Well I guess Mr. Carnie won't be reading this, but I'd like to try one last time to clarify my position.

Nobody ever said sensitometry makes better prints. It is just knowledge. Prints are made by eye, with creativity, experience and skill.

For the record I've never taken any swipes at Mr. Carnie's skill or experience as a printer, and I don't understand why he's always offended when I happen to disagree after he takes a hard line position against methods he doesn't personally favor. In fact, I believe more often than not we have been in agreement regarding the use of one's eyes rather enlarging meters and other fancy gadgetry.

I've only tried to point out that once one has practiced a lot and gained experience, adding techniques like masked flashing (for example) to the "tool box" is not necessarily a useless endeavor. While they aren't necessary procedures in most cases, I have also seen some wonderful prints that could not have been made without these seemingly arcane techniques. I have also seen wonderful prints that are difficult to make and require a lot of work, even for the most brilliant workers. As for KISS, of course this is a good policy. I think I could make a pretty good case for things like split grade and outflanking actually being more complicated for a beginner than a more traditional methodical approach, but I won't.

With all due respect, while "tips from the darkroom" was good, in post #52 for some reason Mr. Carnie took direct aim at people discussing curves, theory, printing maps, etc. Since I regularly participate in those kinds of technical discussions, but am also passionate about printing, I think it was acceptable to try to make the point it isn't all silly nonsense. Any piece of knowledge acquired, or technique learnt can potentially be of value.

As far as saying I have nothing of value to contribute on APUG, I find that fairly offensive. I try to present the most accurate information I can. That's a far cry from most of what goes on here.