Film stock comparison/tests

[jongrimson]

I'm wondering if anywhere/anyone has done controlled testing to compare various film stocks with same camera, exposure, lens, etc. to really compare the differences. In the digital video world there are tons of presets to mimic different film stock looks, but does anyone know of any real analog tests for still photography film stock?

 

[Phil_F_NM]

You can find a few here on the forum with enough searching.

Phil Forrest

 

[Roger Hicks]

Um... Isn't it called the Zone System?

And is life long enough to waste on endless testing instead of shooting?

Pretty much any film can be made to work. Let's assume 20 films and 20 developers: that's 400 tests. Now take 5 different metering techniques. That's 2000. Now choose 3 different papers and 3 different enlargers. That's 18,000. Two different enlarger lenses? 36,000....

And unless you use exactly the same camera, lens, meter, metering technique, film, developer, enlarger, enlarger lens, etc., to take pictures of exactly the same subjects, how much use will any of these tests be to you?

Cheers,

R.

 

[gns]

A college class I took did something like that. The class broke into teams of 2 students. Each team was responsible for a given film/developer combo and ran all the tests for exposure index & dev times, made DlogE curves, etc. then we shared all of our results with the entire class. In the end, I just kept on with TriX & D76, same as before.

 

[Rob-F]

I just go by general impressions; some thing like, Tri-X for speed and great tonality; HP-5 is too flat in my hands; T-Max 400 for high sharpness in a fast film; Delta 400 for a combination of sharpness with tonality; Plus-X (I have some left) or FP-4 for contrast with fine grain . . . (etc).

These are just things I believe. They may not all be worth repeating.

I agree with Roger. Life is too short for all that testing. Shoot a roll, see what you get. If it's not what you want, change something next time.

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got."
---Moms Mabley

 

[semi-ambivalent]

Moms Mabley

She was dope.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Um... Isn't it called the Zone System?

And is life long enough to waste on endless testing instead of shooting?

Pretty much any film can be made to work. Let's assume 20 films and 20 developers: that's 400 tests. Now take 5 different metering techniques. That's 2000. Now choose 3 different papers and 3 different enlargers. That's 18,000. Two different enlarger lenses? 36,000....

And unless you use exactly the same camera, lens, meter, metering technique, film, developer, enlarger, enlarger lens, etc., to take pictures of exactly the same subjects, how much use will any of these tests be to you?

Cheers,

R.

I use the Zone system for exposure and development. It is too crude to tell you the precise tonal rendering of a film; basically it determine the right film speed and developing time and the right exposure. I've found to see differences between different film and developer combinations its best just to shoot a bunch of it after I do the initial test for EI and developing, then just look at the photos compared to stuff done in similar light on other films.

 

[mfogiel]

Once you could find characteristic curves and RMS granularity plus MTF measures. Maybe you will still find something relative to the mainstream Kodak and Ilford films. However, as stated above, life is short, pushing film is best done by buying a digital camera, so what you are left with is exposing normally or pulling.
From the common knowledge filmopedia:
sharpest general use B&W film: Ilford Delta 100 - best developed in FX39 or one of the SPUR developers.
First rate medium speed films: Tmax 100, Acros, FP4. Acros has no reciprocity issues up to at least 1 minute, so it is also the fastest effective film for long exposures.
Best ever films in existence: Tri X and HP5+, the second a bit more grainy. Both deliver exceptional quality images when pulled slightly and developed in D76 1+1 or any other suitable developer for medium-high speed films.
Fine grain?
To me, fine grain is a useless mirage - if you want fine grain, buy a bigger format camera, however if you really insist, then chromogenic films like XP2 will have invisible grain, if you overexpose them a bit. Remember, that fine grain usually kills acutance, this is why Delta 100 is so good, as it appears darn sharp.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I have some film 'tests' here.
http://photo-utopia.blogspot.co.uk/2007/12/film-tests.html

When I say test I'm really only meaning to give a flavour rather than a definitive 'it looks like this' statement which is useless unless you use the same camera/exposure/developer/output.
It's a bit like choosing a life partner/house/car from a picture or description, you need to see things in the flesh.

I'll not recommend any films based upon my tastes or needs, try some experiment and have fun.
Part of the fun of film and processing is there are so many easily repeatable combinations.
Good luck.

 

[Peter_Jones]

Reading other people's tests and expecting the same results can lead to madness - treat them as a rough guide is my advice. What works well for someone else, may not work with you (for example, I cannot get HP5 to work for me, but many people can make this film really sing). Many factors influence this : your water supply, accuracy of thermometer, technique etc. etc. Try to find a combination that best suits your situation, then refine.

Basically, what Photo Smith said - experiment with a few films in the speed you like, if you like the look of one but it still needs tweaking, experiment with exposure, developing or chemicals (but not all at once). Once you find a combination you like, stick with that but keep trying different things.

I've settled on Acros/Rodinal combination, but will try different films, or exposure/dev combinations every now and then - keeps the enthusiasm going and keeps me shooting 😉

Keep notes of what you do, then every time you revisit a film you can tweak and (hopefully) improve your results with this film.