The logistical problem was simple: just getting the contrast range on the film before the light changed. So there's the story of how he calculated that since he couldn't locate his light meter.
But the darkroom trick in that era was water bath development. So he ended up with a highly compensated neg which produced a much softer more luminous print than what all this chatter is
about. Nowadays, some of those earlier renditions of Moonrise actually sell for more because they
are rare and allegedly even more "vintage". Then for some marketing, esthetic, or maybe personality
reason he wanted something more dramatic and contrasty and differentially enhanced the negative.
I thought it was overdone; but that more theatrical mode is what defines several of AA's most famous landscapes - inky black skies, high contrast. He certainly could make a poetic image at times,
but I never would consider him as the best printer of the era. And thank goodness, he didn't have
Fauxtoshop. Too many options just lead nowhere.