Interesting link, Matt. It may just be me but I'd rate the 9 pics in the following order. First: Underexposed and correctly developed Second: Correctly exposed and underdeveloped. Third: Correctly exposed and correctly developed. Fourth: Underdeveloped and underexposed
All of the bottom line do not even come close to looking right
So my conclusions would be to avoid overexposure at all costs which seems to run contrary to the "maxim" of overexposing and underdeveloping as espoused by Barry Thornton and others i.e. film testing results in a down-rating of film speed and curtailment of development time
Of course I am basing my ranking on the face rather than the limited background scene and to that extent the neg chosen may have led me to the wrong conclusions as in most cases a face is of much smaller importance in a "people in scenes" picture but in portraiture and based on the negs and prints shown I'd stick to my rankings
I wonder how others would rate the 9 neg/prints?
I agree the set may illustrate the negatives correctly... but I don't think they made the best print possible from each negative...
A matrix where the best print of each negative was attempted would be more valuable.
I just whack mine on my scanner and do a quick 'n' dirty scan. Tres simple... :-)
I don't wish to muddy the waters, but it also depends on how and with what type of enlarger you wish to print said negative.
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”