Discard Negatives ??!!!

[takilmaboxer]

No, but they might be willing to engage in a debate, that's why I started this thread. After 200 posts, it's clear that I was wrong; many people destroy negatives for a variety of reasons. And this forum has a tiny population of regular posters, none of whom are random, and many of whom are experts; consequently I read and consider all their opinions. Unlike so many forums, posters here are generally polite and one can disagree vehemently without being flamed. So if you choose to kill the negs, be my guest.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You really made me think about this.
IMHO the actual, fundamental, physical piece of art is in fact the negative. That is the object that was formed by the incidence of light on the emulsion under the control of the photographer. The magic is that the negative can greatly outlive the photographer, by centuries even. Like a musical score it can be interpreted by people who weren't born when the negative was made. To deliberately destroy that work of art strictly for financial gain?
Real photographers don't destroy the negative. No matter whether it's a college kid who only wants a digital file, or a widely respected art photographer, I just can't see it.
Now if it's your wife who tosses them in the bin after you're dead, oh well, that's another matter...

There you have it folks. It has been said. It has been written. It shall be done.

 

[koraks]

There you have it folks. It has been said.

Yeah, but that's not a definitive thing. In fact, further comments along the lines of "my way is the only right way" may be redacted as per rule #4.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Curious if wedding photographers keep negatives after certain period of time? Or others?

 

[MattKing]

Curious if wedding photographers keep negatives after certain period of time? Or others?

Many used to after several years offer them to clients, at a price, with a warning that otherwise they would be destroyed.
That started when commercial rents/storage costs started to escalate.
I still have all mine.

 

[VinceInMT]

Curious if wedding photographers keep negatives after certain period of time? Or others?

Probably OK to toss them after the divorce announcement.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Probably OK to toss them after the divorce announcement.

But they are part of the history of their children who may later want a copy of the wedding photographs.

 

[Chan Tran]

So as I said earlier. When I destroy the negative I destroy the photograph. The client paid him enough money so he destroyed the negative (or photograph) so that he can no longer sell it to anyone else.

 

[VinceInMT]

It’s common in printmaking, of which photography is part of, to produce limited editions. After production, the materials used to create the prints are destroyed, preventing further editions. As I understand it, that is what gbroadbridge is doing and limiting the edition to one, all a normal part of the printmaking practice.

 

[gbroadbridge]

Curious if wedding photographers keep negatives after certain period of time? Or others?

Back when I was doing weddings, I would hand over the negs with the final wedding album.

My role was done, and I didn't want the cost/liability of storing negs forever.

The wedding party were free to reprint as many as they liked without having my involvement.

 

[gbroadbridge]

It’s common in printmaking, of which photography is part of, to produce limited editions. After production, the materials used to create the prints are destroyed, preventing further editions. As I understand it, that is what gbroadbridge is doing and limiting the edition to one, all a normal part of the printmaking practice.

Exactly.

And not all my prints are limited to one, I think one hotel chain has a LE of about 500 hanging on their bedroom walls.

Those negs no longer exist either.

 

[MattKing]

Back when I was doing weddings, I would hand over the negs with the final wedding album.

My role was done, and I didn't want the cost/liability of storing negs forever.

The wedding party were free to reprint as many as they liked without having my involvement.

And in my case, I was unwilling to hand over negatives, because the quality of the prints I sold were my best form of advertisement, and there was a virtual guarantee that clients wouldn't insist on similar quality in any prints they obtained.
There are many approaches, and all have their advantages and disadvantages.

 

[gbroadbridge]

And in my case, I was unwilling to hand over negatives, because the quality of the prints I sold were my best form of advertisement, and there was a virtual guarantee that clients wouldn't insist on similar quality in any prints they obtained.
There are many approaches, and all have their advantages and disadvantages.

I've heard this argument before many times.

Somehow a professionally managed lab which runs control strips 3-4 times a day is inferior to the wedding photog who runs his own prints.

it just doesn't fly.

I've been there and done it.

in every single case the pro lab prints outlasts the amateur attempt at the same

Maybe you're different and chuck out chemistry after a dozen prints, in which case you're charging $100 a print.

 

[MattKing]

I've heard this argument before many times.

Somehow a professionally managed lab which runs control strips 3-4 times a day is inferior to the wedding photog who runs his own prints.

it just doesn't fly.

I've been there and done it.

in every single case the pro lab prints outlasts the amateur attempt at the same

Maybe you're different and chuck out chemistry after a dozen prints, in which case you're charging $100 a print.

I'm afraid that you misunderstood what I posted.
I was using a professional lab, and selling to my clients/customers the prints the professional lab made for me, according to my instructions.
If I handed my negatives over to my clients/customers after I had fulfilled my initial contract for photography, an album, and a certain number of prints, those clients/customers would most likely have used whatever lab service they found least expensive and most convenient to them for whatever additional prints they wanted. That would have created the risk of my photography being associated with those cheap and convenient prints, rather than the high quality prints my lab provided for me.

 

[gbroadbridge]

I'm afraid that you misunderstood what I posted.
I was using a professional lab, and selling to my clients/customers the prints the professional lab made for me, according to my instructions.
If I handed my negatives over to my clients/customers after I had fulfilled my initial contract for photography, an album, and a certain number of prints, those clients/customers would most likely have used whatever lab service they found least expensive and most convenient to them for whatever additional prints they wanted. That would have created the risk of my photography being associated with those cheap and convenient prints, rather than the high quality prints my lab provided for me.

I don't think we are misunderstanding each other.

I think we use exactly the same workflow, only difference is that I toss the negs.

 

[TJones]

Exactly.

And not all my prints are limited to one, I think one hotel chain has a LE of about 500 hanging on their bedroom walls.

Those negs no longer exist either.

Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier comment/putdown:

I call BS
If your work as a photographer is to simply make advertisements that can be mass printed good luck to you.
Many do exactly that.
When I make a photograph it is intended to be one of a kind, to a representative of photography as an art, not just point and click.

 

[Sirius Glass]

And in my case, I was unwilling to hand over negatives, because the quality of the prints I sold were my best form of advertisement, and there was a virtual guarantee that clients wouldn't insist on similar quality in any prints they obtained.
There are many approaches, and all have their advantages and disadvantages.

I completely agree. I would not want my photographs reprinted at a Quickie Mart and then seen by anyone.

 

[takilmaboxer]

I am astounded that this thread has grown to be so long!
So people discard the negatives because of:
1. Philosophy-they aren't attached to the idea that keeping negatives is an intrinsic part of film photography.
2. Ethics-they are primarily concerned with financials, and want the final product to be more valuable because it's rare.
3. Pragmatism-they don't need the negs hanging around forever, as they were commercial products in the first place.

 

[MattKing]

I don't think we are misunderstanding each other.

I think we use exactly the same workflow, only difference is that I toss the negs.

I'm just confused where your references to "the wedding photog who runs his own prints" or "Maybe you're different and chuck out chemistry after a dozen prints, in which case you're charging $100 a print" come from.
Because you didn't post that you were discarding the negatives, you posted:

Back when I was doing weddings, I would hand over the negs with the final wedding album.

My role was done, and I didn't want the cost/liability of storing negs forever.

The wedding party were free to reprint as many as they liked without having my involvement.

Emphasis added.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Back when I was doing weddings, I would hand over the negs with the final wedding album.

My role was done, and I didn't want the cost/liability of storing negs forever.

The wedding party were free to reprint as many as they liked without having my involvement.

In college one on the guys in the dorm had gotten engaged. He asked me take the wedding photographs. He was of the heavy persuasion as was his intended and both families. I was careful to make sure that no round or square object were in the photograph. In the darkroom I experimented tilting the easel and found the best angle. I delivered an album to the bride and groom and both sets of parents. Everyone was so happy that I had captured the "real me" that orders came in for more copies of the photographs. From that one shoot, I earned enough money to pay for a year of tuition, room and board on campus, books and supplies as will as a year's spending money. Had I given them the negatives, no one would have been happy and I would have been much worse off. So much for your concept.

 

[BobUK]

I've heard this argument before many times.

Somehow a professionally managed lab which runs control strips 3-4 times a day is inferior to the wedding photog who runs his own prints.

it just doesn't fly.

I've been there and done it.

in every single case the pro lab prints outlasts the amateur attempt at the same

Maybe you're different and chuck out chemistry after a dozen prints, in which case you're charging $100 a print.

In my experiences I cannot agree with the line
"in every single case the pro lab outlasts the amateur attempt"

Hanging on my living room walI, I have some colour family portraits taken, developed and printed on Kodak materials, by myself about thirty years ago.
They are still looking fine to me.

On the other hand I also took some wedding photographs taken just for fun about twenty years ago.
Both film and prints were processed by a professional laboratory that did a lot of jobs for working professionals.
Their prints made for me have now turned a lovely turquoise blue.

I have plenty of envelopes of prints from well known (at the time) professional labs. Some now blue and some purple.




Also, we have all most probably been in some ones house and looked at the old greenish blue, even orangish wedding photo on the sideboard.
Simple enough job to get a decent colour print to replace it if you still have access to the original negative.

Quite an interesting topic is this.

 

[Chan Tran]

I've heard this argument before many times.

Somehow a professionally managed lab which runs control strips 3-4 times a day is inferior to the wedding photog who runs his own prints.

it just doesn't fly.

I've been there and done it.

in every single case the pro lab prints outlasts the amateur attempt at the same

Maybe you're different and chuck out chemistry after a dozen prints, in which case you're charging $100 a print.

I agree with you that the lab has a much more stable process than one can do it at home. But printing a negative requires a lot of judgment on the printer and thus as good as the prolab personels are they are not me and never can make a print that I want. Unless I am there in their lab and tell them what to do.

 

[MattKing]

Also, we have all most probably been in some ones house and looked at the old greenish blue, even orangish wedding photo on the sideboard.
Simple enough job to get a decent colour print to replace it if you still have access to the original negative.

Quite an interesting topic is this.

We had a family friend (Gordy Kern) who owned a neighbourhood photo studio (Artona Studios) in Vancouver for decades. My parents arranged to have a portrait done of my brother and I - 7 and 10 years old respectively I think and one of the prints that resulted spent years in my grandparents' living room across the country, on top of the TV console, and often in sun from the window nearby.
After 8 - 10 or so years, the print had faded and discoloured a fair bit, and my Dad wanted a new print for my grandmother, who had become a widow by that time.
In the meantime, our family friend decided to sell the studio and business and retire. I had made friends with the buyers (John and Mark Rak), and did a bit of work for them too. So I asked the new owners for a favour. I asked if they could retrieve the negatives from the portrait session, and lend me the one that had been used for the print on my grandmother's TV, and they did that for me. I then took that negative to my pro lab (ABC Photocolour - which actually had been started by a group that included Gordy Kern) and had them make a couple of 8x10s reprints - and they came out great.
When I picked up the prints at ABC, the staff member looked at them, looked at (relatively young) me, and asked quizzically: "Are these your kids?"
The negative went back to Artona, who still are in business, after 114 years, concentrating on school and graduation photographs. I doubt they still have the old negatives, but who knows?

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I have inherited a plastic tote of Mom and Dad's family photos. Haven't had the motivation to dig into it other than lifting the lid for a cursory peek. Piles of photos and negatives I'm sure will bring back floods of memories. Discarding negatives is a terrible practice if ya asks me.

 

[foc]

In theory, a print (RA4) made in a professional lab and an amateur lab should be the same.
In most cases, it is the same.
The only difference between the two labs is how they are organised and run.
Both labs are capable of high quality work.
It's the eye of the operator that counts.

Back in the 1970s some of the EP2 papers (the predecessor of RA4) and the Agfa papers had very poor colour fade resistance.