Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
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.
How will you standardize developing tanks, reels, and agitation technique if you are using 35mm, MF, and large format? And as I said in the statement you quoted many emulsions are not available in MF and large format. If you used some emulsions in large format and some in 35mm you would just be creating a garden to feed the trolls. Trust me I've been to enough scientific conferences and watched preeminent experts debate. It would be better not to even do the experiment. Do not introduce any variables unless you either want to test them or you simply cannot feasibly eliminate them.

Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
i was using extremes in differences in agitation methods as an example because people often times see photographs
and negatives &c and they literally think their film will look "just like that" if they process it in whatever magic soup they have.
You can't control what people will do with your data. Your job is simply to produce the best data possible and do the best analysis possible. Also in good scientific papers the authors always discuss short comings with their experiment or results. It helps to preemptively answer a bunch of letters to the editor.

Quote Originally Posted by jovo View Post
If the end result of this kind of hair splitting were to project negatives on a screen, I'd see some point to the exercise. But, since I never do that, and print as skillfully as I can on paper with the negative I've produced, there is absolutely no point to this for me. If the film's speed and grain are adequate to the task, and if I've learned its characteristics from experience, I standardize on that film, developer, time and temperature, and always produce a negative I can print from.
This is an anectodal statement with no objective independently verified data to back it up. It is exactly the type of thing Michael R 1974 was warning us about...

Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
So, people who might be fine photographers but are not experts in the science, should not write about the craft from a scientific perspective if they do not have data and details on the testing methodology to present. That is what most books and articles are filled with.
jovo, even in the decimated world of analog photography there are still a lot of people and organizations that could benefit from a good quality study. It would cost a tiny fraction of the amount of time and money people spend on debates about different emulsions and switching emulsions. Frankly I'm astonished it hasn't already been done. I really wonder what analog photography periodicals have been writing about all these decades. I suppose they didn't want to take the chance and declare not much difference between two of their sponsors. I guess mystique sells issues.