>>95774151

here's the guy that came out best

somehow the detail around the bottom looks great but it gradually gets more overexposed as the print goes on (the other guys basically have no detail in their heads)

>>95774136

I think that's the plan. I've been printing at 0.035 as that's what I ve managed to successfully tune in and I'd rather not go 0.05 but I'm pissing and shitting at this point

What's confusing me is how my first print with 1.5s of exposure came out overexposed with rock hard supports that took out chunks of detail, but I go all the way up to 2 (close to what's recommended for 0.05) but get flimsy supports with an overexposed top