Will pull help me with this image

[PatrickMarq]

When I’m not sure I’ll always take two images.
After developing this one, I see that there is not a lot of tonal separation between the bridge and the air.
So I have still one in the holder and I’m thinking of N-2 development
Ilford Delta 100 in Rodinal 1:50 - 14:00min

Another option would be go back with Ilford Ortho plus

Anyone some advice

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52154900291_4339562a4b_h.jpg

[John Layton]

Not that its always easy to tell much from my laptop...but if I am interpreting this with any accuracy this subject looks like a candidate to be photographed with a yellow/green filter and placing the bright metal on the bridge at close to zone 8...then the sky should fall a bit below this.

Yellow/green can offer nice tonal separation without blasting contrast out of the water...thinking especially of those dark shadows in the large tree on the right - further complicated by that really bright, thin, tall post near the edge of the image.

Then again, the print itself looks like it might be done...just a wee bit darker overall, maybe with a bit of careful dodging of those same tree shadows so they don't go too black - then followed by a very brief, shallow "V" shaped burn from bottom to top, trending slightly leftwards and cutting off that big, shadowy tree early (lest you undo your earlier dodges!), and making a slightly slower exit starting evenly just below the top of the image all the way across, then tilting the right (burn shadow) up evenly for just a bit more exposure on the upper left edge.

Finally a question - how much separation can you see, in the negative, between the very bright middle and right side of the top (horizontal) section of that derrick, and the sky behind this? My gut says that there will be enough for the above printing scenario to be effective.

[paulbarden]

Rodinal is doing you no favors. Its a poor choice to pair with Delta emulsions. You fry the high values.

[djdister]

I would say your time would be better spent on figuring when to reshoot the bridge - the time of day, quality and angle of light, absence of clouds, etc are not doing you any favors. I'd suggest revisiting the location at different times of day and shoooting with a better sky. So long as the bridge is not blue in color, it should also be simple to bring the sky down in tone with an orange or red filter which would make the bridge stand out. But my main thought is that this was not a good time of day to shoot it, especially with a clear sky.

[PatrickMarq]

I would say your time would be better spent on figuring when to reshoot the bridge - the time of day, quality and angle of light, absence of clouds, etc are not doing you any favors. I'd suggest revisiting the location at different times of day and shoooting with a better sky. So long as the bridge is not blue in color, it should also be simple to bring the sky down in tone with an orange or red filter which would make the bridge stand out. But my main thought is that this was not a good time of day to shoot it, especially with a clear sky.

The bridge is indeed a light shade of blue, so you are right I must come back when there are more clouds.

[xkaes]

Exactly. If the tower has any color in it -- other than sky blue -- use a complementary color filter to make the tower darker -- and/or wait for a cloud to show up behind the tower.

[djdister]

Maybe not the best example, but here is a shot of a metal bridge taken under a mostly overcast, flat sky. The camera angle was selected to bring out the texture of the metal bridgework.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRjCmHVi6tkQ85SnffOtt308JlpQKzcXufGEv92hZsfcQLDXzKmjXdgH6bbyv2Zubau3urf63q84bSmBB-HbNm9OsT5S4JLTU6a2F_K-cMcmvXra9WV86IWylRSIdJmamwribqwxrgyO82GO4aTE4k_7F430YnNKLlNB3MCc8q63EhHigxZjz2EuTnrQ/s2400/2018_09_30%20PortsmouthNH-012.png

[joho]

Anyone some advice_ I will start with some questions that will be answered as critic.

1- the lighting is at 2:00 clock, from the right is this needed??
because it is to flat!!! - oh ! that Belgium light is a bitch!!

2- did you use a filter ???
by the looks of things I’d say a orange, [type] to amber due to the dark foliage with very dark shadows !!

3- was there atmospheric haze ?????
I looks most likely there was —and you over developed for this ???

4- is this a straight print —or b&&d’ed
??? the bridge as light blue + how did you expose ?? f/64 -and long time[1/1]-[ grass moved in front] you developed with more agitation ??

[Doremus Scudder]

The premise of your question is erroneous. Developing less (I hate the word "pulling" for N- developments...) will get you less tonal separation overall, including between bridge and sky.

And, I agree with most of the other posters that dealing with the merger between sky and bridge needs to be done when exposing the negative. This is where the Zone System really shines; visualizing these details of your image so you can deal with them at the time of exposure. Filtration could help a lot if you can find a color that will lighten the bridge and darken the sky or, maybe better here, vice-versa. Reading values with your spot meter through the filters can be really helpful to see if you're getting more or less separation with a particular color.

But, you may be able to squeeze a bit more separation out of the current image by printing light and then burning with a #5 filter till you get the dark details you want. Then finish up with a shot of #00 to get a bit of substance in the whites if you need.

Best,

Doremus

[tuco]

How blue was the sky? The deeper the blue in the sky the easier it is to get a darker tone both with and without a colored filter, of course. Also I find if I place the sky say 3 or more stops above the middle gray exposure, it is hard to get a deeper tone out it. And in the second picture it looks like you placed the sky pretty high so maybe a little under development would help.

[PatrickMarq]

Anyone some advice_ I will start with some questions that will be answered as critic.

1- the lighting is at 2:00 clock, from the right is this needed??
because it is to flat!!! - oh ! that Belgium light is a bitch!!

2- did you use a filter ???
by the looks of things I’d say a orange, [type] to amber due to the dark foliage with very dark shadows !!

3- was there atmospheric haze ?????
I looks most likely there was —and you over developed for this ???

4- is this a straight print —or b&&d’ed
??? the bridge as light blue + how did you expose ?? f/64 -and long time[1/1]-[ grass moved in front] you developed with more agitation ??

1 - The time was 11:35
2 - No filter
3 - Yes there was some haze
4 - The exposure was f32 - 1/4s and there was wind, I don’t mind of moving grasses

[PatrickMarq]

The premise of your question is erroneous. Developing less (I hate the word "pulling" for N- developments...) will get you less tonal separation overall, including between bridge and sky.

And, I agree with most of the other posters that dealing with the merger between sky and bridge needs to be done when exposing the negative. This is where the Zone System really shines; visualizing these details of your image so you can deal with them at the time of exposure. Filtration could help a lot if you can find a color that will lighten the bridge and darken the sky or, maybe better here, vice-versa. Reading values with your spot meter through the filters can be really helpful to see if you're getting more or less separation with a particular color.

But, you may be able to squeeze a bit more separation out of the current image by printing light and then burning with a #5 filter till you get the dark details you want. Then finish up with a shot of #00 to get a bit of substance in the whites if you need.

Best,

Doremus

Doremus,
I agree with you that the separation must be done when exposing the image. Normally I develop less only when the scene is to dynamic.
Now when looking back I see that I never took that image, I ‘record’ all information into a app Film Shots where you also can save an image with the exposure setting. There also I see color wise there is not a lot difference with the sky and the bridge.

As djdister said come back when the sky is better.
I think the problem at this time is, being to frustrated at my job I feel the need to take images at all cost when I have my day of (wednesday).
And at the end you end up with more frustrations of a bad result. But I suppose that’s more a story for the Lounge.

[Joe O'Hara]

Since the bridge is blue, like the sky, color filters may be of limited use. My suggestion would be to try using a polarizing filter on a day that is not too hazy or overcast. The effect of polarizing filters is greatest at 90 degrees away from the direction to the Sun (i.e., light coming from the side). It doesn't have to be 90 degrees to help, though. Maybe the light comes from a more favorable direction at another time of year. And if you use a polarizer, you need not rotate it to the angle where it has the maximum effect, which can sometimes look unnatural (it would probably kill the reflections off the water too, which you might not want). The idea is to turn it until the image looks best to you. Then develop according to the lighting on the scene and your visualization of how you want the print to look.

I should add that when the sky is in the picture, short-focus lenses are a bad idea with polarizers. You can get a very unnatural gradient across the sky because the polarization of the light is angle-dependent. So a normal or longer lens is the best choice, if you find that a polarizer will help you with the tonality.

[Doremus Scudder]

Since the bridge is blue, like the sky, color filters may be of limited use. My suggestion would be to try using a polarizing filter on a day that is not too hazy or overcast...

Also a really good suggestion.

[PatrickMarq]

Thank you all for all the good and useful feedback, I’m going to put it for now to rest.
Let my mind calm down, and see what I’m going to do next Wednesday….