Continuing with the musical analogy, much like a musician in a studio, it is easy to fall into the trap of doing "one more take", and endlessly tweaking details until there there is no appreciable improvement over the previous attempt. I personally know musicians who have said the following, (at 3:00 A.M.) "I still think I liked take two the best." You have to know when to call it a day (or call it a print) and walk away, or you can end up carpeting your darkroom floor with "imperfect" prints.

Aim to improve specific things in a print, but if it's not coming, it just might not be in the negative.

By the way, if you do have a recalcitrant print that just won't tune in on that final detail, (and if you've got paper to burn) spend some time setting the base exposure (and contrast - sometimes a difficult print is more a contrast problem than anything) for that section alone, without any other print controls. Once you have determined if it is possible to achieve your desired results on that, you can build the rest of your print around that success point.

One final point from me, (I'm just an average printer who has had more than my share of frustrations in the darkroom, and a handful of lucky prints that made me feel like I'm not an idiot) advice asked and given is all great; the workflows suggested by your peers here and in whole photographic libraries are all very effective. But take it all with a grain of salt. Sometimes even the finest printers have their heads up their arse when they try to explain what they do. If Adams says one thing, Weston another, and Ann something else, (sorry Ann ) it does not mean two of them are wrong. It means what they do gives them the results they are looking for.