ISO1600 Comparison

[Richard Man]

ISO 1600 Comparison

One is of Delta 3200, one if Tri-X, both shot at ISO1600, developed using Xtol 1+2. See if you can pick up which is which. Just quick Pakon scans

 

[Frank53]

With a scanner like that and such small files, every film lookes the same.
Regards,
Frank

 

[Richard Man]

With a scanner like that and such small files, every film lookes the same.
Regards,
Frank

I can scan them with Flextight, but seriously those two images look "the same" to you?

 

[mjork]

The Delta should have more shadow detail and more grain. In these scans of entirely different scenes I can't make out a difference in the former. But there is more visible grain in the top scan. So that's going to be Delta 3200.

 

[JensH]

Hi,

i guess the second is TriX, it looks contrasty in non hard illumination.
In the first picture film had lower gamma in hard light, so Delta 3200@1600.

Best
Jens

 

[Richard Man]

The Delta should have more shadow detail and more grain. In these scans of entirely different scenes I can't make out a difference in the former. But there is more visible grain in the top scan. So that's going to be Delta 3200.

I will recan them with the Flextight. I didn't take them "as a test", so yes, the scene lighting are very different. Nevertheless, they look so different that and as Tri-X has certain reputations, I just got the idea to make these photos into a test. Better scans forthcoming....

 

[MattKing]

I can scan them with Flextight, but seriously those two images look "the same" to you?

No - the procedure of first scanning and then throwing away almost all the scanned information in order to fit within the requirements of this site make it almost impossible to tell.
And of course the light and subject are both different.

 

[Frank53]

I can scan them with Flextight, but seriously those two images look "the same" to you?

Yes, each picture could be any of those films and many others. + what Matt said.
Regards,
Frank

 

[Ces1um]

top one- tri-x? that's my thought.

 

[MattKing]

For clarity, there is nothing wrong with your coming to your own conclusions, because you (mostly) control the parameters of your own workflow - light, subject, film, camera, exposure, development, scanner, scanning software, post-processing, end mode of presentation.
It is, however, extremely difficult to illustrate and explain your results here or on most web based media.

 

[MattKing]

For clarity, there is nothing wrong with your coming to your own conclusions, because you (mostly) control the parameters of your own workflow - light, subject, film, camera, exposure, development, scanner, scanning software, post-processing, end mode of presentation.
It is, however, extremely difficult to illustrate and explain your results here or on most web based media.

 

[Richard Man]

FWIW, here are the two images, scanned using the Flextight

 

[Richard Man]

Something is weird with the site - saying there's an error, so we ended up with dup replies. Anyway, I don't expect this to be any definitive tests or anything like that. Just to see if certain "holy assumptions" hold up to scrutiny. Also interesting to see the replies. Thanks

 

[Ste_S]

For the same speed and latitude, If you're using a hybrid workflow, is your preference in grain the only distinguishing factor between B&W films ?

 

[Richard Man]

For the same speed and latitude, If you're using a hybrid workflow, is your preference in grain the only distinguishing factor between B&W films ?

My preference is Tri-X ;-)

 

[tedr1]

To demonstrate differences between two things there can be no other variables. In this case lighting and subject are both changed, so it is not possible to reach any conclusions. This is nuts

 

[wyofilm]

To demonstrate differences between two things there can be no other variables. In this case lighting and subject are both changed, so it is not possible to reach any conclusions. This is nuts

+1

Looks like both films are capable of capturing a scene of two females and one male.

 

[Hatchetman]

Bottom is TriX

 

[Richard Man]

Looks like there are two groups of answers:

1. Are you nuts? The scenes are different, the web images are too small, you can't tell the difference!!!
2. (3 people) Tri-X is the bottom pic.
3. (1 person) outlier, ha ha Tri-X is the top pic

and the answer is... #2 is correct. I leave it to each person to draw their conclusion on this little test, ha ha.

Mine? If you know, you know...

 

[wyofilm]

Looks like there are two groups of answers:

1. Are you nuts? The scenes are different, the web images are too small, you can't tell the difference!!!
2. (3 people) Tri-X is the bottom pic.
3. (1 person) outlier, ha ha Tri-X is the top pic

and the answer is... #2 is correct. I leave it to each person to draw their conclusion on this little test, ha ha.

Mine? If you know, you know...

Yeah, but the voting above was 6 to 5 for tri-x on top.

 

[Richard Man]

Yeah, but the voting above was 6 to 5 for tri-x on top.

Oh sorry, I didn't see anyone voted on it, ha ha. Didn't realize the poll result is not showing automatically. How about if I changed my comment to "anyone that comments that they know, they do seem to know"?

 

[MattKing]

Now I've made it a tie!
And I think you misunderstand.
You can notice all sorts of differences between the pictures.
But the entire procedure makes it unlikely that you will be able to accurately identify which of those differences are due to the film.
It is like those huge collections of flickr gallery images that are tagged with a particular film type.
They tell you nothing reliable about that film, other than giving you a sense what people seem to like to photograph with that film and then post on flickr.

 

[Richard Man]

Yes, mainly for fun, I suppose. Thanks

 

[MattKing]

Fun is always worthwhile pursuing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

top one- tri-x? that's my thought.

+1