kintatsu, thank you for the clarification and the compliment.First, I didn't mean to imply that there is a trade-off. There are just different ways to skin a cat. My stating that way was a mistake, I should have said something else. Just to clarify my thought pattern in this matter, on this subject we are looking at 1 process, or element, out of several. If 3 identical exposures are made of the same normal scene, the effects of agitation can be easily seen. With your normal agitation the scene appears correct. With a decrease, the contrast is decreased, and the opposite holds true with an increase. When all 3 are printed, the results are visible, and to get the same print from each, printing controls are used. In most cases, we determine our own normals based on our work and vision. Your normal may not for someone like me, without the experience to make it work.
At each step, deviations can be, and are, made to compensate for what we desire in our print. These deviations are based on the scene and our tools, which includes our knowledge. A scene with a longer or shorter scale, one that exceeds our vision, we resort to controls at every stage. Dodging, burning, and grades of printing can be used, expansion and contraction in the negative when developing, and even filters during exposure are tools that deviate from consistent methods.
I was just positing that this is another tool in our box, basing our choice where we are inconsistent, or vary our approach. Based on David's question, I would assume that there are too many factors for a one for all approach, that's just my thought. Of course, it's easier in sheet film when developing only 1 shot, as my values are often outside the ranges for that method.
And, cliveh, your photos are magnificent, so whatever is working for you, don't change!