In response to a comment by Murray Foote on ‘Masirah A Storm Coming’
I thought it would make a good post rather than be tucked away under comments.
He said:-
“It’s impressive but I think it’s the sort of image that can’t really be appreciated online. I suspect it really needs to be printed to whatever size is appropriate and probably on matte paper.
The reticulation in the sky makes it look as though it is a matte print but I presume that’s the consequence of the pushed TMax and the developer.”
Thank you for the critique Murray; yes there is some reticulation in the sky, accentuated by scanning unfortunately. I would have used a different developer, but at the time that was all I had.
Oman is not the best place for buying chemicals – almost zero supply now ! You are right in that it prints well on paper like Ilford FB matt and certainly does not look its best on the screen but:
I thought long and hard before I started this blog and decided it was for fun, rather than promoting my photography.
I am in the process of putting together an idea for a gallery type site, which I can use for my best work (for that read more care with the scanning…..) 🙂
The thing is, it begins to feel like work and the time could be spent in the darkroom, so the jury is out on that idea.
It is also nice being able to give some an idea of what Oman is like as a country.
I hope it also reminds people that film is still part of the process and has not been consigned to history. This is one of the reasons I have started mentioning what film, developer and camera I used.
I get such a shocked look from some when I answer the question “what camera do you use?” by saying a Bronica S2a along with a number of Nikon ‘F’ cameras and anything else that I can put film into.
I do use the Nikon D200 but am rather ambivalent about it, a bit like my thoughts on Vinyl and CD’s.
So do I leave the image up or take it down, along with several others that I am not 100% happy with. I think I will leave them and probably end up writing more answers like this one.
One thought – the above does not imply that I felt petulant in any way about the criticism I received from Murray. On the contrary, I admire his work and rather pleased that he took the trouble to comment.
Go and see his site it has some fascinating travel writing along with excellent photography. http://murrayfoote.com
David A Lockwood 
Thanks for this post David.
I am shooting digital these days though I have a Gaoersi 617 camera that I should get back to. I do have a current film project though that I intend to undertake within the next three months. I was given as a birthday present an old camera as a bookshelf ornament. It turns out that it is a 1930 Voitlander Bessar and it appears to be in full working condition apart from one small hole in the bellows. It has a format larger than 120, something like 6.5 x 10.5, but I have worked out how to use 120 film in it. I have purchased some film for it and will probably make a post in a couple of months after I have finished the lighthouse series.
I quite like the reticulation actually. I thought the image was suitable for a matte print because it doesn’t rely on extremes of contrast that matte would be unable to deliver. I thought that with a matte paper that has some texture, the reticulation could enhance the print and make it more mysterious. The viewer might not quite know whether to see in the sky reticulation, paper texture or spray and it might add a quality that the viewer can’t quite identify.
Keep em coming! I enjoy them a lot (and your talent is Obvious); nobody can do on the internet what is possible with print, so no worries!
All the best to you, greetings, Ron.
Thank you Ron,
Much appreciated.
David.