Your Thoughts On Developing This

If EV 13 was a direct meter reading, it would be Zone 5 by default. If you wanted to place it on Zone 3 and this was your only consideration, you'd give two stops less. If you had a Zone dial fitted, you 'd simply trotate the arrow round to Zone 3, which is the same thing, but simpler in the field.
Everything in this post is qualified by: all other things being equal.
 
Last edited:
In the end, I decided to go with an N+2 semi stand development for 39 minutes in PyroCatHD because I really wanted to expand the tones as there was only 1 stop difference.

This is a scan of the photograph in question.
Scarborough-From-Holbeck-Hall.jpg
 
IMO, measuring those whispy clouds with any spot meter is going to be tough because that 1 degree measurement angle covers much more subject area than you think. The only meter that I'm aware of that might possibly give you an accurate reading for those clouds is the SEI with its 1/2 degree reading angle. What I try to do in situations like this is to find a closer image area with the same tonality and spot meter that. You can extrapolate, if the subject area you're using is slightly brighter/darker from the actual area you're interested in. I've found the same issue with my Pentax Digital Spot meter when measuring puffy clouds on a sunny day. There are typically smaller areas of the cloud, facing the sun, that I cannot measure accurately because my 1 degree angle is spilling over to the surrounding areas. Sometimes...we have to use that "meter" between our ears! ;)
 
Ian, you posted your result while I was typing the response above. Anyway, looks pretty good to me. I would boost the contrast just a tad more in printing, if I was printing it.
 
Alan9940 said:
Ian, you posted your result while I was typing the response above. Anyway, looks pretty good to me. I would boost the contrast just a tad more in printing, if I was printing it.
Click to expand...

When you say more contrast Alan, where would you concentrate on. The reason I ask is because it has been said before that some of my images appear to be lacking contrast and I'm not quite sure where. I do lean more towards the softer look and have a tendency to work in a softer grey pallet for better or worse.
 
Hey, if you see your images in a softer grey pallet, than who am I to say? I was simply saying what I would do. If I were getting this image ready for print (on the desktop), I'd add just a touch more contrast to the immediate foreground in the lower left, and to the middle ground area. In the middle ground area, I would probably just add a touch of clarity to cut through the haze; not eliminating it, but just to knock it back a bit. I wouldn't touch the water or the sky.

If printing in the darkroom, well...this all gets a little trickier. I'd test to determine my base filter number, then play around with various combos of higher contrast filters and exposure until I got what I wanted in the same areas referenced above.

In both cases, I would play around with dodging/burning to drive the eye toward the middle ground area because that's where the interest lies.
 
It's a much better picture than Google's. Very attractive. Well done.
We were distracted by the very bright sunlit surf in the Google version and I suspect that much of our advice was superfluous.
On my screen, a little more detail in the shadows might help and, only if you choose, a little bit more brightness in those distant white(?) buildings could be fine.
But you did say that there was a light haze or mist, so extra contrast might falsify the original mood. Stick to how you visualised it.
 
I think the image is about right as is, Contrast is OK, I'd just do some minimal dodging. I do print on the more "tonal" side the direct opposite to Ralph Gibson.

+/- development isn't really a tool in bland but relatively good lighting of wide landscapes.

Ian
 
Hi,

I agree with Alan9940, there is a potential to crop and thereby emphasise the curve of the bay juxtaposed with the semi circular structure in the sea, losing most of the sky and maybe forcing the eye to the fascinating wind on water patterns on the sea.

Something there Ian!

Robert
 
If I may make a lighthearted comment Ian, you are a little bit naughty in asking for development advice for a scene that was so very different in lighting, even though it was quite close geographically. Now we can understand your dilemma.
For myself, I don't mind he huge sky at all. I might just burn a slight gradient to make the top a little darker, but that's taste, not processing.
 
David M said:
If I may make a lighthearted comment Ian, you are a little bit naughty in asking for development advice for a scene that was so very different in lighting, even though it was quite close geographically.
Click to expand...

Yes in hind sight, I do take your point :)
 
And you still haven't answered my question as to whether you used a spot meter to take the exposure readings which you said showed no more than a couple of stops difference between shadows and highlights....

Alan
 
Alan Clark said:
And you still haven't answered my question as to whether you used a spot meter to take the exposure readings which you said showed no more than a couple of stops difference between shadows and highlights....

Alan
Click to expand...

Yes Alan, I used a spot meter (Sekonic L-758). I placed the dark areas just below the church on Zone 3 and the sky indicated 1 stop brighter.
 
One stop between points 1 and 2. And 1 stop between points 2 and 3. So that's 2 stops difference....or it could be 1 stop....Either way, it's not much for a bright sunny day with a full brightness range...

Alan
 
Alan Clark said:
One stop between points 1 and 2. And 1 stop between points 2 and 3. So that's 2 stops difference....or it could be 1 stop....Either way, it's not much for a bright sunny day with a full brightness range...

Alan
Click to expand...

The difference between 1+2+3 was 1 stop. I was expecting to see more and I even measured it twice
 
I wondered about the calculation for the size of the spot from another forum.
"...(15000 x Sin(1º) x 2) so the metering spot diameter is 524mm."
Why x2?
A circle of 15m radius is 30m in diameter, and its circumference is 30,000mm x 3.142= 94,260.
One degree is one three hundred and sixtieth of the circle so 94,260/360=261.8.
So the spot is 262mm dia, or about ten inches. Why the doubling? (261.8x2=523.66...)
It's still rather bigger than I suspected.
I'm very happy to be corrected on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top