(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:
Voilà 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.