Quote:
Originally Posted by lee  Roger,
Why would it worry you about the variables? David is a very experienced photographer and has a pretty air tight processing system. And the info is for David and not you.
lee\c |
Dear Lee,
I didn't mean the variables in HIS processing: I meant the variables between his and anyone else's -- variables which would render the experiment useless to anyone else. This is quite apart from personal preference.
As I say, what I'm really questioning is the methodology. Most of the time, I find it just about impossible to concern myself simultaneously with aesthetics -- which involves taking everything for granted, materials and equipment -- and comparisons (carefully set up shot with time to switch backs). There are a few areas in which head-to-head comparisons are easier than others, especially still life and some kinds of landscape, but that's only a part of what I (and most others) shoot.
My point is this: I see no advantage in performing such a test under the artificial constraints of taking the same picture twice. What is the objection to shooting the two films alternately, taking real pictures of real subjects (not empty 'tests') and seeing which, on average, you prefer? The latter makes far more sense to me. What advantage do you (or does anyone else) see in the OP's approach?
I'm not trying to be combative. I'm just thinking about 40+ years of my own photography, with a wide variety of equipment and materials, and the approach which I have found to give the most meaningful answers. Anyone who wants to do a head-to-head test, the very best of luck to them; but the OP did ask what differences others have found from similar exercises.
Cheers,
Roger