Thanks Peter and Corran, Peter, that sounds like the most perfectionist way to do things, however I don't know that it's exactly quick to do, that would take me at least a whole day to do, and I don't own a densometer (nor can I figure out how to spell it right so that spell check agrees). I go by the general look of the density of the negative, this has served me well all along. My "testing" is usually done by shooting, and not by performing a lot of tests, even "bad" exposures are usable they just take a little more effort to print, so I find doing lab tests to be time consuming, don't hurt me, I know they are the most accurate way to do things, but I also need to make sure not to deviate too far from my current working habits or that throws everything off as I'm changing too many variables at once. If I can't find an acceptable negative in my next attempt then I'll try out Peter's system, I know it totally makes sense, but again, this would take me a whole day, I work out of my kitchen so the setup and cleanup and developing and processing, I don't have a lot of days to set aside to developing work that I'll never use. YMMV (obviously), but I value the suggestions.
Bookmarks