So, this is just a resolution test.
What about dynamic range? What about a comparison of the Achromatic versus a desaturated P45+ or P65+ image?
Another aspect of this is the color sensitivity curves of the Achromatic back. We have very limited control over the response curves of the sensor with standard B&W filters (orange, yellow, red, green...) and rely upon the sensor or film to have a little bit of non-linear character to provide a look which we are seeking. Which then begs the question:
If the sensor has been UV/IR filtered, which B&W film does it come closest to mimicking? Tmax? TriX? Delta 100? Acros? And which version of the above films?
This is absolutely not a DR or contrast issue either. This is as basic as it comes. Is the sensor equally sensitive to green as it is to red as it is to blue as it is to yellow? If so, then we have a basic problem that is impossible to adjust for and correct in post-production. Yes, you can filter the lens, but lens filters are broad-base and aggressive--blocking entire ranges of colors. Films are nuanced to enhance certain colors and lower others. Films "see" differently--no two films are alike. Of course, an argument can be made that this is a whole new B&W "look"--it's own film characteristic, so to speak. If so, then we have to judge its merits on the overall pleasantness and usability of this "look". If it strays too far from tradition, then it will have a difficult time since it would be impossible to have a "Tri-X Look" for instance. To make up for this, we'd have to have a stack of CC gels on the lens or some famous nature photographer will come out with his own line of $2000 filters for achieving a better film "look". A whole new cottage industry will be born. Where is Gary Fong when we need him?
This article addresses none of this. It is a nice little adventure in dealing with one and only one subject: Resolution.
