Has anybody done anything similar to this, for BW films?

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2010/12...lm-comparison/
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/02...arison-pt-two/
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/06...mparison-pt-3/

I found a thread at http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/9...s-samples.html where a similar question was asked, but the replies were mostly along the lines of "just choose one, it doesn't matter. Personally I swear by film X".

I do realise there are far too many free variables to cover all the possible variations, but it would still be possible to get a meaningful comparison if, say, you shot the same scene, same lightning with several films, developed all films in the same developer according to the manufacturer's instructions and included a calibration target in the shots to compensate for film base color and box speed deviation.

The reason I'd like to see this is that often when somebody recommends a film, they also post a picture to show a film's capability. To me such photos are meaningless alone. Every BW film will let you produce a picture with black, white, and shades gray, so a single picture normally doesn't tell me anything about the film's tonality or dynamic range. Without another picture of the same scene to compare to, a picture is just a picture.

Presumably there are enough objective and measurable differences between films that you can't make TriX look identical to TMax look identical to HP5 look identical to KB100 just by wreaking development and printing, but I'd be happy just to see different films in the same process.