(See Tom Hoskinson's post on page 2...he already nailed me for using a 120ml lens )Originally Posted by MurrayMinchin
I read on another post how sanking tests for accutance; by photographing a distant mountains ridgeline against the sky, then printing that portion of the image with the enlarger racked up to 20x24. I just did that with an HP5+ developed in 12/15 image I took on the weekend, and even wet (with the emulsion swollen) the ridgeline is sharp - SHARP - SHARP!
Why was the first accutance test innaccurate? My best guess is there must have been a song on the radio with lots of base while I made the HP5+ exposure at 11x14..?
If this combo pans out with plus and minus development as well I'll try to get them scanned, then post examples. I'll let this thread fade away now, it's just that I had to correct my earlier wrong.