Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
I have to also say I'm generally not a fan of metrics such as CI, Gamma etc. I look at them as "nice to know" results after plotting the curves, but it's really the full H&D curve that tells me what I need to know, not contrast index - particularly when it comes to N minus territory.
Thanks for confirming my other suspicion, Michael, that CI alone might be an oversimplification. I started to fear that when I noticed that a single set of my (flawed) test numbers could be interpreted to produce quite a few different CIs by using different methods: WBM spreadsheet gave one set of CIs, Bill very kindly provided two others, with and without flare compensation. Unfortunately, I do not have the experience of correlating the shape of the curve to my printing experience, as I have never cared for the curves in the past 30 years. I can see, however, this would be useful: for example, I have found it harder to get the local contrasts in skin tones right. Now, I suppose this would be visible from a middle section of a curve, but it will take me a while to make that connection. I look forward to being able to relate my existing printing practice to the curves and tests, hoping for more predictibility and fewer difficult negatives in the future. In the meantime, I would like to figure out the development times through new, better, tests. Thank you for helping me, any additional suggestions are much appreciated.