Matching CI is not about shaping a curve to alter characteristics. It is about getting a baseline for the comparison of image structure characteristics. If you develop one film to a lower contrast than another, you give it a graininess advantage, for example. Changing CI also effects speed. Incidentally, how do you know HC-110 gives an "upswept" curve in general?
Noble: I have no specific ax to grind. Photo Techniques was just an example. It's not just magazines. Books by photographers are generally the same. I'm not doubting your sceintific knowledge. What I'm saying is that while developing film may be easy, the science behind it is not, nor is it easy to generate statistically significant data and interpret it properly. The results are often surprising too.
When you say the graininess relationship between two films will not change based on the developer, how do you know this? For example we know that TMax 100 is finer grained than Delta 100. I found the difference to be narrower when developing in DDX versus XTOL. I also found TMax to be less grainy in XTOL than in Microdol. Am I right? Perhaps, perhaps not. In the Altman/Henn (Kodak) study we discussed recently here, it was found with Tri-X, sharpness was not improved by a variety of Beutler-type developers compared with D-76. Certainly not what one would expect. Continous agitation may or may not have contributed to these results by limiting the formation of adjacency effects, for example.
This is why the interpretation of photographic tests is exceedingly difficult. You test two films in Rodinal, for example, and a reader might come away with the wrong conclusions.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying what you propose wouldn't be great if it were done properly. What I am saying is that it is very difficult to do and that definitive conclusions are hard to come to. It's not analysis paralysis. It is simply healthy skepticism. In photography, when someone makes a statement about the characteristics of a film, developer, paper etc, we should ask for some sort of evidence.
Much of the photographic wisdom we accept is based on anecdotal tradition.
I'm guessing nobody will want to show me any of their test results after all this...
Last edited by Michael R 1974; 01-25-2013 at 02:17 PM. Click to view previous post history.