Hahaha good one! I hated the "Zonies" too for a long time. After many months of poring over the claims and methods of various people, and re-checking their math I was finding only contradictions and double talk. So and so would say he rated and exposed for this long and developed for that long to expand for N+whatever. Then he rated and exposed for this long and developed for that long to contract for N-whatever. There was a sense that if I didn't follow all this exactly, life would end as we know it. Guess what? The numbers never added up! I crunched the numbers exactly as stated, and came up with the realization that both negatives should be exactly alike. I finally broke down and went to the source, The Negative by AA. How wonderfully simple he made it seem. Expose for shadows, develop for highlights. Overexposure is a better mistake than underexposure because a dense negative will have "data" you have a chance of recovering and a blank negative will have nothing to "save". Pick a paper or contrast filter to match the negative. Dodge and burn because even good negatives will have spots the need some "fixing". All simple common sense. Now I just shoot the darn thing and use a seat of the pants approach. Better that, than to be paralyzed by the horrible gnawing fear of making a mistake wink wink.