Quote Originally Posted by Arctic amateur View Post
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.
Sure, there are measurable differences and testing regimes that could flesh them out and for the one single lone given subject in a very specific lighting setup in a lab situation you could pick your subjective fave. I say subjective because the testing parameters for "best" are always arbitrary. In the same situation it is highly likely that I'd choose a different fave, or have no fave.

In reality there are so many variables, outside a lab, that you could make a specific negative from many, if not most, B&W films and print each of them so similarly that it would be nearly impossible to tell the difference without a forensics team and a microscope.

Sure, certain generalizations can be made, for example it can be said that 100ish speed films can technically provide sharper prints that say 400 speed films.

What that statement leaves out is that nice sharp grain from a faster film, that is visible in the print, can actually make the print from say a 400ish speed film "look" sharper than the "technically superior" 100, even if its just an illusion. Along that same line, the print from the 400 speed film could actually truly have sharper subject matter because there is less motion blur because of subject or camera movement, two stops of shutter speed can make a huge difference.