I'm curious to find out if I'm right. Kentmere is the wildcard as I've never shot on it before.
I'll certainly get to it as I said I'm curious myself :)
The irony is that no matter what your answers are, even if they are correct, I could just as easily post another 4 images from the same films that exhibit characteristics opposite of those I previously uploaded.
I looked at the four images on my monitor and they all look exactly like digital images displayed on a LG Flatron monitor. And now that I think about it, all the images from the APUG Gallery also look exactly like digital images displayed on a LG Flatron monitor. That's interesting (not). Aside from the obvious differences, displaying digital representations of traditional work on a computer monitor is misleading at best. And as Chris has alluded to, he could have posted four digital images from a digital point-n-shoot.
Would I publish information about the equipment used in a book/publication? It depends on the purpose of the image in the book.
I'm amazed at the responses in this thread. If such an extra wiiiiide variety of different results can be had with a single film-developer combo, then what's the point in a film forum at all?
I'm sorry but it's all bullcrapola: consistency and repeatability is the name of the game. If your results are different, even slightly, it's probably time to get serious. The whole point of concistency is to be able to control the only thing you can control.
To the OP: I too would love to know the details of each photograph in a book.
It would be really helpful and it would make me really happy trying to analyze them with those infos in mind.
Rodinal + Tri-X... 1+25 rated at 800 and given N+ development with lots of agitation.
Rodinal + Tri-X... 1+100 rated at 200 and given N- development with little agitation.
You don't think this is going to give you very different results? (I know from experience that it does.)