I would do a Stouffer 21 step grayscale on every experiment. That way when results come out weird I know where I am. Others may enjoy doing it by feel. But I like looking at a strip that shows "where I am" and "where I want to be", and I can count the f/stops it takes to get there.
However, with these processes my approach is to experiment again and again with alterations of variables to try and gain an intuitive feeling for the process rather than one that is scientific. That is not to say that I ignore basic chemistry, but any formulations I read about, I take as a guide rather than gospel. I find this works for me, but what approach do others take?
To me it sounds like you are collecting empirical evidence testing different variables, you learn how the process work. Then you hypothesize what will happen if you alter any of the variables, because you collected evidence by experimenting. Well it might not be an exact science, but your method is almost scientific. Probably you don't want to deal with measuring or calculating all molar calculations, dmax measurement, humidity amount and stuff like that but your approach is very close being scientific, IMO of course.
I do use a similar approach like yours, but I feel there are times that require calculations for solving certain problems with a specific process.
Like cooking food, following a recipe strictly is a very good idea at first. But, with experience, tweaking, tasting and fiddling around ...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?