Quote Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller View Post
One of my best images is from the first roll of Konica IR I shot. I had guessed on the exposure, and so overexposed the film. It's a beautiful shot of a small, high waterfall surrounded by trees in a narrow canyon. (Washington, Hwy 20, just before the Diablo Dam there's a scenic turnout on either side of a steel bridge.) The water was right, the light was really good, and a small tree (now slid off) was growing on a little bluff. The negative is "thick as a brick," but it's all I have.

I love infrared, and getting a "perfect" negative is something that I just don't try to do with it. I just try to get something on the film, and then work with it.
I understand. I screw up once in a while, and understand about negatives we made when we began. Some of the pictures want to be printed anyway and there's nothing we can do but print it anyway.

One strong motivation for me, in aiming to come up with negatives that are tailored to the paper/developer tonality is that the darkroom waste is significantly less, and honestly, today I'm grateful when waste is minimal, because of how expensive paper is, and how much frustration is avoided, but also because of being careful with natural resources.
I also feel that when I work with imperfect negatives I use all of the latitude available in my paper to 'save' the print, while with a negative that prints well at medium contrast 'out of the box' so to speak, I have all that latitude to be creative with.
But eventually it comes down to making something out of what's available to us, and some things we can't control for sure. I'm sure that by now you've mastered how to create something interesting from that negative.