• 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


Data transport as hardware upgrades is nice in theory.
  • How did folks migrate ST-506 harddrive data to PC with EISA harddrive, when it was a case of old-computer-to-new computer upgrading? the commonality of transfer media?
  • And then there is the reality of the time involved in transferring terrabytes of data from old to new hardware, if one does not own a shared storage device like NAS? Or when one is changing technology, for example between Apple and Microsoft computers?

    Will heirs bother to move your data after you have passed, or will the data simply be lost to history...at least negs can get passed onward readily.
 
Last edited:
Negatives can be a burden.
Curated selection of negatives, with "meta data" scribbled - another story.
but in the end how many really relevant snaps has one person taken in their life?
 

Every computer I've owned has shared at least one removeable media technology with its predecessor. Sometimes with 2 or 3 generations of predecessors. Until my most recent purchase, every computer except for the two I purchased in the early 90s were built by me, so that commonality was by design, but that commonality mostly existed in off-the-shelf PCs as well. Most of the time, however, the transfer took the form of me moving the data drive from one PC to the next during the build process. Data transfer was never a problem.

I've not done such transfers between Apple and Microsoft, but I've done plenty between Microsoft and Linux (either direction). To ensure there are no issues, I always format removeable drives using NTFS since I know Linux can read/write to that filesystem. I'm sure there are methods of doing the same with Apple. Therefore, an external 5tb hard drive will make the task simple.

My heirs are far more likely to know how to manage data than to get negatives printed or scanned. Currently there may be 2 shops in the entire DC metro region (going out as far 50 miles) that can make prints from negatives. But my kids already move files from computer to computer with USB drives, CD, or the network.

Now, the real question is whether or not these processes can last past 2 or 3 generations. My Generation, GenX, is probably the first to have significant digital archives of personal files. Our kids might know how to manage that, but not enough time has passed to know if our grandkids or great grandkids will follow suit. But, as I said above, it's no more likely they'll know what to do with a bunch of negatives. And if they did, would there be services available to get those negatives scanned or printed in 50+ years?

Frankly, I think only prints will be truly viable long-term. People will forget to back up grandpa's treasure trove of digital images, or they'll take one look at the binder full of negatives and shrug their shoulders, but they'll be able to flip through photo albums, portfolios, or gaze at frame pictures handed down by heirs.

I've started printing my favorite non-family "art" shots in 8x10 format and storing them in a portfolio. Less effort than framing them all and finding space on a wall, but it leaves a physical image people can enjoy (or not).

Chris
 
Have you ever asked your family members "when I die, which photo(s) would you like to keep"?
 
mtnbkr said:
But, as I said above, it's no more likely they'll know what to do with a bunch of negatives. And if they did, would there be services available to get those negatives scanned or printed in 50+ years?
Click to expand...
The nice thing about negatives, and more particularly slides, is no technology is needed to view them aside from holding them to the light.

I'm certain that is 50 years there will be some way of digitizing film images, even if it's taking a photos of them.
 
mtnbkr said:
I've started printing my favorite non-family "art" shots in 8x10 format and storing them in a portfolio. Less effort than framing them all and finding space on a wall, but it leaves a physical image people can enjoy (or not).
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I do too.

I have albums of photos handed down by my grandparents, all perfectly good to look at - no negatives to be found anywhere.
People (apart from particularly committed hobbyists) just don't keep them.

Anything worth keeping gets printed, whether from a negative or from a cellphone.
 
Craig said:
I'm certain that is 50 years there will be some way of digitizing film images, even if it's taking a photos of them.
Click to expand...

Yes, but will the people holding the negatives know about such things or have a local resource to seek help from?

When I moved to the DC metro area in the late 90s there were multiple photography store chains in the region with several physical locations each and 1hr photo kiosks everywhere. Fast forward to 2025 and there are maybe 3 photography stores in the region, the nearest being 45min from me. Despite the techniques being known and available, I suspect folks not actively pursuing photography will have the awareness to seek out those services.

Chris
 
mtnbkr said:
Yes, but will the people holding the negatives know about such things or have a local resource to seek help from?
Click to expand...

The internet? if someone wants to find a way to get the images printed, they will.

It's no different than 50 year old computer technology now, if I had a file that was created in Appleworks on an Apple IIe and wanted to see what it was now I'd start searching for a way to do it. If I didn't care what was on that 5" floppy disk it would go to landfill.

If someone has interest and desire to read media (be it a negative or digital file) they will make an effort to do so and gather whatever resources they need to make it happen. I can't see that changing in the future.
 
With Eastman producing cheap film like Colocolor 100 and 200, cheap one hour development and printing services will again become available producing 4x6"prints for your photo albums and to give to relatives. So they will be available to print your old negatives as well.
 
When I moved to New Jersey and retired, I went through my negatives and realized I really didn't want to look at them because all the good ones were printed way back and those were in photo albums. Plus you can't really tell from negatives what you're looking at for most people or how good the picture is. If I don't want to do look at them, certainly my heirs aren't going to waste their time. So I just threw them out.
 

OTOH, if one is hanging on to old negs, even if one has no personal interest in printing any of them, there could well be someone who DOES want prints! I went to my 50th high school reunion some years ago, and two different classmates asked about photos taken of them which they remembered being in the school newspaper, asking my if I still had the negs to provide prints! (and neither person had overheard the request made by the other person)
 
I guess Alan would like me to discard this binder of my around 50 year old negatives:
 
The answer is "easily". Either you already know, or you use Google or ChatGPT to figure it out. Millions of people have worked this out before you.

It's really not about the question whether or how it can be done. This issue is one of attitude, preference and ultimately dogma. We can keep making arguments about how film isn't safe if your house floods or burns down, and how digital data aren't safe if your cloud storage provider goes bankrupt or you get ransom-wared. The only logical conclusion is that your photos are at risk, always. The realistic conclusion is that it barely matters since virtually nobody cares one whit about your photos after you stop caring. Especially the kind of photos most of us strive to make here. The only photos we make that potentially matter to heirs are made with smartphones during family dinners with Christmas.
 
I want to make another point - unstructured data is largely useless. And it is also unlikely that all of these negatives have any relevance. Relevance for those inheriting that "treasure".

Imagine you inherit 10,000 Pokemon cards.
 
Last edited:
RezaLoghme said:
I want to make another point - unstructured data is largely useless. And it is also unlikely that all of these negatives have any relevance. Relevance for those inheriting that "treasure".

Imagine you inherit 10,000 Pokemon cards.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
koraks said:
The only photos we make that potentially matter to heirs are made with smartphones during family dinners with Christmas.
Click to expand...

That reflects the attitude of a throw-away society, in which everything gets thrown away, ignoring the fact that there are collectors, historians, and anthropologists who all value things from the past -- even from folks they never knew. "When I die, my heirs will not bother to keep things so that they continue to be accessible to later generations for their historical/sociological impact and knowledge of later generations."

I have taken photos of past celebrities, like Janice Joplin, Bill Russell, Rita Moreno, Mort Sahl, Ronald Reagan...preserved in negs. I doubt my photos of Henry Winkler will persevere in digital.
 
" there are collectors, historians, and anthropologists who all value things from the past

Who all value things - but do they also value ALL THINGS? Probably not.

And are negatives really "preserving" something, or are they the raw material for curating and printing and framing and hanging best of the best photographs?

What do you think?
 
If the goal is to preserve your photos for friends, family, and posterity, photo books offer several advantages. They require no proprietary technology to view. You can make several copies, so the books can exist in multiple locations. And if kept in the proverbial cool, dry place, they are relatively stable over moderately long periods of time.

Bound books are easier to store and transport than loose prints or negatives. It is easier for a viewer to flip through a bound book than it is to look at a box of loose prints, and far, far easier than looking at negatives. Even digital photos can be more of a hassle to look at than books -- who enjoys looking at photos on someone else's phone? A photo in a book can be about 4-5 times bigger than a phone screen and the book photo won't disappear from view if I accidentally touch the wrong part of the page.

For documentary purposes and even for artistic reasons, sometimes it is beneficial to keep a collection of related photos grouped together, something a bound book can do better than loose prints or negatives.

Additionally, each photo in a book can include a caption to provide who-what-why-where-when information that adds personal and historical context for the photo. You could write this kind of information on the back of your darkroom prints, but who does? You could put some limited information on your file sleeves, but once the negatives are removed from the sleeve, they are no longer linked to the information. You can put this kind of information in the EXIF data of your scans (and I recommend that you do), but different digital photo viewing software vary wildly in which EXIF data is displayed, and how. I can't think of any method of photo storage that is better for linking text to a photo than a printed book.
 
Last edited:
+1

And a photo book requires some robust thinking about curating, selecting and also tossing some negs.
 
wiltw said:
That reflects the attitude of a throw-away society, in which everything gets thrown away, ignoring the fact that there are collectors, historians, and anthropologists who all value things from the past
Click to expand...
It reflects the reality of the vast majority of amateur photos having no particular historical significance, now or in the future.
There are many exponents of the 'throw-away society' - and I'm far, far down on the list, and actually on the other side of the spectrum. But I also realize that out of the billions and billions of photos people produce on a yearly basis, virtually none of it has any relevance whatsoever within a day of making them, let alone a lifetime.
Also, society has been 'throw-away' pretty much forever. The amount of stuff we carry over from one generation to another has never been particularly big. In fact, insofar as the trend has ever been different, it's been in the epoch we currently live in, which seems to have a fetishism for holding on to stuff - as evidenced by the countless posts fussing about how people throw their negatives away or otherwise don't properly look after their photos.

The whole preservation argument is just dogma, and the preference for a medium that essentially boils down to a thin plastic Petri dish over anything else is just fairly arbitrary if you look at it rationally. It's no better or worse of a preference than any other. Don't let me keep you from storing your negatives in a granite vault with a legal framework in place to govern its future stewardship into the nth generation from now. Whatever floats your boat.
 
Saving everything isn’t automatically meaningful, it’s just a choice, not a moral duty.
 
I could not care less about what happens to my negatives after I'm dead, but I do want access to them while I am still alive.

Even though it is unlikely that I may want to make a better scan someday, or suddenly take up darkroom printing, those are possibilities -- right up until the moment when the negs are hauled off with the trash.
 
Not keeping out of focus or wonky negatives is "throwaway society"??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register