KW> Yes.  This sounds more like me  :)
 KW> I can srew up the print anyway I like in the name of learning
 KW> and still have the negative in one piece to try again.  Yep.
 KW> Sounds like the way to go!
 BD> Uh, somehow this appears to be a contradiction.  You earlier
 BD> stated you didn't want a big investment to see if you liked
 BD> the mechanics of photography.
KW> Well, I would invest nothing until I'd seen it done, tried it..
KW> .. Only then would I know if I liked it enough [to buy]..
 And you clarified:
KW> I just meant, it definitly sounded like more fun printing the
KW> pictures than developing film and letting someone else do the
KW> printing..
 And you are totally correct in that assumption!  Printing can be
 as much fun as taking the shots was, originally.  
KW> .. what would be the point in that???
 Depends.  If a model doesn't want her likeness shown to one and
 all, hiring out film developing might jeopardize that trust.  In
 some cases the time factor comes into play.  While we could get
 one hour processing during normal work hours, it's not to be had
 at midnight, if a model wants to see the images right away.  And
 so on.. the list is endless.
 One misconception, I fear, is that there is a relationship in
 developing film and having others print it.  That's possible but
 rather improbable.  The two are not necessarily paired.  
 Printing the film yourself is what would normally happen, Karen,
 and I'd figure that is what was implied.  Larry Bolch leans to
 farming out film processing while Ed Sukach prefers to do his own.
 I believe you'll find that both usually end up doing the printing,
 regardless where or how the film was developed..  ;^)
... COINCIDE: What one should do when it starts raining.
 * Q-Blue 2.3 *
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------