Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
The followin pararaph is my favorite. I do have to admit that rather then aiming for
No. 2 grade paper I target No. 3 grade paper. I have in fact tuned my development
process so that I use a No. 3 grade paper 80+% of the time.

Sounds like Kodak and us zonies are in complete agreement here.

If you think that, you have obviously not understood a single point the author made.


"Thus, should a negative of a short scale subject, such as
an average building exterior taken on an overcast day, be developed to
a higher gamma than a negative of the same scene taken in brilliant
sunlight? The answer is generally no; both negatives should be
developed alike. This is probably contrary to the practice which some
professional photographers advocate. The reasoning for this answer
follows: Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and
"important shadows," for the most part it is actually the middle tones
which are most important of all. Middle tones are, of course, the
range of grays between highlights and shadows. Stated differently,
middle tones of a negative or print are those densities which are not
associated with toe or shoulder areas of the characteristic curve."


This is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to zoan sistum practice, dumbass.

"...both negatives should be developed alike."


: A sensible approach to planning a standard photographic technique,
: including the degree of negative development, is to strive for a
: negative that will print best on a normal grade of paper. Although
: there is no necessity to confine oneself to anyone gamma if several
: paper grades are available, it is only logical to aim for No.2 paper.
: If this is done successfully, the printing problem is simplified by
: using one grade of paper for most negatives. At the same time, the
: photographer is protected on both sides of normal by papers with
: greater or less contrast capacity, should an underdeveloped or
: overdeveloped negative accidentally result.