After several months, I have finally managed to find enough large blocks of time to get a few color darkroom prints that I am happy with. In comparing them to my digital prints, the results were somewhat different than I expected, but no less significant. Here’s the first (these are copy photos of the actual prints):

 The first is the RA-4 print, the second is the inkjet print. The tonal mapping of the two was much more similar than I expected (as were the white and black points), but there were some significant differences that made the RA-4 print a clear winner for me:

1. Subtle differences in color- The darkroom print has better color separation overall. The reds in the dress are more true (this can of course be fixed almost instantly in Photoshop, but the RA-4 print got them right to begin with), and more importantly, the differentiation of color in the grass is much better(this is much harder to fix in Photoshop). The slight variation in color balance might account for some of this (the digital print is a bit more green), but limitations in the scanning and printing might also be to blame (I am currently doing tests to try to figure this out).

2. Difference in grain and tonal gradations. The darkroom print has a much smoother grain without much noticeable difference in sharpness. Here’s a detail to illustrate (you might have to click on the image and bring up the larger version to really see the difference):

 The darkroom print has a much smoother feel overall. I am going to go back and rescan the negative with all sharpening turned off to see if that makes a difference, but I have read and heard many times that digital scans increase the appearance of grain.

Here’s a comparison of the second print I did:

 Again, darkroom is first, digital second. There was a less pronounced difference between these two prints, but the darkroom print still felt “cleaner,” both in terms of color and smoothness (though the digital print retained better shadow detail).

More importantly than these differences, many of which can be corrected, in both cases I found myself going back and correcting the color of the digital print after I made the darkroom print. For some reason, it was much easier for me to get a really good print in the darkroom than in the computer, and it took a lot of fidgeting in Photoshop to bring the digital print up close to the quality of the darkroom print.  Digital does offers a real advantage in terms of usability- I can work on an image for 30 minutes, come back later and work on it for another 30 minutes, unlike the darkroom which requires a minimum of several hours at a go. With my current schedule, this is a must for me. While I don’t have the time or the resources to start making all my prints in the darkroom (though I might consider doing darkroom proofs of all my color work if I had access to an automated processor- the tabletop Jobo I’m using is cumbersome), it seems my original theory concerning the usefulness of still working in the darkroom bears some merit.

I picked these two images to begin with because I thought they would make good “baseline” images- straightforward lighting and color. My next experiments will be with a few images shot in lat evening light to try and get a better sense of how different white points affect things. All I need is  more 4 hour blocks of time and more chemistry… I’ll of course report my findings once I have them.

It was just pointed out me that I had my facts completely wrong in my last post on Critical Mass. For some reason I was thinking that only 50 people made it through the first round of critical mass, when in fact it is 150. That brings the odds down to 1 in 3.8- much more reasonably (Odds of getting the book award are still the same as in my last post). However, having your work really stand out among the 150 chosen becomes a bit harder… 

There is a  silver lining to this that I forgot to mention in my last post. All entrants will get copies of the books from last years winners, as well as a CD containing the work of all entrants. I’m excited to see the books, but the CD is even more instructive, as it will allow entrants to see their work in the context of all who entered, which in my experience provides excellent feedback, and maybe a better sense of why your work was or wasn’t chosen. Little pieces of insight like that, while sometimes demoralizing (back to my comment about the amount of great unrecognized work there is out there), ultimately make us better at what we do. I am happy that Critical Mass is able to build that feedback into the system, as most juried endeavors don’t do that.

I assume all you fellow Critical Massers got the same email I did yesterday- 570 entries! That means 1 in 11.4 applicants are going to make the final 50. Of course making the final 50 doesn’t even mean much- I’m guessing only the portfolios that really stand out among the final 50 get much attention. Getting one of the book awards would certainly get you some attention, but that’s a 1 in 190 chance. There is so much really good unrecognized work out there. Sometimes it seems like just playing the lottery would be easier…