even if he knew isopan f -i believe- had less to work with does that negate the fact he chose a developer to suit the exposure. he chose a developer with the right characteristics to keep the moon in check in order to remedy any exposure error/already tough to print values
Do we know for a fact that his shorter scale WOULD HAVE CAUSED the moon to blow out without d23
if not, and the film was capable of handling it
then it fit's very neatly
or did he choose d23 because it gave the exact curve on the whole of the negative he desired
turns out he didn't have enough shadow detail
would another developer/method with a bit more shadow detail -film speed- with near the same ability to tame highlights have made his use of intensifier that much more unnecessary


maybe he didn't do the graphing and plotting
should he have if he didn't

he did it based on experience?
if he chose a developer to possibly save important highlights and not because it gave the overall "look" he desired
maybe there isn't much to the whole "i wouldn't try that" negativity
maybe it's useful to know how to lessen overexposure through use of different developer/additions/methods

if it's good enough for him and we've all learned however much we know almost directly from him
maybe it's OK. maybe it's better to not have to deal with potential metering error that blocks certain areas of highlights because they're 4.4 stops off instead of 4, increased grain whether in shadows or highlgihts, increased printing times, less sharpness and/or whatever else is possible

it just
sounds like you're settling instead of trying for optimization
which isn't what i'd expect

maybe my theory needs experimentation while doing nothing causes no increase of work ..except for all the fact checking, learning how to do the fact checking etc

will any burned in areas be grittier due to the already increased graininess in the negative?

in checking AA Negative he points out that while the straight line extends higher than we'd expect it to
blocking may result from extra xposure caused from scattering of light within the emulsion -less/more halation?
creating an "effective/false" shoulder of importance in actual photography
would this cause -if not outright loss of detail- a washed out look?
a cine site had a discussion on this but can't find it and not in my history
5-6 stops overexposure produces a "nuclear glow" caused by halation in the film
used in Casino


no idea
sure you know this
like the "effective" threshold of the film due to fb+f obscuring the tone otherwise produced by true threshold of the film ..but in reverse
what about a filter on the lens or light at certain times of day causing an unaccounted/incorrectly metered for speed change
slow shutter

would any or combination of these other variables push the exposure onto the actual shoulder of the film seeing as it's close already
if so, maybe a good reason to N- development