Throw or save unused negatives?

OMU · Mar 30, 2010

Hi;
I'm working of a series of portrait of persons in my community. Usually I use to/tree films (120) on each person and only use one, too - or at the most tree of the negatives.

I this way I have a lot of film that I do not need (at least now) Now I'm wondering if I should take care of all the negatives or throw away those that I don't want to use.

What do you do, throw them or save them?

OM

kauffman v36 · Mar 30, 2010

DO NOT, i repeat DO NOT ever throw away negatives. i was always taught to treat your egatives like your life depended on it. you never know when youll like another image that you didnt like before.

SoonerBJJ · Mar 30, 2010

FWIW I have gone back through unprinted negatives and found some worth printing that either weren't noticed or were under appreciated initially.

You may come back and find something you missed that is worth keeping. And you can't predict what you might need on some future occasion.

However, if I had a house full of negatives I might think of culling the herd.

ann · Mar 30, 2010

I would have to agree with the above, DON"T , as you may be very sorry in the long run.

fschifano · Mar 30, 2010

I guess it depends on how much storage space you have. As much as I hate to discard negatives, there are times when I just know that there are some (often quite a few) that will never be printed. Stuff that is obviously out of focus, poorly framed, or otherwise just plain bad gets tossed without a second though. No sense keeping that stuff around cluttering up the place. I've enough clutter already without adding to the problem.

Rick A · Mar 30, 2010

I'm like Frank, I toss all the obviously bad negatives. I keep even the marginal ones, because you never know if it will be viable later on.

jordanstarr · Mar 30, 2010

Store them away, making sure you use good archival methods. You never know what will happen in 50-100 years when someone finds them and puts them under a microscope. They'll be a piece of history. There's been photographers who were only "documenting progress" years ago who are now famous photographers because people found some of these unique photographs.

perkeleellinen · Mar 30, 2010

In 35mm it's often difficult not to save as you need to cut the bad ones out of the strip which means shorter strips and maybe single negs. With mounted slides I chuck the obvious rubbish.

RalphLambrecht · Mar 30, 2010

I'm not somebody known to keep unnecessary stuff around, but I keep all negatives, except for the obviously unusable. One can learn a lot from 'bad' negatives, and they don't take a lot of room to store them.

However, I'm wondering why you take so many of each person? I've done a similar thing but never saw the need to shoot more than one role per person for each session. Well, people work differently, don't they?

frobozz · Mar 30, 2010

Another vote for keeping anything that is even marginally usable. One thing not yet mentioned: let's say your favorite negative somehow gets damaged along the way. That sucks, but having another choice from the same shoot that is not quite as good...is better than having nothing!

Duncan

Worker 11811 · Mar 30, 2010

You can never recover a photo once it is lost. Preserve all the film you shoot even if you don't think it's good.

Like others, I have found good photos in notebooks full of negatives that I took 20-plus years ago. If I had tossed those negatives, I would never have had the chance to make good images out of them.

The only negatives I ever throw away are the ones that don't come out at all.

removed account4 · Mar 30, 2010

overlooked negatives
sometimes offer the best prints
a few years later when your perspective changes a little.

i have gone back to portraits ( and other things ) that i took 20 years ago
and the ones i overlooked were better than the ones that i originally chose ...

good luck with your project!
john

OMU · Mar 31, 2010

Thanks a lot. I'll keep them.

And to Ralph,

RalphLambrecht said:
However, I'm wondering why you take so many of each person? I've done a similar thing but never saw the need to shoot more than one role per person for each session. Well, people work differently, don't they?

I'm not so experienced and have taken several photos in the same situation, to be sure they don't blink etc. I have varied where the photos have been taken. But I see now that I have a lot of frames that are practically the same.
I have been thinking that I could cut down the numbers of photos from each situation, and your question confirms that that's the way to go. Without cutting it down too much. Thanks for your comment.

OM

Mats_A · Mar 31, 2010

Save them. If nothing else they can come in handy during the next solar eclipse, or maybe you like to go out in the spring sun with a magnifying glass

r

Mats

railwayman3 · Mar 31, 2010

I read somewhere about a big TV news station (might have even been the BBC) that archives every inch of usable film, video-tape, etc., on the basis that there was no way of knowing what might become of historical interest or value in the future.

Craig Swensson · Mar 31, 2010

Save at least the ones you know will produce.

I just went through some stored stuff from 20 years ago, found the negs of my then girlfriend, ah memories
regards
CW

eddie · Mar 31, 2010

Save them. First, as your printing skills improve, what seemed unprintable may become printable. Second, I save them to use for testing, if I want to tone a good negative (selenium) or plan on retouching a good negative. It's better to experiment on a rejected negative than on a good one. Third, you never know where your photographic/artistic travels will lead. I've been doing some images using portions of previously "bad" (scratched/poor framing/etc- though properly exposed/developed) negatives, for a series which involves laminating them to a larger negative.

You never know when you'll want to use them. They don't take up too much space. Once you toss them they're gone forever.

Throw or save unused negatives?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency