Hertz van Rental said:
It was eye-opening to discover that visually there is so little difference between films as to make the argument nonsensical. But we all still stuck with our preferred film - and I still have the irrational conviction that there is a nicer 'feel' to Kodak films. The truth is I have never managed to get decent results with Agfa or Ilford - and I have tried lots of times. I never seem to have a problem with Kodak. But like lots of things in Photography, the final choice is personal.
This hits the nail on the head, IMHO.
When I was starting to get into photography I went out and got myself a job at a photolab/camera store, and went crazy with my employee discount. We stocked almost every film out there, and I was trying them all. My photography guru noticed and made the comment that I was like the kid with the 128 crayon set of Crayolas, and I should take the time to learn the 8 crayon set first.
These days I use one brand in 2 different ISOs for 95% of my BW photography, and I have 2 other kinds that come in for special situations. Once I started sticking to a couple of films, and actually learned how to control them, I found that I could get the visual aspects I was attributing to particular brands.
I agree that some choices just feel or work better for individual photogs. When I was starting out I always had a bad mojo going on with Tri-X. Somehow I always screwed it up when using it. I think it's gone now, but for a long time I steered clear of Tri-X, although it may be the most popular BW film in the world.
I don't think it's very important what film someone chooses. What's important is that they become very familiar with a particular film choice or two. Then they can decide whether it works for them or not.
Whatever you see in any particular film that you like, it can be duplicated. Whatever you see that you don't like, it can be avoided.