Need opinion developing Tri-X / shot against the sun

[lhalcong]

I shot beach rocks ocean landscape sunrise in backlighting @ F11. The light gray clouds under the sun metered @ 1/8000 and the dark rocks where the sun light was bating the top portion of the rocks measured at 1/500 , I decided to put those natually dark rocks on Zone 3 and reduced the exposure two zones to 1/2000 . then I figured I would develop n-1 to bring the bright sky down a bit. I shot at super wide 16mm angle so the sun in the picture is very small , bound to burn a little white hole but I dont care since it is small, and the reflection on the water is probably the same case but thats fine. But then I realized the shadow portion of those dark rocks are really way below the zone 3 . I never metered them... oh well my mistake. Should I develop at normal N. or since this is Tri-X 400 should I develop at N+1 to try salvage a bit of the low zones even though I know they will probably be pitch black... or should I stick with my original plan at N-1

opinions. ? thx

 

[Terry Christian]

I would just compromise by developing normally. In either case, it sounds like you'll only be off by a stop or so, and should be able to dodge/burn what you need in printing.

 

[markbarendt]

N is what I'd use.

 

[Worker 11811]

I shoot into the sun a lot. I shoot two or three stops over then develop normally. I often use a #2 red filter too but be careful about lens flare re-reflecting off the filter unless you want that effect... which I sometimes do.

Yes, you will likely end up with a silhouette but that's kinda' the point of shooting into the sun, anyway. Right?

If I don't want a silhouette, I meter off a moderately bright spot on the sand or the ground near the subject. Problem is, you'll probably burn out the sky or most of it. Again, if that's what you want, go for it.

In almost every case, I develop normally unless I have some other reason. Many times, it is possible to do some dodging and burning to get the silhouettes to have detail or to keep detail in the clouds. I'm not really good at doing more than basic dodges or burns so I usually just pick the part of the picture I like best and print for that.

 

[tkamiya]

Considering the extreme that exist in your frame, I'm thinking it won't make an appreciable difference between N and N-1, or even N-2 as far as recovering extremes.

If the rocks were WAY BELOW zone 3, there isn't much there to begin with.... I'd go with N.

 

[pbromaghin]

Wow. What a question. apug rocks.

 

[Helinophoto]

The reason, is that if you put the rocks in zone 3, this is the "last zone" you will retain shadow-details in.
The sky is 4 stops brighter (zone 7), which is bright, but as you said; It was measured pretty close to the sun, it should naturally lie there, you should still be able to burn in things, need be.

I use the advice in a book call simplified zone system. The basic advice there, is to measure the "darkest shadow-area you wish to retain shadow detail in" and shoot
Later, when moving into more advanced stuff, it advice you to to as above, but check the brightest area you want details in and see how many stops there are between them. Zone 7 is the "brightest zone which still will retain detail").

If your important sky highlights was zone 8 or 9, I would consider n-1 and n-2.