The most impressive attempt I've seen was by Richard Henry, and he presented his data, which is practically unheard of in photographic "testing" outside the manufacturers' laboratories. He even equiped himself with a microdensitometer, exposure devices built to ISO specs etc. However the purpose was not necessarily to compare materials. It was to evaluate the unsubstantiated claims made by noted photographers in their books, magazine articles etc, and the various other myths that pervade the subject of photographic materials and processing.

The most interesting part of the work concerned printing (papers, print development etc). Although the data is for outdated materials no longer available, the great value of the book is it teaches us to question what we've been told and what we've read.

What drove Henry (a retired clinical chemist) to undertake these experiments was his observation that photographic materials and processing are unique subjects in the sense that totally unqualified experts write about technical things. And they are often taken as gospel. Further, they make statements without any evidence or supporting data, without citing sources, in many cases without even a reasonable basis for the statements. This would be preposterous in any other field. Yet in photography this is how it goes. So Henry set about testing some of the more common accepted wisdom, truths etc.