Discard Negatives ??!!!

[Sirius Glass]

Fair enough. You keep your negs, I'm happy to pocket the $10k and trash the neg.

$10K for what? The storage costs for negatives is almost nil. PrintFile sheets are cheap and so are cases for them.

 

[VinceInMT]

I’ve mused a bit on this topic and find a parallel in one of my other hobbies. Leaving a lifetime of negatives could be a treasure to someone else, not necessarily family. For example, I’ve searched around for recording tape, primarily reels, at various estate sales for a number of years. I have picked them up in batches and enjoy going through them and discovering what might be on them. Many times I just find copies of vinyl records but other times I find home recordings of family or radio broadcasts. Listening to these allows me to learn about complete strangers and their life and times based on what they found important enough to record on tape. It is part of local history that is from the viewpoint of someone who was not documenting major events but rather life as “the common man.” I have unearthed quite a few gems in this pursuit and deep dived into extensive narratives that I find interesting. I assume the same could be done with a stranger’s collections of negatives.

BTW, we have a local artist who collects family photo albums and repurposes the images by sewing quotes from unrelated obituaries into the prints to create fictional narratives that are quite fascinating.

 

[CMoore]

My style is usually to explain the reasons for my opinions and sometimes give examples. It's the salesman in me. Of course, everyone has different experiences and rate things differently. So they have to decide for themselves in the end.

Regarding labs which I use all the time since I don't have a darkroom, I always get the negatives returned and scan them myself. I've tried regular lab scanning once or twice. I think I do a better job than they do.

What scanner are you using.?
Thank You

 

[CMoore]

Exactly. I have no interest or need is leaving anything to my kids. They are already better off financially than I am, which is a good thing. Although I think the youngest wants my cars.

What cars are we talking about.?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What scanner are you using.?
Thank You

I now use a an Epson V850. Before I used the V600. You can see posts of my scans of both machines in different formats on my Flickr page linked below.

 

[VinceInMT]

What cars are we talking about.?

1959 Volvo 544, 1965 Triumph TR4, 1983 Volvo 245. The 1972 Volvo 1800E I sold a year or two ago and the ‘72 Ford F250 will go this summer I hope but those 3 will hang with me until they take the keys away. (There are 3 motorcycles too.)

 

[gbroadbridge]

$10K for what? The storage costs for negatives is almost nil. PrintFile sheets are cheap and so are cases for them.

My apologies if I was not clear.

Some of my customers wish to own a unique, one of a kind print.

Up until about 15 years ago, I shot MF or 5x4 and then wet printed.
The print alone would take me a week or so to get right, with maybe 10 or 15 16x11 prints
before I was happy.

They would buy the last print and I would keep another final print as a proof.

It was always a condition of sale that the negative would be destroyed.

That's the $10k in my pocket.

Move forward to today.

I still shoot MF and 5x4 film and process them.

Now I scan and print digitally from the film negatives.
Same customers and same requirements

So I wet scan the neg and destroy the neg.

All the real work is in post prod anyway so that has simply shifted from analog to digital.

Regards

 

[koraks]

So I wet scan the neg and destroy the neg.

And you permanently delete the scan and all subsequent edits, I presume?

 

[gbroadbridge]

And you permanently delete the scan and all subsequent edits, I presume?

Absolutely.

One proof I keep and another on a customer wall are all that exist.

That is exactly what I have done for almost 40 years.

 

[koraks]

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[takilmaboxer]

If they paid me ten grand I might destroy the negative too. Actually I'd keep the negative in a deep dark place, because it is the nature of photography that is capable of producing an infinite number of prints. To destroy the negative is to go "against the grain" of what makes photography unique. It isn't painting or drawing, it's photography. If they want a unique image...buy a painting!

 

[Sirius Glass]

If they paid me ten grand I might destroy the negative too. Actually I'd keep the negative in a deep dark place, because it is the nature of photography that is capable of producing an infinite number of prints. To destroy the negative is to go "against the grain" of what makes photography unique. It isn't painting or drawing, it's photography. If they want a unique image...buy a painting!

We violently agree on this subject!

 

[gbroadbridge]

If they paid me ten grand I might destroy the negative too. Actually I'd keep the negative in a deep dark place, because it is the nature of photography that is capable of producing an infinite number of prints. To destroy the negative is to go "against the grain" of what makes photography unique. It isn't painting or drawing, it's photography. If they want a unique image...buy a painting!

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.

I sell them as unique works of art, and believe it or not, there is a market for that.

A unique hand crafted photo is the same as a painting.

 

[BobUK]

An unusual scenario as follows.

If the negatives have been destroyed.
Then at a later date when looking at the print you spotted the actual gunman on the grassy knoll, you would have an image worth a fortune.

How would you prove ownership of the image without the negative?

 

[faberryman]

An unusual scenario as follows.

If the negatives have been destroyed.
Then at a later date when looking at the print you spotted the actual gunman on the grassy knoll, you would have an image worth a fortune.

How would you prove ownership of the image without the negative?

How would you prove ownership of the negative?

 

[faberryman]

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.

I sell them as unique works of art, and believe it or not, there is a market for that.

A unique hand crafted photo is the same as a painting.

You can point and click and still make one print.

You can take a crappy photo, make one print, and destroy the negative. It is still a crappy photo.

There are good paintings and bad paintings, so a photograph being like a painting might not be value added.

 

[BobUK]

How would you prove ownership of the negative?

A TV documentary many years ago explained how Kodak had been asked by investigators to check if a certain negative had been taken on a particular camera involved with the case in hand.
Kodak examined the edges of the film frame on the negative and compared them with the edges of the camera frame aperture.
Apparently when the frame apertures of cameras are spray painted on the camera production line, no two edges are the same when examined microscopically. The droplets of spray paint land randomly so like fingerprints they are uniquely patterned when viewed through the microscope.
That combined with the purchase receipt for the camera would be quite good enough for most people.

I rest my case.

 

[faberryman]

A TV documentary many years ago explained how Kodak had been asked by investigators to check if a certain negative had been taken on a particular camera involved with the case in hand.
Kodak examined the edges of the film frame on the negative and compared them with the edges of the camera frame aperture.
Apparently when the frame apertures of cameras are spray painted on the camera production line, no two edges are the same when examined microscopically. The droplets of spray paint land randomly so like fingerprints they are uniquely patterned when viewed through the microscope.
That combined with the purchase receipt for the camera would be quite good enough for most people.

I rest my case.

So to prove you own a print, you would have to prove you own the negative, and to prove you own the negative you would have to have the camera with which it was made, and to prove you own the camera you would have to have the sales receipt. I'd be SOL. I have taken a lot of negatives in my life with a lot of different cameras, most of which I no longer have, and for none of which, even the ones I still have, do I have the sales receipts.

Tell me again why you would have to prove you own the print? Speaking of the Grassy Knoll, did Zapruder really have to give the FBI the sales receipt for his movie camera?

 

[gbroadbridge]

You can point and click and still make one print.

You can take a crappy photo, make one print, and destroy the negative. It is still a crappy photo.

There are good paintings and bad paintings, so a photograph being like a painting might not be value added.

Great point!

There are many rubbish paintings that are worth millions today.

I make crappy photos that are money in hand today,
if they are worth billions in future I will not know or care

Money in pocket.

 

[Chan Tran]

Fair enough. You keep your negs, I'm happy to pocket the $10k and trash the neg.

If money is what you're after then sure do whatever earn you the most money. Doing so mean the client bought the negative from you.

 

[BobUK]

Tell me again why you would have to prove you own the print? Speaking of the Grassy Knoll, did Zapruder really have to give the FBI the sales receipt for his movie camera?

Anyone can copy a print and foist it off as their own work, either for kudos or cash.

Plenty of people have had their copyright infringed by the world of publishing.
The ability to prove original ownership would greatly simplify any subsequent claim in court.


The main topic for Zapruder case debated by the conspiracy crowd was about missing frames of the 8mm film. I don't think ownership was a big problem.
The only copyright problem I think was about a series of sketches made using individual frames to explain a theory. Not sure if it was thrown out by the judge.
Long time since I read about that interesting story.

 

[takilmaboxer]

I like Chan's point: they in essence bought the negative from you. That makes sense.
"I make crappy photos that are money in hand today"
That about says it all.
I would make a snarky comment about Oz perspective...but...I'm in America...not the sanest country on Earth

 

[gbroadbridge]

An unusual scenario as follows.

If the negatives have been destroyed.
Then at a later date when looking at the print you spotted the actual gunman on the grassy knoll, you would have an image worth a fortune.

How would you prove ownership of the image without the negative?

Why would I want to?

Many years ago I was in favour of bitcoin.

I created a collection of around 30 of them, as they were handed out as freebies to get the market going.

Do I worry about those 30 lost bitcoin?

Time passes.

 

[takilmaboxer]

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...

 

[faberryman]

Real photographers don't destroy the negative.

Real photographers don't listen to what random people on the internet say real photographers do or don't do.