Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
If you are honestly serious that you can't tell the difference between Neopan 400 vs Tri-X or Neopan400 vs HP5+... Then I feel sorry for you, because I sure can... VERY different looks.

That said, I totally get your comments that your professor made about shooting the lens, that totally makes sense and so I will take that under advisement to be wary of what I'm really doing
Alright, here are 4 different 400 speed films: Kentmere 400, HP5+, Tri-X, and Neopan, which is which? I look at these photographs I cannot honestly say that any of them contains a look specific to the emulsion they were shot on. Also, as someone who has admitted to never printing a single frame in their life, I don't think you are qualified to make that judgment. Listen to the way people describe their favorite films, "alabaster highlights, charcoal black shadows, sandpapery grain, etc..." it's all fucking bullshit. If you can see the difference between films of the same speed and grain type, then one negative was not printed or processed as well as the other. It's easy to convince yourself that you are seeing the so-called "special" aspects of a film when in reality you're just patting yourself on the back...

oh, three of these are with an M2/ 50 summicron combo, and one is with a Nikon F3/T and a 35/1.4...