clouds

[robc]

I have just (yesterday) moved to a different server.
DNS record pointers may not have fully propagated around the web.

this should work in the mean time:

clouds

or please try again tommorow.

[Ken Lee]

- That works nicely -

[adrian tyler]

dear mr kennedy

i am afraid that that i don't really understand the zone system, but wait, clouds are a vital part of landscape composition, so meter accordingly, get an average between your land/sky and don't worry so much, the important thing is the composition, i mean, you can have an exquisite print but what is the point if it is a rubbish photo?

adrian tyler

[Larry Gebhardt]

"Are you adjusting your exposure to take the planned minus development into account?"

I do give extra exposure for minus development, which is important to keep your shadow details from getting pushed down onto the toe of the film.

What I am referring to is the possible decrease in contrast in areas that don't need it just to fit the clouds or another highlight into a single print exposure. For example if you have a scene (say people at a picnic bench, but no sky visible) in partial shade that has a normal contrast range you would use N development. If you were to switch to a wider lens, or backup, and include sky with clouds your exposure for the main scene would stay the same, but the clouds and sky will blow out when given N developement.

If you reduce development to N-2, and give an extra stop exposure to compenstate, the contrast of your original scene will be drastically reduced but the clouds and all will print in one shot.

Or you can leave the exposure the same and when you print the clouds and sky will be white. There will detail in the negative and you can get it out by burning in the sky.

Or you can throw a 2 stop (.6) graduated neutral density filter on and cover the sky. This leaves your base exposure the same with the same contrast, but the sky is two stops less exposed so it fits fine in a single print exposure. This basically moves the burning from the darkroom to the camera - a good sulution if it works for the scene.

Or you could give N development and reduce the paper grade by about 2. Thus you only have one print exposure. But your main subject will still have flat contrast as it just got compressed during printing and not film development.

So I feel that frequently when at first glance you would use N- development you might be better off handling the problem in the darkroom. Especially with most modern films and their very high shoulders since you won't loose highlight contrast.

Sorry for the rambling answer.

[jonathan smith]

I agree with the use of the filters, but you may not want too much contrast in the land below the clouds, or have it be too dark.

I shot some scenes where certain land details were a little too dark if the clouds were right. My negs had all the information, but getting it on the print was a different story. Filters would have made the bushes on the ground pretty much black blobs (they're close enough to that already)

I did this one with a little burning in of the sky, but then used brush development to the sky areas to make it come out more.

look:

http://www.netwood.net/usr/jonsmith/

or