LOL, Bernice we've been LF photographers for about the same amount of time yet have totally different experiences. To be exact, February of 1980 for me and with 35mm photography experience before that. I almost never use something other than box speed. I also process "by the spec sheet". Not very adventurous, huh? At times, I've been told by another photographer that my negs were "a bit thin" but never had one that wasn't printable as I desired. Oh well.. that's a difference between you and me, our methods, and our expectations I suppose.
I'm well aware of your on-going philosophy that it's all about the print, and I don't disagree, but in this case it isn't... it's about getting negs that show consistent exposure. I'm totally perplexed by Havoc's situation. (I'll never forget that because a dear friend and colleague sold me an enlarger and threw in a SuperGraphic. I still have the receipt from taking it to Graflex Western Division to replace the missing GG and Ektalite. I could have been one of their last customers!)
What I know for sure is that LF photography actually works as advertised, even when exposure metering and exposure methods aren't optimal. Havoc should not be seeing so much difference in his negs. That isn't normal under any circumstances if the process was really consistent. LF photogprhy isn't "broken" as Havoc might be feeling at this time.
Bookmarks