the thing is, it isnt about a flat negative being a bad negative - it's about the ability to realise the potential from the negative. the majority of my negatives are pretty flat as that is how I am able to retain the most details in skies and foregrounds (when shooting landscapes). I like it that way as I can then use darkroom controls to pick out what I want from it - sometimes split grade printing, somtimes pre/post flashing/fogging, somethings some post development bleaching etc etc etc. clearly, it would be great to get a the prefectly exposed negative that needed no work at all, just straight print, but I dont ever seem to be able to get that, so I try to get there in the darkroom instead.
so - for example, here is a scan of the neg for my Embleton Beach shot - no contrast controls or sharpening at all, very flat and dull, and it certainly doesnt sing..
And here is the scan of my final print - which has 7 additional burn exposures to various parts and 2 dodge actions, and this is quite typical in getting to where I want the print to be - and I dont think I am unusual in doing so. Theresa, I reckon you'll suprise yourself if you do stick with some of your less obvious negs.
