I'm working on materials and processes. This negative was properly exposed but I believe, overdeveloped. This is a perfectly straight, unmanipulated print, per my proper proofing time for the film base + fog, for this paper. The highlights are blown out. Confirmation of the cause would be helpful.
I would certainly anticipate having to burn in the sky and sunlit grass in an image like this... What do you mean by blown out? Can you see detail in those areas with a loupe? That is a rather long range to expect to keep detail in the shadows (which you have) AND the highlights with a simple straight print unless you used a very low contrast paper/filter.
Interesting, Shawn. So you think I'm describing an unreasonably high standard? I was thinking that if the development were shorter, there'd be less density in the highlight areas of the negative. Yes there is detail in the highlights and split grade printing...and certainly some burning could improve the print greatly. This was just a "step outside and make some test exposures" roll, so I'm not that invested in the final print. This seems a little contrasty for a straight grade 2 to me. I appreciate your input.
In order to keep reasonable contrast in the shadow areas, yes, I would think you would need to make a negative that required some burning come print time (for this scene). I'm assuming you are using semi-stand (based on your thread I've been following). I've seen Sherman's prints in person and they are beautiful. However, one aspect which was not discussed in that thread is the fact that Mr. Sherman is a hell of a good printer! =) Also, keep in mind that with semi-stand / time is a great control over shadow detail (given enough exposure) and dilution and agitation are great controls over highlight density. (IE - when you decrease dilution there is still enough developer present to develop the shadows properly ((given enough time)) but the highlights will run out of energy faster in between agitations).
One thing that I like to think about when I photograph extremely long brightness ranges like these is to consider what the light felt like, and how I'd like it to look in the print.
Sometimes to me that means skies with very little detail. To me it's utterly difficult to recreate in a print what light actually feels like when viewed.
One thing that I like to think about when I photograph extremely long brightness ranges like these is to consider what the light felt like, and how I'd like it to look in the print. Sometimes to me that means skies with very little detail. To me it's utterly difficult to recreate in a print what light actually feels like when viewed.