Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
It's true for me, too. If I want to use the entire range of whatever film I'm using, there is no latitude for error in exposure or development.
And the fact that 200 observers find a print acceptable really has nothing to do with me getting negatives or transparencies the way I like them, does it?
I can work with a less-than-ideal negative, but I'd rather get as close as possible to ideal. Sometimes you can't, for any number of reasons. But any time I can, I will. It's like shooting at targets, under one set of circumstances a 5" group might be acceptable, but the ideal is a "group" the diameter of a single bullet.
Yes there are a fair number of guys around here, like you and Drew, that fall in a special class of artisans within our craft that may actually intend to print 10,12, or more stops of scene luminance range and use every bit of straight line between toe and shoulder. That is quite a feat, I'm not trying to make little of that work.

Sure you guys don't have any latitude but that isn't the norm in our world. Average scene luminance range is about 7 stops, if the film is capable of 10 there are 3 stops of room, latitude, to play with. 12 gets us 5 to spare, for the average Joe or Mark shooting portraits and family and wedding stuff, that's a lot of latitude.

The reason the 200 observers comment was included, as well as citing the exact reference, was to show that the idea that "more than one exposure setting can produce excellent prints" isn't unproven conjecture on my part. It's peer reviewed science.