Side-by-side comparison of BW films?

[Arctic amateur]

Has anybody done anything similar to this, for BW films?

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2010/12/a-colour-film-comparison/
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/02/colour-film-comparison-pt-two/
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/06/colour-film-comparison-pt-3/

I found a thread at (there was a url link here which no longer exists) where a similar question was asked, but the replies were mostly along the lines of "just choose one, it doesn't matter. Personally I swear by film X".

I do realise there are far too many free variables to cover all the possible variations, but it would still be possible to get a meaningful comparison if, say, you shot the same scene, same lightning with several films, developed all films in the same developer according to the manufacturer's instructions and included a calibration target in the shots to compensate for film base color and box speed deviation.

The reason I'd like to see this is that often when somebody recommends a film, they also post a picture to show a film's capability. To me such photos are meaningless alone. Every BW film will let you produce a picture with black, white, and shades gray, so a single picture normally doesn't tell me anything about the film's tonality or dynamic range. Without another picture of the same scene to compare to, a picture is just a picture.

Presumably there are enough objective and measurable differences between films that you can't make TriX look identical to TMax look identical to HP5 look identical to KB100 just by wreaking development and printing, but I'd be happy just to see different films in the same process.

 

[ahaavie]

Great link !

 

[dorff]

While for colour films the development is standardised, it is not so easy for black and white films. The conclusion from a comparison with D76 or Xtol as developer, for instance, may not hold for Rodinal, Diafine, HC-110 or whatever. I think there is a lot of info available for most films, with tonal curves published for various developers etc. If that does not satisfy you, then test your films under the relevant shooting conditions and for the developing process you are likely to be using. There are too many variables to control in a general comparison, and it will be very time consuming and expensive.

 

[Arctic amateur]

It'd still be possible to test different films using the same developer and process. I'm not asking for a comprehensive test that covers all variables, but a test that shows how the resulting picture changes when only the film is varied would still be interesting to see. Tonal curves on their own don't tell me much, I'm afraid.

 

[darkosaric]

It'd still be possible to test different films using the same developer and process.

I don't think so. For example CMS iso 20 will work best with adotech developer, you just can not make any test with different developer on that film - or that developer with different film. Same goes for kodak TP and technidol.

If you really insist - I would develop them all in Rodinal 1+100 for that test.

 

[Arctic amateur]

Thank you for splitting that hair for me, I would never have thought of that.

 

[darkosaric]

Thank you for splitting that hair for me, I would never have thought of that.

But for another side - they say that rodinal leaves grain on film as it is - so developing everything in rodinal would give good grain comparison between films.

 

[markbarendt]

Presumably there are enough objective and measurable differences between films that you can't make TriX look identical to TMax look identical to HP5 look identical to KB100 just by wreaking development and printing, but I'd be happy just to see different films in the same process.

Sure, there are measurable differences and testing regimes that could flesh them out and for the one single lone given subject in a very specific lighting setup in a lab situation you could pick your subjective fave. I say subjective because the testing parameters for "best" are always arbitrary. In the same situation it is highly likely that I'd choose a different fave, or have no fave.

In reality there are so many variables, outside a lab, that you could make a specific negative from many, if not most, B&W films and print each of them so similarly that it would be nearly impossible to tell the difference without a forensics team and a microscope.

Sure, certain generalizations can be made, for example it can be said that 100ish speed films can technically provide sharper prints that say 400 speed films.

What that statement leaves out is that nice sharp grain from a faster film, that is visible in the print, can actually make the print from say a 400ish speed film "look" sharper than the "technically superior" 100, even if its just an illusion. Along that same line, the print from the 400 speed film could actually truly have sharper subject matter because there is less motion blur because of subject or camera movement, two stops of shutter speed can make a huge difference.

 

[dorff]

It'd still be possible to test different films using the same developer and process. I'm not asking for a comprehensive test that covers all variables, but a test that shows how the resulting picture changes when only the film is varied would still be interesting to see. Tonal curves on their own don't tell me much, I'm afraid.

Black and white films are picked for their character as much as, if not more than, their absolute quality, I think. And in so doing, usually the developer is picked to complement that character, or at least not alter it appreciably. A simple comparison, such as all ISO 400 emulsions, will only tell you half the story, because many photographers use those films pushed. At box speed they behave very similarly (apart from grain), but when pushed significantly, some pull away from the others. Not that your question is not valid. My point is merely that the ways in which black and white films are used, differs quite a bit from colour films. Therefore a comparison will have quite narrow relevance. And since only you know what you want to achieve, it is hard to tell what comparison would give you the information you are looking for.

 

[markbarendt]

Even if one could sort that all out, it is then important following the "lab testing", to conduct blind image evaluation tests. Sometimes you come to a set of conclusions based on densitometry etc, but in actual image evaluation subjective factors come to the surface.

Early on I wanted Delta 100 to be my medium speed film, I wanted the newest and best tech blah, blah, blah.

Over and over and over though, even with un refrigerated abused films, FP4 consistently makes better prints for me. As much as I try to understand why, it eludes me. In the end it doesn't matter why, it just "is" for me.

 

[bdial]

Bruce Barlow did it with papers and paper developers. It turned into a pretty massive undertaking (I think he has posted about it in here). I've seen the resulting prints, and overall the differences are really subtle. In most cases it's a difference in feeling vs. something you can actually point to. Once you get past grain differences, the result for film would be similar, and probably more so.

I don't want to say such a test with B&W film isn't feasible, but it would be a huge challenge, and I don't think the result would yield much useful information except for the tester.

What is feasible, is to take two or three films of interest to you, shoot subjects that you like to shoot, process them the same, make some sample prints and see what you like. Then, take that film make some more shots and tweak the process and look at some more prints. If nothing else, once you've gone through that, you will have learned enough that a massive head to head test probably isn't necessary.

 

[removed account4]

hi Arctic amateur ...

there is a dilemma ...

i think the problem that will happen is that it isn't only the developer and the film
BUT the exposure in the camera AND the way the person is developing the film.

there is no "one size fits all " scenario when it comes to film.
i have made my tmx look like tri x, and provia look like an autochrome, just by the way
i exposed the film.

good luck !

john

 

[Noble]

To compare say FP4+ in D-76 to Adox CMS 20 in Adotech, doesn't tell me very much. The films are entirely different, as are the developers.

Well I think that there is a lot of validity to testing films in the developers that are commonly used to develop them. No one in their right mind would develop Adox CMS 20 in D-76. So what's the point of even conducting such a test? Adox CMS 20 is a bad example because we all know if money was no object we would all develop every single roll in Adotech II. So for that emulsion there is no ambiguity.

What drove Henry (a retired clinical chemist) to undertake these experiments was his observation that photographic materials and processing are unique subjects in the sense that totally unqualified experts write about technical things. And they are often taken as gospel.

That doesn't sound that unusual. Have you ever heard US politicians talk about just about anything?

Bruce Barlow did it with papers and paper developers. It turned into a pretty massive undertaking (I think he has posted about it in here). I've seen the resulting prints, and overall the differences are really subtle. In most cases it's a difference in feeling vs. something you can actually point to. Once you get past grain differences, the result for film would be similar, and probably more so.

Maybe... maybe not. I'm sure the differences are less than some would like to believe. Having said that I've seen some side by side tests that were revealing. I would do something like ISO 100 and lower films in Rodinal. And other films perhaps in the manufacturer's recommended soup and then compare. At any rate I would try and soup stuff in developers that are commonly used with that film. Or maybe one test with the commonly used developer and one with the manufacturer's recommended developer. To be honest with you there really aren't that many emulsions and developers. I would just use the top two or three at each speed. This would be a useful experiment for a photography magazine to carry out. I would purchase photography magazines if they had useful articles like this versus a bunch of repetitive gear articles.

 

[Arctic amateur]

Thank you for all your replies, and I'd like to apologise for my sarcastic reply to darkosaric. It looks rather ruder now than I intended when I wrote it, regrettably. I'm sorry.

If I may try to qualify my question a bit - I'm not interested in which films are objectively and measurably better than other films, I know that such a question is mostly meaningless. These quotes touch upon the question I'm trying to ask:

Black and white films are picked for their character as much as, if not more than, their absolute quality, I think.

[...] FP4 consistently makes better prints for me. As much as I try to understand why, it eludes me. In the end it doesn't matter why, it just "is" for me.

i have made my tmx look like tri x, and provia look like an autochrome, just by the way i exposed the film.

What I'm interested in is the character, or "feeling", of films. I don't have any specific scene in mind and I'm not searching for a suitable film for a purpose, I want to see what this elusive "character" is simply out of curiosity. If different films have different character, there must be a difference, if subtle, in the final image. Is it the spectral sensitivity? Contrast? Latitude? I can read about differences and kind of understand descriptions of a film's properties, but it's so much easier to understand with two pictures side by side.

Of course many other things can change the final result, which is why I was trying to say "don't change anything except the film". Difficult, certainly. Perhaps sending the films to a pro lab would make it easier to ensure consistent development?

 

[dpurdy]

I am big on side by side comparisons and do a lot of them. However I do them with very specific goals. I think you are right in that side by side comparisons will show you something you otherwise can't see. For instance I know I want to use Acros, so first I do density tests with the developers I am interested in so that I can get the development exactly as I would use it. I already know the developers I want to consider. Then I set or find a situation and shoot a couple of rolls that I can cut in the dark and develop in the different developers. Then I make prints and mark them on the back in pencil. After they are dry and I don't know which are which I study them until I see differences. Then I look at the back and reveal what they are and then I study them again.
It is useful to me to do this because I have very limited variables. If you wanted to compare a few films then it would be useful to already know what developer you want to use.
For instance I knew I wanted to use Beutlers developer for a project and I needed to use a 400 speed film. So I got several 400 speed films and figured out the correct exposure and development times for all and then did a side by side comparison on several situations/subjects. I was able to learn which had the most acceptable grain and which had the best highlight detail and which had the higher or lower mid range tones.
The problem most people are pointing out here is that there are too many variables with several films and several developers. I agree with that.

 

[Ambar]

Interesting you should post this!
I've been considering such a test for the past month and I'm now trying to attain all the necessary tools for such..
The idea behind this has been to test the statement, Exposure controls density, but development controls density and contrast. I'm not try to test the veracity of this, but the quality and extent of manipulation possible.
Yes I am very well aware about the variations in emulsion and developer combos but in reality I'm not interested in discovering a universal theory of everything photographic. Just the developer/film combo I'm interested in.
Films I like PanF+ and HP5/Tri-X (decided eventually to stick with HP5). Developer available to me that works nicely with both? Rodinal (Adonal to be more specific).

Let the games Begin..
The general parameters behind this is set, I will construct a standard and controlled scene (which will include a target). The target area's lighting will be metered as zero at full box speed, then extensive bracketing will take place.
The idea is.. Photograph a control scene at several different exposure indexes. Say for example, -4,-3,-2,-1,0,+1,+2.
Repeat this several times and develop each strip for different a different amount of time. Say for example. -60%,-30%,-15%,0 (manufacturers suggestion), +15%,+30%,+60%.

I am quite aware that there is some waste involved with this. As a scene that is seriously under exposed and under develop will produce little to no results. But the idea is to produce a scientific test, or as scientific as possible. So temperature, agitation, general processing routine, scanning (of course), and all other variables be standardized.

Hopefully once I'm done, I'll have a menu of options indicating the exact look I want for a given developer/film combo.
What I do need help with is, how much of each.
I decided quite easily that I should vary the exposure in one stop increments, for simple ease of application afterwards. I wanted to maintain waste to a minimal and my idea would be to have 6 exposures per development strip. HP5 rated at 3200 (-3), 1600 (-2), 800 (-1), 400 (0), 200 (+1), 100 (+2), for example. PanF+ rated at 400 (-3), 200 (-2), 100 (-1), 50 (0), 25 (+1), 12 (+2). (even though PanF+ rated at 400 sounds really silly)
But, how much should I vary ("bracket") development time?? Standard for 0 (iso 400 and 50) and how much plus or less? I've heard figures like 15% for each stop but sometimes that doesn't look right.. Maybe it's not a linear function? I would rather it be a constant between both films but I'm open for whatever works!

Any help will be VERY welcome! Thoughts, comments or criticisms as well!

 

[dpurdy]

How did you come to the conclusion you needed a Beutler developer before choosing the film?

I have a lot of experience with developers and films because I am old and have spent my whole life working with photography and darkrooms. I became a big fan of beutlers back in the day when you could still get Agfa 25 in 4x5. I still find it hard to beat beutlers with fine grain film. Not just for sharpness but for the mid tone density. I switched to Pryocat HD a couple of years ago to see if I could work the same negs in silver or platinum. I have a hard time putting my finger on what the "feel" of pyro is. I am still not sure I like it. I know that I get really clean unmottled film but the quality of the prints is inconsistent for me in that sometimes it is great and sometimes it seems flat and I don't know why. I am thinking of doing this old side by side testing with pyro and beutlers with my sheet films (fp4 and tmax 400) and my 120 acros. Just to see if I can get a better grip on the pyro. The other thing is that I have done these tests a lot of times and it is always surprising, once printed, just how little difference there usually is.
Dennis

 

[mfohl]

So Mr. Purdy, where can I find Beutler developer? The only sources I find are Photographers' Formulary and maybe Freestyle. Is that right?

Thanks in advance.

-- Mark

 

[dpurdy]

So Mr. Purdy, where can I find Beutler developer? The only sources I find are Photographers' Formulary and maybe Freestyle. Is that right?

Thanks in advance.

-- Mark

You only need Sodium Carbonate, Metol, Sodium Sulfite and Potassium iodide. (and a scale) The chemicals are available lots of places but Photo Formulary has them.
I have used Sodium Carbonate from the grocery store as Arm and Hammer laundry additive or from the art store as soda ash dye fixative.

You mix stock of part A and part B and use them 1-1-8 (or 10)
You can find the formula with google.

Dennis

 

[destroya]

i did a very NON- scientific experiment kinda like what you asked. I used DXO Fimpack and just switched to every film and looked at the difference. It really told me nothing but it was fun.

 

[Noble]

I'm referring to technical/scientific fields and literature.

Well then you aren't talking about photography. I find politics tamer and more factual than a lot of discussions that go on in photography. A recent thread on lomography is a prime example.

The problem most people are pointing out here is that there are too many variables with several films and several developers. I agree with that.

If you only pick the popular emulsions at each speed and the popular and recommended developers it is not that big of a project, particularly for a photography periodical. You don't have to test every emulsion with every developer. As has been stated there is no point in testing Adox CMS 20 with anything other than Adotech II. ISO 100 would probably be the toughest area because so many people make decent ISO 100 B&W film. But most of those emulsions are commonly developed in Rodinal.

And besides if it was a periodical they could do a head to head Rodinal extravaganza and do everything from ISO 25 to ISO 3200 in Rodinal. Then a few issues later do XTOL. Then a few issues later do D76. I mean what are these magazines doing if they aren't doing tests like that?! Who in their right mind wouldn't buy those issues? To me every time a new emulsion comes out if I was running a magazine I would wait a few months to get some feedback on what people are developing it in and how. Then I would do a test on multiple rolls with multiple developers and publish the results. Talk about useful information.

 

[Noble]

Well, knowing what I know now, I wouldn't buy it. I mean, I'd purchase it, but I wouldn't buy it. Why do you think the magazines would do a good job with this? What are you basing that on - Photo/Darkroom Techniques magazine? That magazine was all about technical articles which were usually based on nothing more than anectodal ramblings by noted photographers.

There is nothing in my posts about merely taking someones word for it. I see you have an axe to grind with a particular periodical. I didn't have a particular periodical in mind. Frankly what I was thinking was a periodical funding and paying someone such as a university professor or someone who runs a large photo lab to carry out the tests. I read scientific journals all the time and have been a part of multiple scientific research projects. Developing film is pretty simple in comparison. As with all scientific journal articles you will write your materials and methods section. As long as you lay out your protocol and stick to it you will have some useful data at the end. Now the exact number and manner of inversions will be debated and someone can do a separate test to see if number and manner of inversions does in fact make a difference. The thing with scientific studies is you don't try and cure HIV in one study. You do a general landmark study that answers some questions but actually raises even more. Then you do some more studies to fine tune your understanding.

You can do tests and publish all you like. Is the information useful? For example, how will you test for film speeds and contrast? To ISO standards, or will you do a Zone System test filled with flare, falloff and other errors? Etc Etc concerning every aspect.

I see you suffer from analysis paralysis. I would first breath and calm down. As I said start with the most popular emulsions at each speed. And yes I would shoot them at box speed. I would also develop them according to manufactures specifications as well as with popular alternatives. Basically make it as simple and cost effective as possible. If there are gross trends you will find them. If there aren't then even that is a result. Frankly as others have stated I bet the differences are so subtle that for the majority of the emulsions, developers, and developing techniques you are going to have to do all sorts of extreme things to see an appreciable difference in the prints. Some emulsions regardless of what you do will have finer grain than their ISO equivalents from other manufactures. So it isn't really going to matter which developer you use or what your technique is. That relationship will not change between the two films. That's the type of thing that will jump out from such an initial experiment.

So the main point is avoid analysis paralysis. Start simple and look for trends... or debunk false tales of trends. After you get your results back as with any scientific endeavor it will open up new vistas for further exploration and actually close off other vistas. For example in the ISO 100 test which will be the most extensive you may discover that grain or resolution wise there is nothing to be gained outside of the top three emulsions. Maybe you will decide no further testing is really needed beyond the Fuji, Kodak, and Ilford offerings. Or maybe you will decide grain and resolution are close and other things like dynamic range and contrast are more of a differentiating factor.

There are some highly specific things that you will not be able to get an answer to. That does not mean you shouldn't do the simple experiment to at least answer some questions. Anyone that has developed a few rolls of film knows it is not complicated. It really is a scientific experiment worthy of junior high school students.

 

[markbarendt]

What I'm interested in is the character, or "feeling", of films. I don't have any specific scene in mind and I'm not searching for a suitable film for a purpose, I want to see what this elusive "character" is simply out of curiosity. If different films have different character, there must be a difference, if subtle, in the final image. Is it the spectral sensitivity? Contrast? Latitude? I can read about differences and kind of understand descriptions of a film's properties, but it's so much easier to understand with two pictures side by side.

Of course many other things can change the final result, which is why I was trying to say "don't change anything except the film". Difficult, certainly. Perhaps sending the films to a pro lab would make it easier to ensure consistent development?

I'm actually going to say that taking the developer out of the equation and matching CI may be a mistake.

For example TXP and HC 110 are complimentary, the film and the developer naturally lean toward the same type of curve, a long beautiful toe and great separation of tones middle to high. It is a classic combo. TX/HC110 similarly.

Delta or TMax in DD-X or TMax developer will have a shorter toe, better separation in the shadows, but the straight line may actually be slightly flatter, so the mid to high tones might look flatter, if developed to the same CI. These are "classic combos" too.

Adjusting the CI to match the "snap" in the mid to high tones of TXP/HC110 or some personal best CI would provide a more practical result, a better demonstration of character.

 

[markbarendt]

Shaping the curve (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Post 10 has a really good graphic.

 

[Noble]

Noble: I have no specific ax to grind. Photo Techniques was just an example. It's not just magazines. Books by photographers are generally the same. I'm not doubting your sceintific knowledge. What I'm saying is that while developing film may be easy, the science behind it is not, nor is it easy to generate statistically significant data and interpret it properly. The results are often surprising too.

All you have to do is choose the top two or three emulsions at a given ISO and develop them to manufacturer's specifications and one popular alternative. That is a good baseline study that will yield a wealth of information and you can plan future areas of study based on the results. And a chunk of what you present to the reader doesn't even have to be objective. You can lay out samples of all the images and let the reader decide what they prefer.

The results are often surprising too.

So basically it is like any other scientific experiment.

When you say the graininess relationship between two films will not change based on the developer, how do you know this?

That was just a hypothetical example. I was saying IF that was true it would become apparent fairly quickly. If the relationship does change then that is a result as well. My point is just do the basic experiment. As long as you are detailed in your description of the experiment and you stick to your protocols you will come away with useful information. The only issue is you must tell people not to over read into results. Take results for what they are. I see that happen a lot when the lay press gets a hold of scientific experiment results. They extrapolate way too far.

What I am saying is that it is very difficult to do and that definitive conclusions are hard to come to.

Developing 15 rolls of film to manufacturer's specifications is not hard. I don't think anyone that has developed 10 rolls of film would agree with your statement. Results that vary greatly will be obvious and we will be able to draw conclusions. And if they don't vary greatly that is a result as well.