<p> Mont Saint Michel.

Always appreciated.

This is a very striking image! I would like to see an actual print. I'm afriad some of the subtle details are being lost here on the Web.

Tr賠belle image...

Excellent B&W. How did you master the contrast of sky/ ground - a ND or PS ?

Carsten, the day was low in contrast with heavy cloud cover continually threatening to rain.

 

I use a Pentax digital spotmeter to set thye exposure and processed in Rodinal 1:50 for 10 minutes to put a little punch into the Agfa APX 120 film. The dMax for the neg was 1.42, fine for printing on Grade 1 paper. The contrast in the clouds need a little pumping up, but not much.

 

I am wondering whether I should hold back a little.

 

Regards

 

Beautiful

The composition is impressive and skillful. It's extremely enjoyable to look at.

 

I like the final contrast, but I'm rather curious about the way the village stands out over the clouds. That effect is interesting since looks like there is an aura of magic, if you want to call it like that, but -conversely- it's to my eyes a tad too extreme, more than the contrast.

beautifully dark.....darkly beautiful

Great depth of field!

Fair. Rotten rope and Mont in the background don't reflect the quality level expected from such expensive equipment and the whole image lacks detail and appears to be underexposed.

It is a bit depressing when you just have rated a 7/7 to a photo and then you read a comment like the previous one which says that it is just "fair" and underexposed, etc. To be clear in my mind, I have made a rapid visit to the portfolio of the author of theses lines, and this has reassured me; by far, I prefer you photos to its. And this one is not underexposed at all, and there is much details, and in brief this is a very beautiful view of the Mont St.-Michel.

Thank you for putting Falkenstein's comment into perspective.

I thought the comment was playful sarcasm...I know that John has done that before.....

....no?

very original, great image Gary

Worth every bit of every dime you ever put into all of your equipment. I love the tonal range on this one.

The picture has dual equal sized subjects providing near and far interest. Though the two subjects are at first glance independent and unrelated, there is correlation in the maritime preserved in the slender band of sea between land and sky.

 

I have little doubt the photograph was correctly exposed and only has this dark atmosphere for dramatic purposes. I think the picture better for it. Bunched in the midtones and it might appear limp. I like what appears to be a bird's nest built in one of the rope loops and the rising left to right ditch running contrary to the rising right to left axis of the coil and mont. The use of wide angle is also evident (to a photog at least) and I can imagine the pains taking tripod adjustments to correctly frame the two subjects in a way which did not have them too far flung and yet included the strip of sea. You must have been pretty close to the coast. The wide and the pointing down of the lens seems to be responsible for the outward leanings of the buildings at the extreme left and right of the mont, though as ever, that might be down to history.

 

The other thing evident is the halo. I'm not sure what to think of halos. They are obviously a product of darkroom dodging. Their presence bends reality, but for a legitimate purpose. Are they to be regarded in the same category as grain; enjoyed for what they stand for; the by product of using film / wet printing? Or are they to be viewed as unwanted and preferably to be avoided? Are my reservations rooted in modern software capabilities? Then again, where should the line be drawn? What's your take?

A very compelling composition in a very moody light, Gary. A fine use of the Biogon I might add.