Frank,
After reading the first few lines of your post, I knew almost EXACTLY what the last line would be! :-)
The "almost" means I reckoned without Delgado.
John
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:51:03 -0400 (EDT), frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>On 23/8/04, Paul McEvoy, discombobulated, unleashed:
> >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?<snip> --- Cotty, in his inimitable style, answered: <snip>When I did shoot film, I would have a couple of rolls of HP5 a week that needed dipping in the soup, and did it myself. No darkroom, just a blacked out bathroom to load the tank, then everything else is done in normal light.
It's *very* easy to do and one of the most rewarding experiences you will ever have in photography.
The other most rewarding experience you will ever have in photography is watching a print develop in a dish under a safelight after it has been exposed under an enlarger.
Both not to be missed.
I sympathise with folk who lament the passing of these activities as digital tightens its grip.
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.
cheers, frank
===== "Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst" ******** "Of course it's all luck" -- Henri Cartier-Bresson
______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
-- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
