Does developing your film make you a better photographer?

[Bosk]

Having developed my first roll of B&W last night, (and another one tonight) I found myself standing there over my HC-110 filled tank with one eye on the clock and another on the thermomoter, and the thought occured to me...

"with all this extra effort I'm putting into developing my film now, I wonder could it help me become a better photographer?"

It seems logical that the more time you devote to a hobby the more interested in it you become, and the faster you acquire the relevant skills.

But does spending the extra time developing your own shots - as opposed to having a lab do it (or god forbid using digital) - encourage you to focus more energy on taking better pictures?

No doubt the question can also be explored from other angles.
This is merely the one which struck me as a novice.


I'm keen to hear the thoughts of RFF's more experienced photographers on the matter! 🙂

 

[doitashimash1te]

The amount of creative control involved in developing your own film, as well as printing them, is not to be underestimated, imho.

 

[icemendicant]

It probably depends on what you mean by a 'better' photographer.

One could argue that further immersion into the craft at all stages of the process will add to your experience and knowledge, and that this may feed back to influence the way you compose and expose your shots - perhaps to obtain the perfect density of negative to obtain the best prints or scans etc. Or perhaps you will learn the Zone system.

On the other hand, if you ask the question: is it possible to become a good, or better, photgrapher without developing your own films, then I would say the answer is definitely yes. There are many excellent amateur and professional phtographers in the world who, for whatever reason, hand some part of the process over to others - pro labs or professional printers etc.

Dan

 

[like2fiddle]

I don't think it necessarily makes one a better photographer. Developing your own film (and printing for those of us who still delve into such things) does give you more direct feedback on your photography and thus provides you with an opportunity to change what you are doing to achieve different results. We all do photography for different reasons; in my case, the entire process from bulk loading film to loading the M2, to shooting, developing and printing is all enjoyable and therapeutic. I believe that the more one understands about the entire process, the better he can do on any one specific aspect.

 

[mhv]

It gives you another opportunity at being a better photographer. If you develop your film like a slob, it won't help.

 

[aad]

It may make your photographs better, and you'll be more aware how best to expose the film using your developing. It doesn't make my life any more interesting, though, so it wont make my pictures more interesting!

 

[DavidH]

Possibly not a better photographer but I really enjoy the process...and doing my own C41 keeps me out of bankruptcy court... 😉

 

[Max Power]

Although I don't necessarily believe that it gives you better compositional skills or anything, it does give you more depth as a photographer. This because it gives you better understanding of both the possibilities of and the limits of a given emulsion. It allows you to better experiment with your equipment and your film and developers, and that, I would argue, can help to make you a better photographer in the broadest sense.

Just my $0.02

Kent

 

[Finder]

Does taking pictures make you a better photofinisher?

 

[sienarot]

I think it depends on what your definition of "better photographer" is.

On the one hand, developing your own film can really help you understand the importance of correct exposure, lighting, metering, etc... In fact, making your own prints can even further that understanding when you realize that a negative you thought was a good one is causing you some grief as you try to make a print out of it.

But on the other hand, no amount of developing is going to help you with other factors such as composition.

 

[Socke]

The first thing which came to my mind while reading the title,

at least it is easyer to proof that one is a photographer with developed film 🙂

This said, developing is part of the fun for me, not more and not less.

 

[visiondr]

Yes, and No.

In as concise a fashion as possible: Developing one's own film can make one a better Technician, not necessarily a better Photographer. Being a good photographer is as much or more about being able to 'see' a photo before releasing the shutter. This is both a learned skill and an innate artistic sense.

An analogy; I know plenty of very skilled classical guitarists, but I know of relatively few artists with the guitar.

 

[Ororaro]

Better? Of course!
Better overall? Of course.

Knowledge is the key to everything.

 

[NickTrop]

Absolutely, positively. You start thinking about things like "shadow detail" and how to meter and what aperture/ss combination do I need to get the best print whereas otherwise you're "simply" concentrating on composition. So if by "better photographer" you mean "better photographs" I'd have to say yes.

 

[sepiareverb]

It gives you another opportunity at being a better photographer. If you develop your film like a slob, it won't help.

Yep. It is another tool you can use. Agitation, temperature, developer, dilution- all these things have an influence- beyond the pushing & pulling. I use certain developers for certain films and certain kinds of days- it all makes the final print easier to get, and I think, opens up the opportunity to make that print then even better than if I'd just run it in HC-110b because it's quick.

Not caring about your developing is like not caring that your speeds are off- you'll get something either way, but I'd rather make things easier all along the way.

 

[Joe Mondello]

I shot and develped film like many my age (mid 50s) for years and years and years and am just happy as pie to be out of the dark and into the light!

Certainly lots of things I learned in darkrooms apply to photography today, but quite honestly the thing that has made me a better photographer is the ability to shoot to my heart's content afforded by going digital which I did a decade ago.

But for me digital only really attained maturity in the last 18 months or so with the arrival of responsive high quality affordable digicams like the Nikon D200.

I've shot more and enjoyed all phases of the process more in the last year and a half than in all the years gone before. YMMV!!

 

[Bryce]

I am voting 'I like Pie.'
Any involvement with your images, be it seeing the effect of exposure, how and when grain is appropriate, what will feel right when it is actually on paper is good for ones development.
So developing is good, printing much better, but digital processing is good also.
What is not good, in my experience, is taking a heap of film or data to the one hour joint, getting back a hundred 4x6's, glancing at them once, and not looking at them again.

 

[ruben]

I am not sure regarding processing. But regarding printing I have no doubt about. Absolutely.

From the artistic point of view, when you print, you overview what you have done. When you crop, and I mean when you think about the different possibilities for the best image, you learn more about composition. This is one of the few opportunities we have to improve ourselves artistically.

From the technical point of view, printing developes your eye for better contrast and tone awareness.

High style BW pros use the services of the best printers to obtain the best result from the crappy negatives. We amateurs with less money in our pockets have to undertake the job upon ourselves. If a photographer is measured by his results at an album or a display - then no doubt the most we are used to print will produce the better show.

But one thing we have to take into account. To become good printers takes at least some years of hard work. How good a printer am I? Comme ci, comme ca...

Cheers,
Ruben

PS
After extending too much on printing, and since the question is about processing film, I will say what for me is looks as the most important.

The time you need to become a good printer depends on two factors, the amount of printing you do, and how accurately you develope your negs. Accurately exposed negs and accurately processed will actively help you in shortening the printing sessions.

 

[iml]

Plenty of great photographers (HCB pre-eminently) have had no interest in developing or printing their own work...

I really enjoy developing my own b&w, and I get better results than I did with a lab, but I don't think it's otherwise made much difference to my picture taking.

Ian

 

[lynn]

Insight, as far as processing and printing goes, is a plus.
But if you have no eye for composition and balance, and if your exposure is all wrong, if your film choice is dubious, then that insight is moot.