Does developing your film make you a better photographer?

Does developing your film make you a better photographer?

  • No.

    Votes: 35 30.2%

  • Yes.

    Votes: 46 39.7%

  • Not Sure.

    Votes: 9 7.8%

  • I like Pie.

    Votes: 26 22.4%
  • Total voters
    116
I do really like pie...

But anyway. I don't think it can make you a better photographer, but it can give you a better understanding of the photographic process. I think you appreciate the whole process more if you develop your own. You understand the work it takes to take your vision from your mind onto a small piece of celluloid and then finally onto a piece of paper. It's like alchemy.
 
No. But involvement in working with images does, printing, photoshopping, viewing, critiquing, etc.
 
Much like manual control of focus and exposure, processing your own prints (analog and/or digital) increases your creative options.
 
Hmmmm...
That's like asking if using Photo-shop on your scanned or Digital files makes you a better photographer.

You may improve your developing skills, and printing skills this way. But a better photographer...that is more a personal opinion and taste isn't it?

Actively having a goal in improving photographic image "AS" you capture it. May help too. Maybe tying to take 5 different viewpoints of the same thing may help too. After all to improve your photography, You MUST Capture images, THEN develop them.

It Couldn't Hurt :cool:
 
Developing (assuming you go on to scanning/printing/photoshopping) will help you, by making you devoting more time and hopefully thought to your pictures. Whether that time is better spent taking more pictures, is another matter.

/Jobo, developing after dark.
 
It sure does.

Developing yourself => reducing processing costs => more money on film => more actual photography => better photographer.
 
I guess grinding your own lenses makes you focus better. And how could you expose properly if you don't make your own exposure meter or design your own shutter and aperture. I can't program, does that mean I can't become better at using photoshop?

I am sure processing film has helped folks understand the photographic process. Whether it made them "better" photographers depends on the person - the act of taking photos to have more film to develop could simply mean taking more pictures made them better photographers. As it has been pointed out, Henri Cartier-Bresson had very little interest in the darkroom process.

I run my own darkroom because I enjoy the process. It does not make me a "better" photographer. Those hacks that work at National Geographic are "bad" because they send their film away to be developed? I can certainly understand a process without having to actually do it myself. I don't print the publications I make. I have never run a press either. That does not mean I cannot make high-quality publications.
 
if you mean capturing the image on film, no. If you mean from tripping the shutter to mounted picture on the wall....maybe :D

you can be great in the darkroom but if the shot is not worth the effort, then what is the point?

On the other hand, the eye to good photos and somebody else can do the darkroom work.

having said that, doing BOTH is [or can be] fun and more enjoyable for the finished object
 
I am going to go out on a limb and say of course! It does not mean you can't be a good photographer if you don't, but by having first hand knowledge of exactly what is going on when you take a photo, develop it and print it, you will become a better photographer. It will help you learn how to expose more accurately, it will allow you to specifically tailor your film and developer choice to the given scene. And it will allow you to understand how the whole process works. The first hand experience that you have will allow you to improve and solidify your technique. People say, "Well, HCB did not develop for himself", so? He certainly knew how to...it is one thing to know how to do it and then leave the responsibility to someone else, but it is another to have no knowledge of it whatsoever. If you think HCB just dropped off his film at the lab and said: "I'll take some glossy prints", you are dead wrong. He was involved in the whole process even if he did not do it with his own hands.

Anyway...knowledge is always a good thing.
 
I believe it makes you "better" as in better understanding the whole process, from snapping the photo to having it in your hands. And sometimes it doesn't prevents one from making mistakes ;)
 
Let's see: does cooking your own food make you a better eater? Does pumping your own gas make you a better driver? Does paying your taxes make you a better voter? Does taking out your garbage make you a better environmentalist?

All of this, and the weather, at 9 :D
 
Yeah Ray,,,,

Yeah Ray,,,,

RayPA said:
No. But involvement in working with images does, printing, photoshopping, viewing, critiquing, etc.
Click to expand...
I think this is the case. I also feel as some have expressed above in that shooting digital has really helped me with film. They are quite different in how they need to be treated but the immediate feedback attainable from digital has really helped all my skills. If anything I'm more dedicated to film now, having learned so much from digital and finding its strengths/weaknesses. I still like shooting digital but I love shooting film and am doing better at it from having learned some good lessons in the digital world, and far more quickly than I did when I was keeping D-76 in old Almaden wine jugs in the closet. The feedback just came too slowly for my limited memory. Maybe I should try it again, I'm frequently tempted. Sometimes I think that shooting B&W, developing the negs oneself, scanning and printing would be the perfect blend of both the modern and the traditional and offer a huge amount of control over the final image.
 
As people mentioned before, I think it is possible that it will help to better understand the nature of photography and the photographic processes. It also depends how involved you are in the processing aspect of your film. For example, if you are just exposing film for the sake of exposing and processing it just for the sake of processing it, then probably not.

However, I think if you are doing time temperature tests, film testing, experimenting a bit with one kind of film, processing it in several different types of developers at different types of tempertures, as well as experimenting with different types of film, processing these films in different type of developers and at different tempertures, and making photogrpahic prints not scans, then yes I think it can. Also using, understanding, and plotting your film curves by using a densotometer, will really help you understand all the different types of effects you can produce. Even at different dilutions of developers, like rodianl 1:25 vs 1:50, or exposing tri-x at 1000 ASA processing it in accufine at 70 degrees for 5 minutes, all these combinations changes the structure of the siver halide affecting grain size and the sharpness of the grain.

Also knowing how d-76, hc-110, or rodinal will affect various films at the various temperatures will affect how the grain will look in the film.

Now imagine taking an amazing picture, if you know how you want your film or the grain of the film to look prior to processing the film, you may be able to achieve a certain look, depending on your famliarity with these different types of developers, and corresposning temperatures.

Or their is a specific lighting scenario that may be difficult to photograph, will I know from ecperience, if it a low light situation, I can take my tri-x film rate it 1000 asa process it in accufine for 70 degrees for 5 minutes and it will come out beautifully.

Even you stuck to one type of film and one of developer, you could over time, really understand the effects of a certain combination and achieve a certain level or profciency or look that you desire.

Keep in mind their are several well known photographers who never process their film or print their own images, leaving them with more time about framing and constructing their image. but I think if you desire a certain aesthietic choice then yes I think it will enhance your photogrpahic skills, especially if your images look consistant.
 
Finder said:
I am sure processing film has helped folks understand the photographic process. Whether it made them "better" photographers depends on the person - the act of taking photos to have more film to develop could simply mean taking more pictures made them better photographers. As it has been pointed out, Henri Cartier-Bresson had very little interest in the darkroom process.
Click to expand...

Ah, the usual smartass counter post and the usual "Henri Cartier Bresson said this and since he is god it must be true." It's all so refreshing!


Please let me remind you Ansel Adams, the guy that owes his name and recognition entirely to his darkroom work.
Yes, Ansel Adams, the photographer.
 
I voted no on this one. Many good photographers never go into the darkroom. Both require a certain skill to master the art.
 
Sisyphus said:
Now imagine taking an amazing picture, if you know how you want your film or the grain of the film to look prior to processing the film, you may be able to achieve a certain look, depending on your famliarity with these different types of developers, and corresposning temperatures.
Click to expand...

True - knowledge of the full process will be in your mind as you plan a shot...or help you realise that you won't be able to achieve a particular look under those circumstances...
I guess to a lesser extent, understanding what can be achieved in Photoshop can also help in a difficult situation when shooting digital - or scanning film to complete in digital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top