Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
I would say it depends on how they test films, and to what contrast they develop them.

If you remember old Agfa APX spec sheets, they would publish curves and development times for three different gamma curves.

It could be that Fuji's testing methods are simply different from other chemistry manufacturers. Either way, to make a fair comparison, whatever developers you are comparing, they must be developed to identical contrast to bear validity. This requires fairly standardized procedures, a precise lab environment, and all 'other things' equal.

The layman's version is to make negatives that print well on the same paper at the same contrast grade and magnification.
I seem to remember that Fujifilm's recommendations using Ilford and Kodak developers were different to those two manufacturers' recommendations for the Neopan400. My recollection is that the Fujifilm recommendations suited me better.

Example: Fujifilm's recommendation for Neopan400, 35mm, 400 speed, Xtol 20degC, small tank, intermittent agitation: 6.25min

From Kodak's pdf for Xtol: same conditions: 8.25min

Perhaps Kodak wanted people to say the Neopan400 isn't any good because highlights blow out or something like that.