I might have not yet got there with the workflow, but one thing im getting shouting in my face as of late : End result comparison method is as important as the shooting settings !
What the argument is, without getting in much detail, is this :
Whether a function of our brain or not, we cannot simply pick up a LCD, an image, run a preset / processing and look at the end result and "conclude" on its absolute quality and merits..
It seems for me, that a far better option is to compare few results from different shoots with the same camera (!) - next to each other, using / having developed them with a selected short list of "emulsions". And only then make a call, critically observing for the following 6 in no particular order :
1. Color Cast and hue shift of any type
2. Badly blown highlights, which should not be blown at first place using a particular camera
3. Crushed blacks / shadows beyond acceptable levels for a given image / scene
4. Loss of 3D / film look, due to HDR introduction / destruction for digital perfection
5. Gradation and banding disasters in large, flat areas
6. Losing the white in the whites and the black in blacks for the creeping grey in them ..
This is it .. I stop here .. Have a look at this - which one is the way it was and how about which one is best, irrespective of the way it was :
I myself after spending late nights on this, found this to be the shortest way to confirming of which processing out of them all is "im there, and in analogue way".
Your mileage may vary ..