Do any of the main manufacturers do a side by side image comparison of their films?

[ted_smith]

There's a lot of films to choose from for any given purpose. To see how it works for any of us, we have to buy a roll, shoot it and see what results we get.

My question is do any of the major manufacturers (Fuji, Kodak and Ilford I am thinking of) make available some kind of "Image taken with Film A, same Image taken with Film B" side by side comparisons? I realise of course a screen display is entirely different to a real print, but it would help give a photographer a clue before they buy. Or do any of them even send small sample prints for registered members?

For example, before PORTRA 160NC and 160VC were replaced by the new versions, how could a photographer tell what to expect from either before they buy? "More vibrant colours", as a description, is difficult to visualise sometimes.

Ted

[Photo Engineer]

Yes, tests are run at Kodak comparing all films (B&W and color).

I personally ran tests comparing Fuji neg and reversal, Agfa neg and reversal and Kodak neg and reversal color films (E6 and C41). I still have parts of the test here and use them from time to time as tests.

They use up to 3 models and a MacBeth chart (Red fair skin, medium complexion and African American), usually all Kodak Girls that are unseen and unknown by the public.

Exposures ranged from -2 to +2 stops and the processing was blind, Kodak did not know it was for internal use and the competition processed the films with no knowledge that it was Kodak. Of course, after the fact, I suppose everyone knew due to the nature of the pictures!

The negatives were printed and evaluated by a panel and the slides were projected and evaluated. Some were also printed on Type C and R materials and on Ektaflex. I even had a set done on Ciba/Ilfochrome.

Does this help?

PE

[ted_smith]

PE - it definately does help. Are you able to provide links or something like that? Are these tests publically available somewhere, is my point.

Ted

[Photo Engineer]

The tests are not published. They are in internal reports only. I have no release to show any of the photos, but I could probably show "faceless" snips of parts of the pictures. This is pretty hard and labor intensive, so I have not done it so far.

I can add that this kind of test using 3 manufactures color negative allowed us to test the printability on Kodak color papers and it helped us adjust spectral sensitivity to give optimum results. The use of a broad spectrum of racial types allowed us to adjust the films for these types. You see, at about that time, one of my technicians was African American and complained to me about the skin tones in prints of his family. We went over them and then took them to the right people for "adjustment" of the skin tones.

PE

[ted_smith]

OK PE - well thanks for the information anyway. IanC has also replied by private message saying much the same and that such comparison in magazines are not really in demand due to the ris of digital. A pitty.

Thanks anyway guys

Ted

[DREW WILEY]

Once something gets in magazine or brochure print, or onto the web, most of the valuable nuances
regarding hue and contrast are largely lost anyway. I always to my own comparison testing,
under exactly the same standarized conditions, using a MacBeath chart, color temp meter, etc.
Then once the standardized transparencies of color negs are made, this allows comparison tests on
different papers, with and without masking etc. But if you know how to read between the lines,
Kodaks marketing comparisons are pretty valid regarding saturation, contrast, and application. Better
still, compare characteristic and dye curves if you're accustomed to that. The trouble nowadays is
that you can wade thru all kinds of web nonsense like Flikr or quickie products reviews that only
tell you how incompetent the photographer is, or what kind of scanner errors he was good at. Another reason I prefer to print direct optical. One less piece of nonsense to worry about.

[Poisson Du Jour]

Side-by-side comparisons are usually the preserve of fanatical editors and contributors of amateur photography magazines. Nowadays we have to think for ourselves, but that's OK; we learn a lot experimenting. Long ago, I think in the 1980s, Kodak had a publication comparing several films, among them Kodachrome vs Ektachrome, and something with Vericolour (which I used occasionally). Maybe PE has more info about this?

[Photo Engineer]

I know nothing about such a book. Sorry.

All comparison tests between manufacturers were kept confidential as someone would inevitably "prove" we were dong something wrong either accidentally or on purpose.

Our photos were often taken either with the same camera from the same tripod or using one of our dual or triple mount systems with matched cameras. The photographer was an outstanding man who died recently. He had used his daughter as model in one set of tests that I had kept. I was very happy to be able to return them to him before his death. He went out west to visit her and died a month after he returned.

Brings back old memories! Sorry.

But, the tests, even though not released, were done in good faith and with good methodology and had markers in the scenes to tell us what was what. It was very challenging to do and very rewarding.

PE

[Poisson Du Jour]

I definitely owned a small booklet published by Kodak comparing colour between Ektachrome and Kodachrome which I picked up (free) from a Kodak kiosk that was at that time printing Cibachromes (!) from slides. The booklet was from memory purely a comparison for consumers, certainly nothing scientific or likely to spill the beans to competitors, who at that time I think were Agfa and the emergent Fuji. Personally I never thought of Kodak doing anything "wrong" with emulsions e.g. Kodachrome vs Ektachrome, just that both emulsions had entirely different characteristics, with Ekta I recall being too blue most of the time, and KC being au naturel in its palette. <sigh>, so many memories of the good old days remain faithfully stored on slides shot on Kodachrome, but virtually nothing remains of Ektachrome...

[ted_smith]

What a pity. Those kind of booklets are the kind of thing I mean.

What I'd like is, for example : "Here is a model in controlled lighting. Exposure A was shot with Film A, Exposure B with Film B and Exposure C with Film C", so that the wanting photographer can say "Oh, I see - so with Film A it would look like that, and B and C like that. Mmm, I'll try Film A", and then he can do his tests, rather than poking about in the relative unknown (as I do because I don't have the technical substance yet to read numerical data sheets and equate that to a visual image) by purchasing and exposing all 3 "test films", developing all 3 to only then arriving at the decision of "Ah yes, I like Film A"

I feel a project coming on ;-)