"You have to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights"

Oh, I don't think anyone would want to see that William. It looks like this . . .

 

Your image works for me... It simply needs context:

 

I woke, and we were sailing on

As in a gentle weather:

'Twas night, calm night, the moon was high;

The dead men stood together.

 

All stood together on the deck,

For a charnel-dungeon fitter:

All fixed on me their stony eyes,

That in the Moon did glitter.

Did the Ancient Mariner get seasick and turn green then?

yes - magenta filter - and I assumed that was a clever comment meant maybe to be humorous, hence the Ancient Mariner comment continues the humour..

 

However, as this is the Beginner Forum, and for the sake of clarity to the OP you and I both know, or I assume you know, that what was originally written, was written in context - my bold now for emphasis -

 

"asking to view the colour version of the file, as close to the 'raw' as possible, for example the JPEG file, straight out of camera."

WW

To simplify it, exposing for shadows usually meant over expose the film some. However, this would potentially blow out highlights. So, under developing could compensate to save the highlights. Light hitting negative film causes emulsion to be retained in development more. More emulsion blocks light from the enlarger hitting negative paper resulting in lighter areas. Having less emulsion allows light to hit the paper creating darker areas. So underexposing saves the shadow are details, and reducing development time, agitation or temperature saves highlights that would have been burned out. This is basically "Pull" processing. Pushing film would be expanding the contrast not compressing it as the Pull does. You'd push when your film ISO / ASA is not sensitive enough for the lighting. Pushing usually loses detail in highlights or shadows but allows a usable image in under lit situations.

And to simplify even further;" f8 and be there".

 

Ya, I know, but someone had to say it.

 

W

It might seem like a strange route to get to a B&W image, but I'd strongly recommend starting out with a colour negative.

 

For a start, colour negative film is developed to a low gamma (contrast), which means it has both good exposure latitude and excellent 'dynamic range'.

Therefore a scene like this:

[ATTACH=full]1335953[/ATTACH]

is absolutely no problem for C-41 film.

 

IIRC I stuck with the Nikon FE's CW TTL meter reading, but the film has retained detail from the doorway on the shaded side of the street to the sunlit whitewashed walls beyond.

 

Not only that, but a digital B&W conversion allows filter effects to be used that give a huge choice of visual interpretations to the scene.

From this:

[ATTACH=full]1335954[/ATTACH]

To this:

[ATTACH=full]1335955[/ATTACH]

And everything in between.

 

So with the right choice of materials and techniques, getting a suitable exposure isn't at all difficult. No spotmeter or guesstimation of what might, or might not, be a mid-tone required!

 

I've lately been exploring monochrome conversion of a lot of my colour negatives, with some surprisingly excellent results. Such a thing would have required special panchromatic paper and given so-so results in the past, but today it's easy-peasy with digital scanning and an image editor.