and negatives &c and they literally think their film will look "just like that" if they process it in whatever magic soup they have.
does it really matter what format the film is? film is film is film. tri x 400, hp4, hp5, tmx fomapan, &c are exactly the same ... it is just presented differently.
Also I wouldn't use sheet film. That is not the most common type of film used. My inclination is to use medium format film because you still have a nice big negative to work with but it is still a roll film. Medium format film is great because it would be easy to set up your camera and just swap backs with different films. The problem is not every emulsion is made in medium format nor large format for that matter. So again to standardize 35mm across the board is the logical choice. Initially just to keep things reasonable the first experiment should just be with the top sellers at each ISO. But it's nice to standardize on 35mm in case one desires to do future experiments on funky emulsions only available in 35mm.
the problem then is that scanners don't really show the film and everything else. if someone had a light box and took a photograph of the negative with a numeric cameraThe problem is a lot of us don't do too much darkroom work. You will get a lot of scanned negatives. Scanners, at least of the cheap (<$1,000) variety are black boxes. I have no idea what my scanner does to the information it reads off of my negative so there is no way for me to make a negative to negative comparison. I think there is a software package that is at least capable of holding exposure constant from scan to scan. But the fact remains you still don't know what the exposure was to begin with.
Check out this site. I use it to see if what I am doing with a new developer is at least reasonable.
maybe that would be better because at least it is what is there, not a reinterpretation of what is there, by a magical beam of light. and even then it won't really work
because sometimes film is so dense that a light box won't shine through it. ... morgan+morgan / morgan + lester used to do these exact same types of experiments,
their results were published in a tome called the photo lab index ... i was lucky enough to have a long conversation with the chemist who
did all the lab-work. he was a brilliant guy.
the only thing the PLI doesn't have is photographs made with the developers and film. if you don't have a copy of it, maybe
you should hunt one down, it is a pretty good resource.