Does Photographers still develop their own film anymore? I know with digital cameras, you can print photos from home, or upload them to a photo website and pick them up from basically any store.

Or, if you have a computer printer then you can just print out your photos there. My HP printer does this and the the results are good.

A friend of mine is a professional photographer ; he mainly deals with weddings, as as such he claims that 'traditional' photo is way better than the printed one. To me, it's impossible to distinguish between a printed and a traditional photo, yet he claims the difference is there. Perhaps it's the same as with pets - some go for cats, other won't get anything but a dog. It's a matter of preference, I'd say.

Many still prefer that part of the process and the control they can retain by processing a roll of film themselves. There's part of the art that has been lost with digital.

It could be hard to believe that many professional photographers still prefer to go for manual SLR cameras with film roll. I learnt from one such photographer that the real color captured on the film roll and the details available with it cannot be matched by any updated CG programs.

Dark rooms are disappearing slowly but the traditional photographers do use dark room to great effect.

I dont think that darkrooms are used now. Most of the photography studio I knew is already using digital so they could just print it in seconds, no need to wait for a long time.

Ah yes, the good old days. Interestingly enough when you compare the cost of setting up and running your own dark room you see that the cost of being a photographer hasn't really changed. Now instead of investing in your dark room and all of the supplies you invest in cameras and accessories. I miss my dark room but I am thankful that developing film has become so much easier.