Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
Isn't this what the Dorst and Jones/"Windmill" diagrams show?

The real problem is people think they can simply apply N-X development to a negative to "fit" the paper, and maintain N local contrast. This is a real problem with how people think about compensating development for example. There's this notion out there you can somehow compress total contrast in the negative without compressing local contrast. Lucky for them they don't get as much compensation as they think they do.
It is what the windmills show but not how they show it, the windmills IMO are many times tough to follow and compare. They also tend to lead to a single best exposure wins conclusion rather than showing where latitude exists.

Compensation brings up lots of questions like; if you're looking to use compensation wouldn't you want to peg exposure to make use of that? I.e. pegging to place those highlights for the print.

No apology required either.