Quote Originally Posted by Donald Miller

This has really become confusing terminology, in my opinion, because of the tendency that some have to use "dense" interchangeably with "density range" or what has historically been called contrast. This interchangeable use of terms seems to have become very prevalent with the advent of increased interest in Azo. The first place that I encountered this loose use of language was in the writings of Michael Smith on Azo. It doesn't necessarily take a dense negative on Azo. It takes does however take a negative with density range to match the paper.
Thank you Donald, this may be why I keep getting confused...among other reasons. When I evaluate a negative I expect, based on the exposure given, that there will be some detail in the shadows (lets say Zone II or VI) and the highlights will also have some detail (again close to Zone VIII). If you recall the White Church thread and posted image this is pretty much what happened and the negative prints well. At other times, it seems like to get the shadows right then the highlights go to Zone IX or higher.

Could this be corrected during development by increasing the development time? Or have I got it backwards and I need to decrease the development time. Should note here that currently I am using FP4+, and wonder is another film with a longer toe would be better.

Thanks to everyone that has commented so far, sometimes it just helps to hear how others state things to make sure you aren't out in left field somewhere...of course the light can be very nice in left field this time of year.

Should also note that I have started to do more sheet film now and so there are no codes, marks to compare to.