154549

 

[FoidPoosening]

This was the best test shot I ever setup...

Plus you should include sensitometric exposures so you can graph the results effectively.

View attachment 154549

Thanks for the idea. I like the idea of the sekonic sheet and then a second frame with shadows and such in it. I'm not too familiar with sensitometric exposures. Could you please provide some more information, links, or advice here?

 

[slackercrurster]

Sounds good. Close ups, med and long distance.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Thanks for the idea. I like the idea of the sekonic sheet and then a second frame with shadows and such in it. I'm not too familiar with sensitometric exposures. Could you please provide some more information, links, or advice here?

Well, that is really something you should be firm in before attempting what you are attempting or you are destined to fail or at least your results will not survive peer scrutiny

 

[Bill Burk]

Here’s my guide which includes a bit of sensitometry

http://beefalobill.com/imgs/20150812 CallingYourShot-DividedAttention.pdf

 

[Bill Burk]

You might want to have a scene of a pond with a willow tree and house in the background. That’s one of Kodak’s standard pictures.

Instead of shooting every test live, Kodak made up a set of positives and contact-printed them onto all the film they were testing so they could have more control over the image quality.

 

[Bill Burk]

Sensitometry isn’t scary. It’s just making an exposure through a stepped neutral density filter that goes from clear to so dark only 1/1000th of the light gets through. With that filter in contact to the film you make a few of those exposures on a strip or sheets and develop for some different times.

Then measure the densities and look at the results. At least, you find out the best time to develop. At best you get a full family of curves that define how the film responds to light and development.

Doesn’t sound that complicated does it?

 

[jtk]

Amusing....all that digital technology evidently at the heart of allegedly analog photos, as displayed only on this digital device...the one we're looking at right now