The Daily Parker

Politics, Weather, Photography, and the Dog

Photo of the Day

Another reprise, this time of Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg:

Again, the differences may not be apparent. Here's the first publication from last July:

The revised image has a smidge more contrast and a skeech more saturation, and I dodged out some of the darker areas a snape or two. Unlike some other shots I've put up recently, this one came from a large (6 Mpix) digital original, so further refinements should be easy and effective.

Photo of the Day

(Aside: Apparently the Photo of the Day has become a feature of The Daily Parker. Oh, the pressure.)

Today, another comparison between a photo I printed in a darkroom with paper and chemicals and the same photo "printed" using digital image editing tools. This is a friend from high school, photographed in March 1986 on Kodak Tri-X film, and printed on 8"x10" Ilford #3 paper:

VoilĂ  the rescanned negative processed through Lightroom:

As with the other photo, I didn't duplicate the original print exactly. Both modern versions show more detail and a greater range of tones than the paper prints, partially because of the generation loss from scanning a print, but also because printing a photo on an easel is a sloppy process. After six or seven attempts, with a cycle time of about 20 minutes, using smelly chemicals, after school, in a darkroom in the school basement, with homework to do, I just moved on. With digital editing, if I don't like the result I can simply change it. Burned in a spot too much? In 1986, throw the print out and start over. In 2011, hit +Z.

In fact, just looking at the comparison, I see a couple more things I should do...which will take about 5 minutes. And no smelly chemicals.

Thanks to the model, Lauren Spain-Bondi, for permission to publish.

Photoshop Version 0.0

In May 1986, I went to Boston with my school choir (all 130 of us, plus chaperons) and took about 240 photos. Here's one of them:

When I got back home, I printed the shot. This took about five hours, and some help from Mr. Sylvester, the photography teacher, because instead of Photoshop I used an actual darkroom, with an easel and Ilford #3 paper. Here's the result:

Now, in 2011, I've finally scanned the negative, and in about 20 minutes with Adobe Lightroom, produced a reasonable facsimile:

Not only did the electronic editing take less time than the paper-and-developer method, but it also smelled a lot better.

Public Garden, Boston, 10 May 1986. Kodak Tri-X 400, ISO 320, exposure unrecorded, Canon T-90.