100% agree
When I made that original statement : "All that being said, I don't really see the point in shooting film, if you're just going to scan it and show it on a screen. I suppose people are seeking something "different" by spending money needlessly.", I wasn't referring to myself, or others here who actually do value negatives. I can understand why many people don't value negatives, and are happy to throw them out, but what I don't understand is why someone who doesn't value negatives would even bother shooting with film in the first place.
I guess that makes me a "nobody'! LOL
What's this scanning of which they speak RR ?View attachment 410005
what I don't understand is why someone who doesn't value negatives would even bother shooting with film in the first place.
Well, ultimately, that's what a lot of teaching is about, if you get down to it. It just turns out there are so many ways in which you can organize so many different kinds of things!I spent a good part of class time teaching them how to be organised.
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).
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.
Over the years those not so great negatives that you propose killing might begin to show history. It could take 5 years or 20 years or more. “Oh look there’s the old store they tore down.” Or “that’s the intersection before they put the traffic light up.” At the time these photos were taken these negatives may have been tossed by your rule of only keeping the best. But to some in the future they still have some history to show (if only local history, which I love). Just a thought…
The teacher (who had zero photo background going into this) who took over the photo program of a colleague of mine, a few years ago, does 99.9% digital. One project is film based, and they do make tiny 5x7 prints at the end of the unit. I was talking with him the other day, and he told me that he is saving a heap of money not having to buy negative sleeves for the students... instead, he has instructed them to just toss the negatives. I was speechless!
I’m grateful these folks help keep film going, but I’ll never see it as anything other than absurd. Just my opinion.
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.
after essentially taking a picture of a picture (whether literally with a digital camera or with a scanner).
Photographically enlarging a negative is simply taking a picture of a picture using photo paper.
Photographically enlarging a negative is simply taking a picture of a picture using photo paper.
Why would you want the negatives after they’ve been scanned??? What’s the scandal. After 40 years of shooting film I start going back, scanning them, and then pitching them. Still have a few thousand to go. Now when I develop film I give the negs a very brief wash, scan and pitch.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?