tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post6834408204507244339..comments2024-03-20T18:13:07.791-07:00Comments on LOCH NESS MONSTER: The Seagull and the Surgeon's PhotographGlasgow Boyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-27138615815903365942014-03-18T16:51:01.372-07:002014-03-18T16:51:01.372-07:00This thread is a blast from the past! Having rerea...This thread is a blast from the past! Having reread what I previously said I had another close look at the second picture. This mark is typically what you get when you damage a wet negative (just after development) when the emulsion is very soft. From experience processing and printing many films this would be my most likely scenario.Les Johnstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13655848425516575413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-3035142687682096042014-03-18T13:23:05.651-07:002014-03-18T13:23:05.651-07:00Got to agree with the above comment. You're cl...Got to agree with the above comment. You're clutching at straws here. If that wee squiggle is a seagull, then it makes the head & neck of Godzilla proportions!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-57545333776884823902010-12-05T11:02:22.534-08:002010-12-05T11:02:22.534-08:00This definitely looks like a print defect to me, o...This definitely looks like a print defect to me, or even damage on the negative that made the print. I feel confident saying that as a photographer who dealt with negatives and did darkroom printing. On both pictures it actually looks sharper than anything else in the frame which wouldn't happen if it was actually there. But would if the mark was made at the printing stage. Looks just like dust or debris got into the process here. To be honest I think anyone who’s going back to this picture and trying to throw doubt on the facts it’s a fake is clutching at straws.<br />Regarding the negative, isn’t it the case that the above picture is a crop and the original negative shows a much bigger area including the far shore of the Loch, I remember it was on display at the Loch Ness Exhibition with a caption saying it had been lost for a while but since it was found we could confirm it was actually taken in Loch Ness. There was a print showing the full negative.<br />I do remember seen the surgeons picture forth first time in 1988 and thinking that the object must be really small going by the size and look of the waves.Les Johnstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13655848425516575413noreply@blogger.com