• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Tossing Negatives After They've Been Scanned


100% agree
 
Talking to a photo professor who told a story of the student presenting their assignment, which was excessively sharpened. The prof suggested re-doing it with reduced sharpness and the student replied that they could not. After making the final print, he erased all the files (just like tossing the negatives).
 
When kids handed in digital assignments, they had to include the file containing the original exposure, otherwise they got an incomplete mark. The same with film-based projects. I spent a good part of class time teaching them how to be organised.
 
Sharktooth said:
what I don't understand is why someone who doesn't value negatives would even bother shooting with film in the first place.
Click to expand...

Because the final image is king, it does not matter how you got there.

Same as the film/digital argument.
A camera is just a tool to record a moment. How it does that is irrelevant.
 

My math classes always reduced credit for not "showing your work". And if you did show you work, they'd see the exact spot where you went wrong and could give you partial credit accordingly.
 
gary mulder said:
The average time a viewer is willing to look at your photos is 4 seconds per image with a maximum of 15 images. Choose wisely what you want to show. Kill your precious darlings.
Click to expand...

It's again up to the medium. Digital has that infinite replication but non physicality whereas film has the physical negatives. IMO, and as I wrote earlier, having the negs by default in film just allows having this physical backup. Which may end up lasting or not in one way or other.
Personally am an outlier, I had a fascination for the family archive early on due to late relatives which were documented in very few pictures. Again slides are the most interesting but the negatives are just folded in the classical minilab envelopes and are there... It was nice that I could go back to a couple of dad's old BW negs and print photos from 1972 which were very appreciated to be seen as larger prints. Also, I had a fascination for archival keeping early on, but nowadays am not so well organized...

One possible strength of film is that it goes against the short attention span and attention economy trend. I have met people that explicitely appreciate the slower workflow.
Funnily I am currently sitting on a batch of unscanned negatives. Also, I usually had been very selective on shooting due to the film expense as some mention, so my negatives are usually already very select. Been a happier shooter the last years so have generated more.
 
It’s one thing to digitize a decades-old catalog of work amassed over decades on a medium of the time. It’s entirely another to shoot film today just to toss it in the can after essentially taking a picture of a picture (whether literally with a digital camera or with a scanner). Seems analogous to someone digitizing old out of print 45s to ensure they can continue to enjoy such recordings vs. someone going well out of their way to make an mp3 out of a vinyl record they’ve just brought home from Barnes and Noble.

I’m grateful these folks help keep film going, but I’ll never see it as anything other than absurd. Just my opinion.
 

Heresy!
 
DevStopFix said:
I’m grateful these folks help keep film going, but I’ll never see it as anything other than absurd. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand it myself even as I do it. I think if I had a digital camera exactly the same as my favourite film cameras in shape and controls, I have no idea if I would find it as pleasing as using film. Maybe I just haven't found the right digicam.
 
gbroadbridge said:
Because the final image is king, it does not matter how you got there.

Same as the film/digital argument.
A camera is just a tool to record a moment. How it does that is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Yes, but how you get there matters ... a lot. The path to the final image using negative and silver/platinum/palladium/carbon/cyanotype print is very different than the path from digital capture to screen. Moreover, it is essentially impossible to duplicate one with the other.

The two paths should be understood for what they are: Two entirely different artists' methods joined only by common heritage. This was much the same case with, say, pianos and synthesizers when the latter first arose - entirely different kinds of music emerged.
 

Film is more archival than digits. Just ask me, MS cloud storage lost some of my data.

Tomorrow’s more advanced scanner will have more dynamic range and a rescan may improve or change the captured image.
 
I highly doubt anyone who shoots raw discards that file after editing it in Darkroom.

It doesn't pass the smell test...
 
Kilgallb said:
Film is more archival than digits. Just ask me, MS cloud storage lost some of my data.
Click to expand...
I just spent some time sorting through slides I shot (on Ektachrome) of some design work I did 50 years ago. I put the slides on my scanner and came up with some images that look as good as they did when I shot them (without photoshopping). That's archival.
 

Someone like that should not be teaching photography. Besides, any really "good" teacher would require the students to buy their own negative sleeves -- problem solved at no cost (to the teacher)...
 
Somehow this thread has become bogged down in an analogue versus digital thread.
 
Kino said:
I highly doubt anyone who shoots raw discards that file after editing it in Darkroom.

It doesn't pass the smell test...
Click to expand...

Darkroom is non destructive editing software.
 
I tossed all my scans years ago. After a lifetime in analog photography I find digital with all its necessary
baggage and planned obsolescence inconvenient and annoying.
I say this only as personal preference, if digital works for you excellent.
 
lecarp said:
I tossed all my scans years ago. After a lifetime in analog photography I find digital with all its necessary
baggage and planned obsolescence inconvenient and annoying.
I say this only as personal preference, if digital works for you excellent.
Click to expand...

I would like to be so rich. Metaphorically speaking, that is. The harsh reality is, that's not me.
 
I have no problem with people making the decision to discard negatives, if the user has a good idea about the value of, and possibilities inherent in, a saved negative.
I am concerned when people who are relatively uninformed about that value, and those possibilities, are encouraged to discard them, on the grounds of economy and convenience.
From a scan I made of an early Kodachrome slide of my father's - the earliest photo I have of my mother. The slide would be nearly 80 years old. You can see more colour in the scan then you can see in the slide itself:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register