But it does. It did for me. It allowed me to see that this filter does this, and that filter does that, and decreasing time here and increasing it there adds contrast and clarity.
For some of you, taking one process and splitting it into two may add unnecessary complications. However, it actually simplified it FOR ME.
FOR ME. Thats what some of you don't seem to accept. Are there better ways of doing things, sure. Are there easier way of doing things, sure. But for the first time in a long time, this has opened some creative doors for me.
So 4 seconds at 00, and 6 seconds at 5, produces the same image as 10 seconds on 3... you got there one way, I got there the other. You shoot a certain camera, and I shoot something else, but we both end up with an image.
What all of you seem to forget is that we are all not as advanced as you. I am a kinesthetic learner, I have to put my hands on it and do it at least once before I understand it. Giving me a book and telling me to read is about as worthless as a car with no wheels. I ain't getting anywhere that way.
What I asked was, "what do you suggest I could do better or different to improve my print." I didn't ask, "how can I completely change the process that I've just learned to understand because my fellow photographic geniuses think I'm complicating things." Someone suggested that I cut down the soft exposure, and whaddaya know, it worked and I understand it.
I'm not discounting any of the advice thats been posted, its all good advice. But telling me that using two filters is the same as using one and I should be doing it a certain way isn't going to help me.