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
no, taking more pictures do, thats why I spend all my time taking photos and not developing, let someone else do it, they do a good enough job
 
StuartR said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not very involved, according to his recent biographer:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Henri-Cartier-Bresson-Biography-Pierre-Assouline/dp/050051223X/ref=sr_1_9/202-6449699-1766253?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178441886&sr=1-9

He was famous, so he had someone dedicated to processing and printing his work, but beyond making decisions about what he wanted to print, he seems to have had almost no interest in the darkroom at all.

NB23 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think you're missing the point, a bit. Some photographers are very involved in the whole process of photography (Adams is one), and others aren't (HCB is one). I don't suppose anyone is suggesting just because HCB didn't have any interest in the darkroom that everyone else should adopt the same approach, the point is simply that darkroom interest/ability is not a measure of someone's ability to take great photographs.

Ian
 
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A. said:
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
Click to expand...

I think this is going to be one of my favourite sayings now. :D
 
I have voted yes, and I say this in the respect that learning to dev and print your own work, whilst not essential, is a step further in complete control over the final image. The ability to do this, (coupled with a learned capacity to pre-visualise the desired final result), can have a huge impact on the whole way you "make" photographs. Learning how to make your chosen film do precisely what you need and want from it comes with time, but the feeling when it all works and comes together is priceless.

Regards, John.
 
personally would rather spend the time shooting, would be nice to learn though
 
I find it kind of hard to believe HCB didn't have any input into cropping, burning and dodging his photos. Maybe he didn't do it himself, but he must have given instructions on how he wanted his final print to look.
 
dadsm3 said:
I find it kind of hard to believe HCB didn't have any input into cropping, burning and dodging his photos. Maybe he didn't do it himself, but he must have given instructions on how he wanted his final print to look.
Click to expand...


Have you seen warphotographer? Nachtwey working with his printer when they made prints for an exhibition?

But for us mere mortals, this kind of service is unreachable. Talking to a cashier in a grocery store about croping and contrast wouldn't help us much. Sometimes one can get something close in minilabs.
But DIY is the best bet to get what you want.

OTOH, one can learn how to expose and compose to get decent results from a big or mini lab. Same with slides.
 
Throughout his life HCB showed almost no interest in the technical aspects of photography, beyond what he needed to know to take a photograph, so I don't find it hard to believe at all. The whole notion of the decisive moment is about the act of taking a picture, which was always his main interest. No doubt he had input into whether the prints looked good or not, but there's no evidence that he spent any significant time prompting his darkroom assistants.

He's an extreme case in many ways - I doubt many other professional photographers are quite so uninterested in the darkroom - but for that reason a good exemplar of how it is possible to almost completely separate the act of taking a picture from the technical knowledge of film processing and printing (provided you can afford good assistants to do it for you, that is...)

Ian
 
iml said:
Throughout his life HCB showed almost no interest in the technical aspects of photography, Ian
Click to expand...

True. Imagine how much greater even HCB could have been had he had more of an interest in developing negatives and making prints. :eek:
 
Anything that contributes to developing a more critical eye can improve your work.
Or it can help paralyze you...

Chris
 
Depends what you mean by photographer, doesn't it? I mean literally it means "drawing with light", so in that context you'd have to say that the development is part of the "drawing" and therefore relevant.

What I love about photography is the blurred boundary between science and art. I'm a reasonable scientist and a dreadful artist, so when I put the two together I'm a mediocre photographer. Part of getting the results I like is developing my own film. I wouldn't make a judgement of someone else in this respect.
 
DMG said:
personally would rather spend the time shooting, would be nice to learn though
Click to expand...

It's actually all pretty simple, and when compared to commercial processing and especially digital, it becomes very inexpensive over time.

There are scads of resources out there which can point you in the right direction. A good primer on the subject is 'Into Your Darkroom Step by Step' by Curtin and Musselman. APUG is also an excellent online resource. Depending upon where you are, you could also probably find a community college or communal darkroom to work in.

Take the plunge, I promise you won't regret it.

Cheers,
Kent
 
I voted "no". Though dev'ing my own film made me more aware of what I was doing with aperture, shutter times, etc, and the effect these may have on the dev'ed film (over or under exposure lead to more grain and thus more noise in the scanned neg, for instance), it didn't stop me (or start me!) from experimenting, pushing the limits, thinking outside the box, etc.

Reading books, visiting exhibitions, looking at photos, delving into art movements, getting to know the history of things/people/places, etc. do have an influence on my photography. These provoke my thoughts, give me ideas, and sometimes kick me in the butt to get on with things.
 
Ansel Adams would have said yes. Henri Cartier-Bresson handed his exposed rolls of films to the labs for processing and printing. I can't take photos as good as either one of them :)

But, although I voted 'no', I develop my own B&W. Mostly just because I like it and like the results. Can't say it really makes me a 'better' photographer.

Gene
 
NB23 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did I say he was God? I used him as an example because there are people that have a very limited knowledge of photography and only know a few names as Cartier-Bresson and Adams.

Naturally, your point about Adams does not make his word final either. (That is a contradiction in your logic.) The point you missed was there is no clear link between developing you own film and how good of a photographer you are. Some very talented photographer do it and some do not.

One more thing. If you are just going to make personal attacks, I would suggest you go elsewhere. Replacing ignorance with arrogance does not do you credit.
 
Finder said:
Did I say he was God? I used him as an example because there are people that have a very limited knowledge of photography and only know a few names as Cartier-Bresson and Adams.

Naturally, your point about Adams does not make his word final either. (That is a contradiction in your logic.) The point you missed was there is no clear link between developing you own film and how good of a photographer you are. Some very talented photographer do it and some do not.

One more thing. If you are just going to make personal attacks, I would suggest you go elsewhere. Replacing ignorance with arrogance does not do you credit.
Click to expand...

I did not attack you.

And you call me ignorant. Is this an attack? Just asking.

Now, please visit my little gallery. If it's not enough for your taste I will direct you to my other galleries. If they aren't enough, I'll list a series of prizes and accomplishments I've done.

Ignorant, me? Im many things, yes. In photography, hardly. You could learn from me.
 
Jon Claremont said:
All my films are C41 or E6 so home development is not even an option.
Click to expand...

I develop my own E6. I currently have access to a Jobo system, but you could dev E6 easily without it. You just need a bath tub, thermometer, and the Kodak E6 kit. It is much much much more cost effective than having it dev'ed at a lab. I have to admit, the first time is really scarry and hectic. It becomes routine after a few runs.
 
I wanted to throw this into the mix, first if you have not processed your on film yet or you have never worked in a darkroom: MAKE SURE YOUR SAFE ! the chemicals are very bad. also I know this from extended use: it will not be good for your plumbing I know this because my plumber is a top uc school lab plumber and he said it will eat the joints away if you have an older home.

here are my notes: vents, glove, eye protection, no smoking, keep food away, and clean up each time when chemicals are dry they get airborne. take a shower after your done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top