Played with this a lot. Found out my enlarger had a loose wire to the bulb holder. It does print, all of it at a lower grade (0) but is terribly flat. At grade 2 I am much happier with it overall but the highlights are very deficient. This is a compromise at grade 1.
I'd print for detail in the highlights, dodge the bricks and courtyard so you don't lose them, and let the shadows go pure black.
As the only living thing in the photo, the pigeon becomes a center of interest, Its positioning makes it look like a tiny bird sitting on the rail. It'd be best to notice it and wait til it moves to a more separated position.
Yes, the highlight detail of the ancient wooden door is really what I want. I saw the patch of light on the door and just had to take a picture. I managed to take two pictures but it is busy thoroughfare and I was in the way really so there was no time to consider the pigeon. In fact, I didn't even notice it at the time. This is one of those pictures that exceeds my ability to print it properly. I am not quite sure how I am going to dodge the bricks and courtyard as it is an awkward shape. It is a shame to let the shadows go completely because there is actually some lovely textured wood at the bottom of the door but I can't have everything I suppose (but it might be worth trying to dodge it a bit).
If you hold the negative up to a bright light source, such as a table lamp bulb, do you see details in the highlight area? If you do I'm sure they can be brought out one of three ways: by masking or better scanning or easily...hate to say this...PS.
I don't think the problem is Gibralter light...I think it's film development.
@jtk yes there is detail in the highlights. This picture will actually print as a straight print with highlight and shadow detail at grade 0 but it is a boring picture like that. It is really a question of how to either dodge the shadows whilst giving enough exposure to the highlights or burn the highlights. Incidentally, the picture of the macaques (also in the gallery) is from the same roll of film.
@Svenedin Certainly the macaques print is fine so the real question would have been: By how much could you have decreased the development to get this short right and could you have then still have printed the macaques correctly? I don't know and its a hindsight issue anyway. If dodging is complicated I wonder if paper flashing might help to bring out detail?
Have a look at Les McClean Photography. He has an article on Flashing and Fogging with examples. His before examples seems to quite closely resemble your print. His "after " examples are pretty amazing. His book "Creative Black and White Photography" is well worth obtaining. What he was able to do with a photo called First Communion Ardoyne, Belfast is quite a amazing. It has exactly your problem. It involves post flashing and water bath. No sleight of hand "dodging" required
@pentaxuser For two tricky frames out of 36 I wouldn't be altering the development to suit them. On the contact print the are so obviously going to be awkward (these 2 negatives are both relatively overexposed compared to the others). Thanks. I will look up that book. A bit of dodging is not sleight of hand it is just the paper does not have the latitude of the film. There is no harm in letting some of the shadows go in this particular picture. To the right of the door is a boring wall. I could not stand back further as the tunnel is too narrow. It would have been better with a wider angle lens but I did not have such a lens with me at the time. I tend to take as little out with me as possible having had a camera bag stolen in Lisbon even though I had entangled it under the leg of my chair!
IMO ..It's easier to increase contrast when printing than to lower it beyond "average" so revision to your standard film development might be worthwhile.
@jtk I haven't been at home but now I'm back and I have had a look at the contact sheet which was printed at grade 2. The only frame that stands out is actually the picture of the tunnel entrance which is clearly overexposed (why I don't know). I don't think there's anything wrong with the development of the film. All of the other frames look normal. I like to be able to print at grade 2 or 3 especially as I like using single grade paper.