Side-by-side comparison of BW films?

[removed account4]

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?

hi again arctic amateur

as i suggested before it isn't just the chemistry and the film but the person using the chemistry and film, that's the other side of the equation. i have given my method of processing film, in a developer to friends ... time, temperature, dilution, agitation scheme, exposure ( in camera ) so they would know what to expect ... and they wrote to me that their film was so contrasty they couldn't even make salt prints with the negatives ... these are the same negatives that when i process the film i enlarge or contact them onto paper without any filtration at all, and the print developer is not dilute to compensate for contrast &c ...

i think it would be interesting to see what one person can do with the same film and developer to show the limits of a film and developer,
but i don't think it will be hugely useful, unless the same person who is using these tests to learn about the film +chemistry &c, is the person who has been the one exposing and developing the film.

i have pretty much given up on developer tests and film tests. i just process everything i do in the same developer for the same amount of time and get negatives i am used to, and look forward to using.

photography is a strange beast ... one person's trash is another person's treasure

( referring to the lomo thread nobel was referring to )

 

[Noble]

as i suggested before it isn't just the chemistry and the film but the person using the chemistry and film, that's the other side of the equation.
i have given my method of processing film, in a developer to friends ... time, temperature, dilution, agitation scheme, exposure ( in camera )
so they would know what to expect ... and they wrote to me that their film was so contrasty they couldn't even make salt prints with the negatives ...
these are the same negatives that when i process the film i enlarge or contact them onto paper without any filtration at all, and the print developer
is not dilute to compensate for contrast &c ...

Well gross incompetence will ruin any experiment. Developing film is easy. With little effort most people can get a negative that is reasonable to print. If someone f's up that bad they are an outlier. Either they are using Tech Pan and developing it in undiluted XTOL or that are very incompetent.

 

[markbarendt]

Incidentally, how do you know HC-110 gives an "upswept" curve in general?

On HC-110 actually my info regarding its curve came from http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/index.html and threads here and from what I remember of Adams, his books have moved on though so I can't cite that reference.

I could definitely be wrong.

 

[removed account4]

Well gross incompetence will ruin any experiment. Developing film is easy. With little effort most people can get a negative that is reasonable to print. If someone f's up that bad they are an outlier. Either they are using Tech Pan and developing it in undiluted XTOL or that are very incompetent.

he wasn't incompetent or an outlier or inexperienced &c it happened to be a well seasoned photographer ...
maybe ... the way i shuffle my stack of sheet film is not the same as anyone else ?
the water i use is different than his was ?
my or his shutter was firing at a different speed and needed a cla ?

there are a lot of factors involved ...

 

[dorff]

photography is a strange beast ... one person's trash is another person's treasure

+1

 

[Noble]

he wasn't incompetent or an outlier or inexperienced &c it happened to be a well seasoned photographer ...
maybe ... the way i shuffle my stack of sheet film is not the same as anyone else ?
the water i use is different than his was ?
my or his shutter was firing at a different speed and needed a cla ?

there are a lot of factors involved ...

I wasn't trying to insult your friend. I was just making the point that if you buy the usual Ilford, Kodak, Fuji stuff and if you shoot it and develop it as per manufacturers' specifications with fresh developer even if you make a mistake or two in regards to time, temperature, and agitation you should still get something quite usable. This is what I actually said...

Either they are using Tech Pan and developing it in undiluted XTOL or that are very incompetent.

The first part of that statement is key. You said that you are using sheet film which implies manual hand held metering and a mechanical shutter on a large format camera. That is your friend's choice. I advise noobs to get a 35mm full auto camera and start off with the manufacturer's specifications. I have never seen anyone screw up with that. I am pretty sure your friend was not developing Ilford 400 shot at box speed developed in fresh D76. As fiddlers we can create all sorts of weird ways to screw up film, but my experiment proposal was to take all that stuff out of the equation and provide a baseline.

One thing I've learned over the years is that mass market B&W film has quite a bit of latitude. Being off by a half a stop or developing for a minute more or less or agitating a bit more or less usually still yields a pretty decent image. To get the results like you described takes a major screw up with regular run of the mill B&W film. Check out this very forum. How many times does someone say I shot this film and I was off by one or two stops and people just advise to develop normally? Now with weird film and techniques all bets are off.

 

[removed account4]

the funny thing is, noble,
the recommendation i gave him
was ansco 130 1:6 72º tray shuffle
for 8.5 minutes, which is pretty much
the instructions that were on every can of
gaf universal developer ( which ansco 130 is a first cousin of ).
i have been using this developer with those exact times, dilutions and temperatures
( every film i process no matter the asa, or exposure ) for about 13 years, maybe more ...

and like the recommendations on a packet of d76 or xtol i usually suggest the time is a starting point &c.
i agree, it really isn't rocket science processing a roll of film, or a stack of sheet film,
but there are factors besides developer and film ...

when i agitate a small tank i usually spin it and rotate the whole tank infront of me, like a mobius strip ...
10 seconds / minutes ... i have watched others agitate, they barely move the tank, or they shake the tank
or they roll it on the sink-floor or countless other agitation methods ... my film, processed for the same time
and my agitation scheme comes out differently, noticeably different, than the other ways i mentioned ...
i have a unicolor drum as well, and when i process in that, my film comes out differently than someone's jobo ...
with the film developing time adjusted for the rotary processor.

i agree normal development is kind of normal ... but one person's normal might look different than another's.
maybe the only way these film + developer tests can be helpful is if they are done by one person with the same developing methodology.
that is what the endless zone system or beyond the zone system ( film tests for personal film speed ) are all about, but in the end
it is a personal film speed ...

i think it would be an interesting experiment to have a thread that is only one specific type of film, and people post attachments to it showing
whatever film and a note as to how it was developed ... granted there will be a million photographs that all look the same, but there will be
a handful of images on either end of the spectrum that show the extremes the film can handle, so if someone wants extreme grain or extreme tonality
or both they can see an image like that, and use whatever method stated as a starting point, realizing their results may look nothing like the posted results ...
maybe that is what the OP was asking for ?

 

[Noble]

maybe the only way these film + developer tests can be helpful is if they are done by one person with the same developing methodology.

That is a given. I'm beginning to see what Michael R 1974 was worried about. jnanian, when one conducts a scientific experiment everything is standardized and the only variables are the ones being tested or the ones that can't be feasibly elimnated. Furthermore as I mentioned previously everything is disclosed in detail in the materials and methods section of the published report. Even things like the film's lot number and expiration date are recorded in case the manufacturer later says they had a bad batch. There is no way you would let different people agitate the developing tanks unless they have already been certified as doing it in the exact same manner. As long as sufficient movement of fluid occurred the exact method of agitation is immaterial. What is important is that it is not extreme (shaking a martini), that it is done in the exact same manner each time, and that the exact manner in which it is done is documented. In today's digital world a short clip showing how exactly the agitation was done can even be placed on the web. At most the variables should be film, developer, and length of developing time... at least as far as the developing stage is concerned. Perhaps there are other variables that can't be eliminated that I am overlooking.

Also I wouldn't use sheet film. That is not the most common type of film used. My inclination is to use medium format film because you still have a nice big negative to work with but it is still a roll film. Medium format film is great because it would be easy to set up your camera and just swap backs with different films. The problem is not every emulsion is made in medium format nor large format for that matter. So again to standardize 35mm across the board is the logical choice. Initially just to keep things reasonable the first experiment should just be with the top sellers at each ISO. But it's nice to standardize on 35mm in case one desires to do future experiments on funky emulsions only available in 35mm.

i think it would be an interesting experiment to have a thread that is only one specific type of film, and people post attachments to it showing
whatever film and a note as to how it was developed ...

The problem is a lot of us don't do too much darkroom work. You will get a lot of scanned negatives. Scanners, at least of the cheap (<$1,000) variety are black boxes. I have no idea what my scanner does to the information it reads off of my negative so there is no way for me to make a negative to negative comparison. I think there is a software package that is at least capable of holding exposure constant from scan to scan. But the fact remains you still don't know what the exposure was to begin with.

Check out this site. I use it to see if what I am doing with a new developer is at least reasonable.

 

[markbarendt]

The simplicity of your system is great John.

I've considered going strictly C-41 several times simply for that reason. In the end though I still enjoy "real" B&W films and there's no C-41 B&W in 4x5.

One of the things C-41 taught me well though was that a standardized contrast rate could essentially fill all my needs regardless of the exposure placement. I can't remember the last time I used plus or minus developing.

I need to play with the one time idea with my DD-X and WD2D+, it would be nice to have one process.

I giggled at your description of agitation, I've used a fair number of those myself.

Flickr and APUG galleries do have great value for considering lighting, composition, toning, square vs rectangular, focus and DOF type things. Similar to the end you suggest on the one film thread I have setup searches on Flickr with parameters like " TXP or (delta 400) " and it can be interesting guessing which shot is which film but, 2 of the lessons I've learned are that 1-equally acceptable and unacceptable results appear to be possible from most all films it is truly hard to see which is which, and 2-most online photos simply don't have the size or quality level that are needed to learn much about any film's grain or tonality.

 

[removed account4]

That is a given. I'm beginning to see what Michael R 1974 was worried about. jnanian, when one conducts a scientific experiment everything is standardized and the only variables are the ones being tested or the ones that can't be feasibly elimnated. Furthermore as I mentioned previously everything is disclosed in detail in the materials and methods section of the published report. Even things like the film's lot number and expiration date are recorded in case the manufacturer later says they had a bad batch. There is no way you would let different people agitate the developing tanks unless they have already been certified as doing it in the exact same manner. As long as sufficient movement of fluid occurred the exact method of agitation is immaterial. What is important is that it is not extreme (shaking a martini), that it is done in the exact same manner each time, and that the exact manner in which it is done is documented. In today's digital world a short clip showing how exactly the agitation was done can even be placed on the web. At most the variables should be film, developer, and length of developing time... at least as far as the developing stage is concerned. Perhaps there are other variables that can't be eliminated that I am overlooking.

i was using extremes in differences in agitation methods as an example because people often times see photographs
and negatives &c and they literally think their film will look "just like that" if they process it in whatever magic soup they have.

Also I wouldn't use sheet film. That is not the most common type of film used. My inclination is to use medium format film because you still have a nice big negative to work with but it is still a roll film. Medium format film is great because it would be easy to set up your camera and just swap backs with different films. The problem is not every emulsion is made in medium format nor large format for that matter. So again to standardize 35mm across the board is the logical choice. Initially just to keep things reasonable the first experiment should just be with the top sellers at each ISO. But it's nice to standardize on 35mm in case one desires to do future experiments on funky emulsions only available in 35mm.

does it really matter what format the film is? film is film is film. tri x 400, hp4, hp5, tmx fomapan, &c are exactly the same ... it is just presented differently.

The problem is a lot of us don't do too much darkroom work. You will get a lot of scanned negatives. Scanners, at least of the cheap (<$1,000) variety are black boxes. I have no idea what my scanner does to the information it reads off of my negative so there is no way for me to make a negative to negative comparison. I think there is a software package that is at least capable of holding exposure constant from scan to scan. But the fact remains you still don't know what the exposure was to begin with.

Check out this site. I use it to see if what I am doing with a new developer is at least reasonable.

the problem then is that scanners don't really show the film and everything else. if someone had a light box and took a photograph of the negative with a numeric camera
maybe that would be better because at least it is what is there, not a reinterpretation of what is there, by a magical beam of light. and even then it won't really work
because sometimes film is so dense that a light box won't shine through it. ... morgan+morgan / morgan + lester used to do these exact same types of experiments,
their results were published in a tome called the photo lab index ... i was lucky enough to have a long conversation with the chemist who
did all the lab-work. he was a brilliant guy.

http://www.amazon.com/Photo-Lab-Index-Lifetime-Edition/dp/0871000512

the only thing the PLI doesn't have is photographs made with the developers and film. if you don't have a copy of it, maybe
you should hunt one down, it is a pretty good resource.

 

[removed account4]

The simplicity of your system is great John.

I've considered going strictly C-41 several times simply for that reason. In the end though I still enjoy "real" B&W films and there's no C-41 B&W in 4x5.

One of the things C-41 taught me well though was that a standardized contrast rate could essentially fill all my needs regardless of the exposure placement. I can't remember the last time I used plus or minus developing.

I need to play with the one time idea with my DD-X and WD2D+, it would be nice to have one process.

I giggled at your description of agitation, I've used a fair number of those myself.

Flickr and APUG galleries do have great value for considering lighting, composition, toning, square vs rectangular, focus and DOF type things. Similar to the end you suggest on the one film thread I have setup searches on Flickr with parameters like " TXP or (delta 400) " and it can be interesting guessing which shot is which film but, 2 of the lessons I've learned are that 1-equally acceptable and unacceptable results appear to be possible from most all films it is truly hard to see which is which, and 2-most online photos simply don't have the size or quality level that are needed to learn much about any film's grain or tonality.

thanks mark

yeah, i try to keep things as simple as possible ... now i don't even bother agitating most of the time, i just leave the room
i forgot the "raise the plastic wand in the tank up and down or spin it" and " raise and lower the coath hanger in the tupperware of developer"

you are right, about the galleries, they give one an idea but it is hard to see the real thing ... and if we put our noses to the screen, it doesn't really
do the same thing as sticking our noses to the print

i am on the edge of doing c41 and e6 processing these days ... i always remembered hearing how crazy difficult and all consuming it was,
but it seems with the current state of packaged chemistry it is even easier than processing b/w. i had hoped i could do the first development
in coffee ... and the second development in whatever is in package #2, but i guess i can't

 

[markbarendt]

Nope, no coffee me thinks. Just did 4 rolls of C-41, the mixing/measuring is a bit more complicated than 1+4 and the like, and the temperature control requirement makes a JOBO or similar tool important if you want to do it easily and regularly. Once past that it is standard and simple and there are no worries about which C-41 film is going in the tank.

 

[removed account4]

hi mark

i am thinking of using the unicolor / arista kits and they are just mix and go
no crazy measuring ( except for the bleach+fix ) even then it seems to be mix a+b to get ab ...

i don't have more than just a sink .. no temp control jobo ( just a thermometer ) so i will have to drift
thats OK, i don't mind drifting, and liked the F+F movie tokyo drift so ..
otherwise its a water jacket and hand tanks, but i am thinking of saving the water ..

who knows maybe if i do the e6 and i figure out what dev1 is, maybe i'll substitute sumatranol130 for it instead
i don't mind a wrench in the machine if it gives me unique and fun results

probably not the right thing to post in a thread about scientific method and normal negatives

 

[jovo]

If the end result of this kind of hair splitting were to project negatives on a screen, I'd see some point to the exercise. But, since I never do that, and print as skillfully as I can on paper with the negative I've produced, there is absolutely no point to this for me. If the film's speed and grain are adequate to the task, and if I've learned its characteristics from experience, I standardize on that film, developer, time and temperature, and always produce a negative I can print from. One's time, apart from making photographs, is far better spent looking at as many photographs and paintings as you can cram into your day, and figuring out why they're so good, than in anal analyses and comparisons of minutia unless they dramatically alter the way you work.

 

[markbarendt]

hi mark

i am thinking of using the unicolor / arista kits and they are just mix and go
no crazy measuring ( except for the bleach+fix ) even then it seems to be mix a+b to get ab ...

i don't have more than just a sink .. no temp control jobo ( just a thermometer ) so i will have to drift
thats OK, i don't mind drifting, and liked the F+F movie tokyo drift so ..
otherwise its a water jacket and hand tanks, but i am thinking of saving the water ..

who knows maybe if i do the e6 and i figure out what dev1 is, maybe i'll substitute sumatranol130 for it instead
i don't mind a wrench in the machine if it gives me unique and fun results

probably not the right thing to post in a thread about scientific method and normal negatives

Drift works fine, that's where I started, not as consistent but... That's what you want.

 

[Arctic amateur]

i think it would be an interesting experiment to have a thread that is only one specific type of film, and people post attachments to it showing whatever film and a note as to how it was developed ... granted there will be a million photographs that all look the same, but there will be a handful of images on either end of the spectrum that show the extremes the film can handle, so if someone wants extreme grain or extreme tonality or both they can see an image like that, and use whatever method stated as a starting point, realizing their results may look nothing like the posted results ...
maybe that is what the OP was asking for ?

I must admit that I don't see what a hundred different photographs of a hundred different scenes taken with a hundred different cameras would tell me about the film.

I think I can refine my question even further:

What is the difference between Tri-X and HP5+?

And from all your comments, I believe the answer is:

All "normal" BW films are essentially identical. The variation caused by processing and printing far exceeds any inherent variation from film type to film type.

Thank you.

 

[markbarendt]

IMO you "get it" Arctic Amateur, I'd expand and refine that thought a bit more:

All BW films within a given speed class can provide essentially identical results. The variations caused by shooting style, lens chioce, subject choice, lighting, metering technique, exposure placement, processing and printing far exceeds any inherent variation from film type to film type.

I'd also say that that "reality" doesn't mean individuals won't find favorites for themselves.

 

[Noble]

does it really matter what format the film is? film is film is film. tri x 400, hp4, hp5, tmx fomapan, &c are exactly the same ... it is just presented differently.

How will you standardize developing tanks, reels, and agitation technique if you are using 35mm, MF, and large format? And as I said in the statement you quoted many emulsions are not available in MF and large format. If you used some emulsions in large format and some in 35mm you would just be creating a garden to feed the trolls. Trust me I've been to enough scientific conferences and watched preeminent experts debate. It would be better not to even do the experiment. Do not introduce any variables unless you either want to test them or you simply cannot feasibly eliminate them.

i was using extremes in differences in agitation methods as an example because people often times see photographs
and negatives &c and they literally think their film will look "just like that" if they process it in whatever magic soup they have.

You can't control what people will do with your data. Your job is simply to produce the best data possible and do the best analysis possible. Also in good scientific papers the authors always discuss short comings with their experiment or results. It helps to preemptively answer a bunch of letters to the editor.

If the end result of this kind of hair splitting were to project negatives on a screen, I'd see some point to the exercise. But, since I never do that, and print as skillfully as I can on paper with the negative I've produced, there is absolutely no point to this for me. If the film's speed and grain are adequate to the task, and if I've learned its characteristics from experience, I standardize on that film, developer, time and temperature, and always produce a negative I can print from.

This is an anectodal statement with no objective independently verified data to back it up. It is exactly the type of thing Michael R 1974 was warning us about...

So, people who might be fine photographers but are not experts in the science, should not write about the craft from a scientific perspective if they do not have data and details on the testing methodology to present. That is what most books and articles are filled with.

jovo, even in the decimated world of analog photography there are still a lot of people and organizations that could benefit from a good quality study. It would cost a tiny fraction of the amount of time and money people spend on debates about different emulsions and switching emulsions. Frankly I'm astonished it hasn't already been done. I really wonder what analog photography periodicals have been writing about all these decades. I suppose they didn't want to take the chance and declare not much difference between two of their sponsors. I guess mystique sells issues.

 

[jovo]

The manufacturers of film have already done good quality studies; it's their job! Second guessing them, and reinventing the wheel seems to be an awful waste of time that could otherwise be spent using the film one likes to make interesting photographs. THAT is what it's all about anyway, isn't it? Reminds me of the AA comment about a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept....work on better concepts. It makes more sense to me to learn to 'see'.

 

[markbarendt]

Noble I think you are missing a few relevant points.

First and formost is that the choice of a specific film, beyond major differences like color vs B&W and fast vs slow, has a very, very limited effect on the result when compared to say subject matter, lighting, lens selection, or a format change. IMO the only reason film choice is such a hot topic is that it is easy and cheap to switch and they are looked upon like magic bullets.

Second is that film test results are only relevant in context. What I mean by that can be demonstrated several ways. First I use two developers for various reasons, DD-X and WD2D+, in times past I used D76 and Xtol. For me, Delta 100 is a different beast in each. The tests you speak of, if Delta 100 was included, would only be relevant/interesting to me if "my" developers were included. That markedly increases the complexity of the test.

And it is not just the film/developer combo either, my choice of developer for Delta is lens specific and can be aperture specific. When Delta 100 is used with my Nikons or with my "normal" Mamiya lenses or Schnieder lenses I prefer WD2D+, when used with my Petzval or Holga or Mamiya 150SF wide open I prefer DD-X. Close the 150SF down some and I'm back to WD2D+ because the diffusion inherent when wide open disappears gradually until it is gone at f8.

In contrast to Delta 100, FP4 is much more forgiving of lens and developer changes for me. FP4+ is akin to hanging out with a good friend, the conversation is fun and easy and neither of us can do any wrong. Delta, for me, is more like hanging out with my daughter's drama queen buddies, which can be real fun or a lot like hell and I don't always know what I'm gonna get in a specific situation. That difference doesn't show up in anybody's test curves or my final prints but it is a real characteristic of those films for me.

 

[Noble]

The manufacturers of film have already done good quality studies; it's their job! Second guessing them, and reinventing the wheel seems to be an awful waste of time that could otherwise be spent using the film one likes to make interesting photographs.

I am not aware of any manufacturer that has published such a study. Have I missed something? Also when reviewing published scientific articles one always considers the prestige of the periodical and the authors' credentials and possible conflicts of interest. I realize some people will read a statement put out by a corporation or see something on Fox News and take it as the gospel truth but that is not how science is done. If an article is published in Nature it will carry far more weight than a self published statement put out by a commercial entity comparing its products to competitors. Nobody draws objective conclusions from such materials. The idea of this study is to have an open source project that is unbiased and gives details regarding every step of the process so the results can be replicated and expanded upon... or refuted.

The tests you speak of, if Delta 100 was included, would only be relevant/interesting to me if "my" developers were included. That markedly increases the complexity of the test.

Which is why I suggested that you only test the film/developer combination that the manufacturer recommends and perhaps one popular alternative. If you try and test everything you will end up testing nothing. That is one kind of analysis paralysis I mentioned earlier. And if you just choose to test everything in D76 a lot of your results will be useless for real world applications. You will not be all things to all people with such a study. Even the Framingham study didn't cover everything.

I am not suggesting such a study should alter the way every photographer works. Those that want to use the results are free to and those that wish to ignore them, can. I just think Michael R 1974 is right. There is a paucity of objective independent data in this field. Which is curious because most of it's underpinnings are just physics and chemistry.

 

[removed account4]

I must admit that I don't see what a hundred different photographs of a hundred different scenes taken with a hundred different cameras would tell me about the film.

I think I can refine my question even further:

What is the difference between Tri-X and HP5+?

And from all your comments, I believe the answer is:

All "normal" BW films are essentially identical. The variation caused by processing and printing far exceeds any inherent variation from film type to film type.

Thank you.

hi arctic amateur

i don't know what the difference is between the two films.
to be honest, i mainly use expired films, and i have a lot of them !
( currently i have tmx, tmy tmz, panatomic x, super xx, plus x, efke, adox, foma, forte,
hp4, hp5, xp2, push3200, tri x ( both 320 + 400 ) fuji superia 200-800, portra, epn, readyload, velveeta,
as well as aero plus x, arista ortho, Kodak 2430, so 132, techpan, and polaroid #55 which
i will be processing the sheets without the monobath pod ... i am sure i missed a few here and there )

i find everything i have easy to process and easy to use in my 2 developers of choice
either ansco 130 or caffenol c eyeball measured ( a little of this, and a little of that ) but made with
home roasted sumatra robusta coffee beans, with 10-15cc of stock ansco 130 ...
OLD of course, i reuse my developer for a few months without replenishing or adding
anything to it ... and stand develop every film i have, all together ( c41,e6 and b/w ) sheets
and rolls ( different tanks of course ) for 25-30 minutes
... i leave the room and when i remember to come back ... my film comes out just as i like it.

to me the differences between films is not much difference at all ... its just film with a negative on it ...

i was just trying to learn what use all these film tests would be seeing there are so many variables in play ...
i never do any film tests at all, to be honest i kind of find them to be a waste of time and effort and film
when i could be making photographs ...

======

noble ...

rather than endless tests why not just expose film and process it, and not worry about creating some perfect system that doesn't exist.
in the end it is the photographs that matter and not what was used to process them, isn't it ?
i tend to agree with jovo all this work has already been done by the film and chemistry makers in their own labs ..

 

[Noble]

noble ...

rather than endless tests why not just expose film and process it, and not worry about creating some perfect system that doesn't exist.
in the end it is the photographs that matter and not what was used to process them, isn't it ?

Rather than summarize I will simply refer you to my prior posts. I did not mention nor insinuate any of the strawmen you are addressing.

I have been happily taking photographs for years without seeing the results of a study such as the one I proposed. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

This thread is merely a thought exercise and debate. The probability of the study being conducted is zero. Its discussion is not a threat to anyone. Some people feel such an experiment is either completely useless or not worth the effort. I respectfully disagree. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please don't ascribe motives to me that simply do not exist and are in fact contrary to my known behavior.

 

[removed account4]

Rather than summarize I will simply refer you to my prior posts. I did not mention nor insinuate any of the strawmen you are addressing.

I have been happily taking photographs for years without seeing the results of a study such as the one I proposed. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

This thread is merely a thought exercise and debate. The probability of the study being conducted is zero. Its discussion is not a threat to anyone. Some people feel such an experiment is either completely useless or not worth the effort. I respectfully disagree. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please don't ascribe motives to me that simply do not exist and are in fact contrary to my known behavior.

i have no idea what your known behavior is aside from the things you have posted in this thread and your social critique in the what s lomo thread.
i never ascribed an motives or suggested you do things other than what i have gleaned from your responses ...
you already suggested such a study would be useful, and i was under the impression that you currently do something similar ...
since you linked to a website that had information you suggested you use.

seeing the film companies determine a film's iso in the same lab they do the film tests i just take their word for what its worth and don't really see the point
of intensive tests ... maybe you do? thats great ... i hope when your research is done and you publish your findings you will post a link to it,
i am sure others will find it useful as well ...

i would rather spend my time and effort making photographs on lo-fi or hi-fi photographic equipment, not studying the effects and affects of film and developers.

 

[jovo]

Ilford offers a chart of equivalencies to current and discontinued Agfa and Kodak materials. While not the kind of 'study' you are looking for, it's specific enough to go by when making choices. And, what I was pointing out is that film companies make data sheets for photographers to refer to about their own products. Beyond that, Noble, you've moved quite a way from making photographs to another discipline entirely. I prefer to make photographs. While you're doing 'science', you aren't.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/default.asp