Paper Worthy Negatives

[Chuck_P]

The cost of paper can certainly be prohibitive to some, me included, when it comes to being able to print a lot of negatives. I'm curious from others as to what percentage of your negatives that you may produce in, say, a year's time, that you deem as a "paper worthy" negative. Meaning it's worth the loss of paper as you progress through the necessary amount of 'work prints' that may be needed to achieve the final print you are after. This is obviously relative to one's printing skills.......mine aren't great. But as I'm perusing sites and checking the cost paper, these things always enter my mind. Obviously, I'm grateful for my scanner as it provides the opportunity to evaluate the negative in its positive form without burning through paper. If I can get the scanned image to my liking with very little fuss, I begin to feel the negative may be worth it's time in the enlarger.

 

[rcphoto]

I get 8-12 exposures per roll. Of those 8-12 exposures, I like to get at least one to a final print stage.

I'm also not a great printer but I print to my satisfaction.

 

[Chuck_P]

I get 8-12 exposures per roll. Of those 8-12 exposures, I like to get at least one to a final print stage.

I'm also not a great printer but I print to my satisfaction.

Sometimes I'm compelled to try to improve on a print when, in reality, I should end it and be satisfied.....so that doesn't do the paper supply any good.

 

[DWThomas]

I mostly share on the web and very seldom print. When I do it's often targeted for exhibition. As such it amounts to perhaps one in twenty or thirty images (thinking medium format here). Yesterday one of two accepted pieces picked up a $50 award from a local art show so a little luck can occasionally soften the financial impact.

The expenses are definitely non-trivial -- I'd guess film and paper is maybe three to four times what it was when I re-established the darkroom in 2006, and the chemistry has at least doubled. Could be why about 96% of my images are via electrocuted bits! But there is still something magical about seeing an image come up in a developing tray.

 

[Saganich]

From roughly 1500 frames per year I will average 5 prints. I can't ever decide what to print.

 

[Chuck_P]

Could be why about 96% of my images are via electrocuted bits! But there is still something magical about seeing an image come up in a developing tray.

I love having the scanner, but the accomplishment always feels just halfway until I can make an as good or better print from a negative that looks good. I have some older paper in the freezer now and I look to be trying to make some prints very soon.

 

[jvo]

I printed a lot on 5x7, then enlarged the images as I saw fit.... (some people call them work prints). I found that I printed a lot more larger prints as a result, and I had the 5x7.

Sometime later, I'd be looking through an old stack of "work prints" and see something about them had "improved" and thus worth printing.

I was never good at "reading" negatives or contact sheets.

 

[Maris]

I print close to 100% of my negatives, blanks and bloopers excepted. It's a mind-set I got into after past years of shooting 8x10 film and only 8x10 film, no 35mm or roll-film.
Age, laziness, and a bad back now means the 8x10 doesn't get out so often but even with 4x5 and the new roll-film adventure I'm still slow, methodical, and hesitant to make an
exposure that might not go into the enlarger.

Reviewing the past year I count about 200 negatives proofed and printed on about 1000 sheets of 8x10 paper with minimal waste. That's more than enough work for my idle retirement.

 

[Chuck_P]

...................200 negatives proofed and printed on about 1000 sheets of 8x10 paper with minimal waste. That's more than enough work for my idle retirement.

That would be about $105 per month in a year's time for Ilford MG IV RC. I retired last year Aug 1st and have been pretty involved in my digital photography since then and am turning back toward film again and I would be happy right now with 500 sheets in a year.