Here are some technical details that factored into the process along with some comments on the why and how...
TriX-400 shot at box speed, home developed in Adox XT-3 (think Kodak XTol) diluted 1:1 according to the massive dev chart.
The negatives were scanned with a negative supply scanning setup including a 99 CRI light source. The camera was a 24 megapixel Canon EOS 60D with the EF-S 60mm macro lens.
The negatives were inverted with Negative Lab Pro with the default B+W profile. No corrections, be it in NLP or in Lightroom. Just cropping to the frame.
A tripod would be ideal to get exactly matching reference frames. Perfect for a comparison. But running around with a tripod kills my creativity :-)
There's a whole other universe to be discovered once color is added to the vintage rendering discussion. I'm keen to go there but at this point I don't see how a really truthful inversion of the color negatives can be obtained. In particular, I am under the impression that Negative Lab Pro — also with roll anaylis — adds too much tweaking form a frame-specific image analysis. I am worried this sort of smartness might bias the results. I'm open to suggestions though.
First and foremost, that's what I shoot for many years. Working with a somewhat fast film makes it easier to shoot handheld at the target aperature. And it's much easier to make a film 'slower' with an ND-filter than making it 'faster'. Admittedly, a film that is a bit more flat could probably show differences in contrast more clearly. What convinced me to stick to Tri-X is its popularity. It's simply a realistic scenario...
Film is what I shoot, film cameras is what I have :-) I am fairly sure though that most rendering distinctions carry over to the digital setting.
At this point, the best help is to shoot me an email and tell me what you liked, what you disliked and what else you'd love to see...
In simple cenarios, I used the f16 rule. Otherwise light metering was done with a Sekonic L-208, mostly incident light metering.