The question, as I understand it, is not whether a photographer has to or should process their own film and make their own prints, but whether one should LEARN the processes involved. Once one understands how the film and the developer and the exposure, and the different aspects of printing interrelate, one then understands with greater, if not absolute, certainty, how the previsualized final result will be, or if it's even possible under the circumstances at the time the exposure is made.
While many (B&W) photogs of note will trust their film to a lab, and their prints to a good darkroom technician, that's usually a relationship that's developed over time, with all parties knowing enough about what is possible, and what the other is capable of doing. You can rest assure that Salgado has his gear calibrated, that his lab guy knows what he likes, and that their relationship is a close one, even over great distances. However, the average amateur photographer does not get so deep into the details. S/he points, s/he shoots, and then passes the film off to the lab. The lab knows nothing other than the photog says to process normally, or push one stop, or pull one stop, but in truth there's no calibration between the photographer's exposure and negs and what the lab chooses as processing time and technique. I've no truck with those who have a lab process their film or prints, nor do I perceive one who uses that approach as any less (or more) of a photographer than one who does their own processing. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that KNOWING what's involved in processing film and making prints (and there's a lot more to it than just simple time/temp) will allow the photographer, or the photographer and lab techs, to obtain better results. Frank, I've never seen your prints, just the poor quality images of (what you often describe as) poor quality scans that appear on my computer screen. I have no idea if the quality of your prints is good, excellent, or substandard. I also believe that, for the most part, the people on this list - and most people in general - and there are exceptions - wouldn't know a good quality B&W print if it bit 'em on the ass. That's in part because few here have ever made an exhibition quality print, and quite a few have never even seen one (Now's the time that a bunch of people jump in and dismiss my comments because THEY have seen such prints). The bottom line is this: the more you know the better your results, regardless of who develops the film or who makes the print. If the photographer doesn't understand the subtleties of exposure and development from a real world, hands-on perspective, and exposes the film with an understanding of what s/he wants to see as a result, knowing that the result is possible, then in more cases than not, the result will, at best, approximate the photographer's vision. Maybe for you, and for some others, close enough is good enough. But for others, good enough is not good enough. You ask "how often a musical piece is not performed by the composer?" That's something of a red herring of a question. A better question might be, "how often does a musical piece that is not performed by the composer reflect what the composer intended?" Maybe the result would be better to some ears, maybe not, but it would certainly be different than the original intent. Carrying further with that analogy, how wonderful it would be to hear the work of Mozart played and performed as he meant it to be, for only then would one have a point of reference and comparison to subsequent interpretations. And while you, and others, may send a print back to the lab for numerous corrections, it's quite possible that, because you have little understanding of the technical knowledge that goes along with KNOWING how to develop and print, and knowing the potentials and limitations of different developer/film combinations, you will never get exactly the results you want, just an approximation. This is not to say that anyone who learns the basics of developing and printing will fully understand the potentials and possibilities. That, IMNSHO, takes time and experience. Do you really think that photogs like Erwitt, Salgado, Nachtway, Lange, and others, NEVER processed their own film and made their own prints? Of course they did. It's just that as they became busier, as they travelled further afield, it became less practical for them to do so. But don't for a minute think that these photographers just snapped the pic and handed off their film for processing and printing, never having learned what is involved and having done the work themselves at some point. It's your vision and your creativity ... if you're happy with the results, then that's fine. But allow me to ask this question: if you had a better understanding of the process, is it possible that your results may be closer to your vision? Might the results be technically superior to what you're getting now? Would you perhaps know better if your lab guy is doing excellent work or just putting out mediocr results (BTW, these questions are directed to more of a "generic"you", not specifically a Theraultion you <g>) Shel (who, having read this thread in the archives, just had to jump in) > On 23/8/04, Paul McEvoy asked: > >Is there a reason that I've read in any number of > > places that in order to be > >a good photographer you need to learn how to > develop b+w film? Then Frank rambled: No doubt both developing negs and printing them up are both rewarding. However, the question was whether a good photographer needs to learn how it's done. I'm going to break with orthodoxy, and say "no, of course not". Photography is pointing a camera and pushing the shutter release (or otherwise exposing the film). Everything after that is processing. The two need not meet. When I take a photograph, I more or less have an idea of how the final print will look. If I have a developer that yields results that I'm satisfied with, would it make me a better photographer if I did my own lab work that was no better than equal to what I can pay to have done? If so, I'd like someone to explain it to me. Now, I'm not for a minute saying that ~for some~ it's not an integral part of their creative process. I know that if one so chooses, a great deal of manipulating and massaging can be done to change or alter a print for the better. I'm not saying for a moment that it may be ~more rewarding~ to take the process from loading the film in the camera all the way to the final print. But, finding satisfaction isn't the same as making one better at the first part of the process (ie: exposing the film). If you haven't guessed, I don't do my own developing. Tried it many years ago a few times, and it just didn't turn my crank. I like to take pictures and have someone else do the "dirty work". Luckily, the guy who does my processing and printing loves doing darkroom work, so it's all good. I guess that's why he does it for a living. As I was thinking of what I was going to put into this post, I was reminded of Ansel Adam's (who was a classicly trained pianist, IIRC) famous quote, "the negative is the score, the print is the performance". At first I thought, "now how am I going to refute that one?" Then I realized that the analogy is actually in accord with my thought: How often is the best known version of a musical piece ~not~ performed by its composer? Composing a musical piece is not at all the same as performing it. Especially in the days before the singer/songwriter, was Cole Porter, for instance, any less a songwriter or composer because he didn't perform his own songs? Or, are the players in a symphony orchestra any less performers because they may know very little of the theory of composing and can't compose themselves? I know I've been long-winded here, but it's always bothered me just a teeny bit that there's this suggestion that darkroom skills are required to make a "complete photographer". Besides, HCB didn't develop his own. Neither does Selgado.
