All maybes (don't) go to trash

[darkosaric]

Not sure it was HCB or somebody else - but often I hear that all maybes go to trash. Show only the good ones. But now, as I have nothing to do in the lock down, I decided to review again all my negatives (from 2006 when I started, I shoot between 50 and 100 negatives per year), and see which "maybes" deserves to be printed on 30x40cm paper.
I printed some "maybes" on small paper at the time, and decided ...nah, but now, they are not so bad to my eyes.

What is your stand on this? Do maybes become a goodies in time? How often do you review old negatives, and how far in the past you go?

Here are some "maybes" printed yesterday , quick snap with mobile phone:

 

[guangong]

Very nice pictures. You illustrate the one tremendous advantage of film over digital. The negative. Long after digital rejects have disappeared into oblivion, we can again mine our old slag and find gems once bypassed.

 

[Black Dog]

Yes, I've experienced the same thing many times (and sometimes decided that pictures I really liked at the time aren't as good as I thought they were). BTW, I'd be pretty pleased to have these in my 'maybe' pile!

 

[jim10219]

I've discovered several photos that at the time I didn't care for, but later on deciding that I liked them.

That being said, it's a rare occurrence. I'm much more likely to hold onto bad photos for sentimental reasons, and then forget what those sentimental reasons were, than I am to throw away a good photos that I just didn't recognize as good at the time.

Very nice pictures. You illustrate the one tremendous advantage of film over digital. The negative. Long after digital rejects have disappeared into oblivion, we can again mine our old slag and find gems once bypassed.

To be fair, I don't think most people "destroy" their digital photos. At least not in the crowds I hang around. I'm betting most people do what I do, which is burn them to a DVD or something, and then store them in a closet. Pretty much the same fate as a negative, only the DVD takes up less space and is easier to revisit (you can digitally archive the disc for easy file location). You can argue about the permanence of optical discs versus film, but in reality the fate of most photos is not that they're destroyed by the photographer, but rather that their forgotten and the task remains too daunting to allow them to be rediscovered. Then they get destroyed by your next of kin.

 

[logan2z]

In my case it's very rare that what was originally a 'maybe' or a 'nope' becomes worthy of printing when I revisit it later. It's usually the other way around - I realize later that a photo that I thought was pretty good really isn't.

As Garry Winograd once said, 'you have to be your own worst critic' and I try and follow that advice (although it's hard).

 

[darkosaric]

Just to add: sometimes I put picture in "maybe" category just because I have a better one in the same series, here is one example: left one is (was) "maybe", right one was "I like":

 

[craigclu]

I've been sifting through old prints. I realize that over the years, the bulk of my printing was done for others. Most of the prints in my stacks are actually those "90%'ers" that weren't bad enough to toss but recorded the event/moment for me and seemed to warrant retaining at the time. The better things virtually all went to others. I thought that after retiring a few years ago, I would print things for myself but seem to lack the drive to tackle the project. The pandemic might have me actually starting in on it!

 

[darkosaric]

Use the opportunity Craig , start tomorrow!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I like the photographs you posted. As a film shooter I do not throw out any photograph unless the photograph is a total failure, blank, black, nothing to see folks. It is a good idea to go back and look at ones older work to see what one has learned and to reappreciate those photographs that were not liked in the past.

 

[pentaxuser]

We are a very large audience and what made you take a picture might be the very thing that makes one or more of us decide it is worth looking at. As Sirius says short of a blank neg or seriously damaged neg where there is little to see, there are no "maybes" in the sense of not worth showing.

pentaxuser

 

[VinceInMT]

What I have discovered is that some of my outakes, regardless of how well I have tried to bring them alive in the darkroom, just don't produce an image that strikes me. They get filed away. Now, years later, I am mining that treasure trove and finding that many work better as subject for my drawings. Perhaps they were never meant to be photographs in the first place.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What I have discovered is that some of my outakes, regardless of how well I have tried to bring them alive in the darkroom, just don't produce an image that strikes me. They get filed away. Now, years later, I am mining that treasure trove and finding that many work better as subject for my drawings. Perhaps they were never meant to be photographs in the first place.

That is what I do.

 

[Tim Stapp]

Two things: First, I apologize for resurrecting and old thread. Second, the photograph that I'm talking about was/is d*g*t*l.

I was ready to broom it. It just didn't fit with what I had visualized when I tripped the shutter. She saw it on the screen and screamed "I love it!"

It's turned out to be my best selling photograph. It was a photograph of a late 1800's lumber mill structure in a creek bed (then, it was part of a dammed up millpond). Green ferns and moss growing over it. Shortly thereafter, I saw some of Ian Grant's published works. Then, I understood what she saw.

Yes, what we perceive as trash can worthy are beauty in someone else's eye.

 

[gone]

I really don't have maybe negs, I have ones that are really good, and the rest are crap. It's totally black and white, yes or no. I don't want to fool around w/ maybe negs. A red marker is used to circle the keeper negs on the print sleeves, if any. They have to be clean too, as I don't like spotting prints.

Take my advice, don't throw anything away that you think failed. It will look different a week from now, or even tomorrow. All that is subjective, and the lighting and even your frame of mind will makes a huge difference on how you view the image.

With prints, some days I l think they're all maybes! There's always something wrong w/ all of them. I have never made a perfect photograph, and have never made a masterpiece drawing/painting/print. But, I've come a little close. That's fine.

My art mind says that anything less than a masterpiece is less than that. This viewpoint will keep you honest. Art involves working w/ 1 image at a time, and maybe for a long time. But w/ photography, you have to always be aware of how hard it is to make a great print. That keeps the expectations in line w/ reality, and you're always at the mercy of your neg. You can't start fresh w/ a clean sheet of paper or canvas, or cover what you did w/ more pigment.

 

[MattKing]

Perhaps your negatives are singing to you:

 

[AZD]

Anything I think is worth printing first makes it to a 3.5" x 5", which is just a 5" x 7" sheet cut in half. I'll stare at the small prints every so often and the ones that keep drawing my attention get a bigger print.

I never throw any of them away. The point of having them is to record a fleeting moment or changing place. Maybe the maybes that don't stand out now will be better in 20 years. Maybe.