Digital BW, The Print

Roger,

> Certainly having a stable of backs for a Hassy would give you the
> ability to have an N+1, N+2 back etc. How do you do that with
> your Contax or Leica :-)

Using compensation development with a 35mm is not something that I tend to
do.

> Your description of expansion and contraction are valid, however,
> the thing that generally requires one to use them is less than
> optimal lighting of a scene

Why do you say that?  I find scenes that have nothing to do with "non
optimal lighting", they are simply scenes that have a very wide image
density range...such as part of the image is inside a shack, and the other
is outside in the sun.  Believe me, they are keepers, and the extended
tonality really adds to the images.

> I generally found that after proofing
> I ended up discarding a large percentage of the negatives since
> they were not worth the time, effort and expense to try and
> produce a fine print.

Absolutely true.

> You, obviously, understand the need for consistancy. However,
> there are more than a few photographers that are constantly
> changing film, developer, etc etc in a forlorn search for
> perfection rather than mastering one or two combinations.

Yes, I've seen that quite a lot, and I discourage it...

> There is still enough of the professor in me that I enjoy a good
> argument. Fun discussion.

Aw, come on...have at it.  This wasn't much of an "argument"...when we agree
on most all of it! Pick some insignificant issue, like how I spell lense,
and harp on that for a while, showing vast web references that shows how
much of an idiot I am for using such an ignorant spelling, and I'll produce
many web references that show that it is a valid spelling etc.  OOps,
sorry...I just gave away a good argument in a nutshell... ;-)

Regards,

Austin