Creswick Uniting Church

Very, very pretty tonality. I really mean it. The orange filter was primarily responsible, but your development and slight over-exposure (EV 12) simply could not have been better matched. Your shadows hide nothing. To obtain adequate, realistic contrast without blocking is an achievement with such contrasty lighting.

'Someone else' took a picture in a hurry: the picture is called "Moonrise over Hernandez". - David Lyga

Crisp, texture, lots of details.

I wouldn't have expected an orange filter if it was not in the notes. Makes me wonder if the main brickwork was yellow or reddish. If so, this is probably the better rendition.

David, I 'm not sure you can work out whether my exposure was over or under from reading the text and/or viewing the image. To my mind, the exposure is correct for the situation at hand, simple really. many thanks for your comments

Graham, thank you for your comments, read on about the orange filter. As a matter of interest that filter features in around 50% of my 4x5" exposures, but not always by choice. As for your guess of the colour of the main body of the church, check out this link.
https://www.google.com/search?q=cre...AUIECgD&biw=1173&bih=536#imgrc=E7qK6bWZoviPMM:

The time was 0935hrs we had rolled up and were looking for a place to have a coffee/tea, knowing that a parking place would be available in the church grounds, we headed there. Once I saw the church in that light, thoughts of coffee or tea went out the window. More so, as the weather was about to quickly change. In fact, once I had tripped the shutter and was about to replace the DDS, shadows enveloped the church. We sat in our camper having drinks while watching the weather deterioate rapidly.

I remember going through the motions quite quickly, making a couple of executive decisions. As my camera is always folded with a 150mm lens, 150mm was the go. As I mostly have an orange filter fitted, I left the filter on. Because I was standing down in a quite steep driveway, I tilted the camera upwards, made the standards vertical, then used 27mm of front lift. Even after that I still cropped some of the driveway from the image; it is, a very steep slope.

Film was developed in my Jobo using D76 1:1 that was around 3 months old; which also helps. I try as much as possible to use older developer as it works well for me.

Mick.

Well, I would not have anticipated fawn as the main colour!

Mick: I figured based upon the EV 12 you chose (1/8 = EV 3 plus f/22 = EV 9). Based upon that, given that it was a sunny day, the 'correct' (box speed) exposure would have been about EV 15 without the filter. Now, you used an orange filter, which robs about 1.5 stops, thus the theoretically correct exposure would have been, with the filter in place, about EV 13.5. You seemed to give 1.5 stops more than absolutely needed, Mick. - David Lyga

Well David, interesting scenario you postulate there.

I rate the film at 320 ASA so there is some extra exposure from box speed with that.

I added one stop to try and retain shadow detail.

Then there was the developing, after looking up my notes, they tell me I added ½ a stop extra in developing to try and retain detail in the highlights.

Not too bad on your part, I must say.

Graham, puce pink is more like it. Fawn, I'm not too sure about; but I know where you are coming from. Your original guess was pretty good, eh?

Mick.