Tossing Negatives After They've Been Scanned

[gary mulder]

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.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Whenever we talk about this, it reminds me of a letter sent into a UK photography magazine (Practical Photography?) in the mid 1990s. In the published letter a chap enthused about scanning all his negatives so he could view them on his new home computer and of course, he could then toss all the negatives. I've often wondered about that chap. I don't know what sort of scanning machines consumers used in the '90s but maybe he came to regret not being able to scan better as technology improved. It's like tossing a negative after making a print, one day you might want to have another go at it.

 

[gbroadbridge]

. I don't know what sort of scanning machines consumers used in the '90s but maybe he came to regret not being able to scan better as technology improved. It's like tossing a negative after making a print, one day you might want to have another go at it.

The problem is, I doubt scanning or copying technology will improve much from this point on.
There seems to be little point.

 

[benderscameracorner]

But this argument holds for film too, one burst pipe, flood or fire and poof! Those somewhat flammable negs (still better than nitrocellulose) are ashes or sodden beyond recovery. How many here make duplicates of every roll or sheet and store them in another place?

I just think this argument is wielded rhetorically more than anything else. It has merit but its overstated.

True... but how many house fires have you suffered versus storage media failures in your lifetime?

But yes, true archival does mean multiple copies in multiple places, regardless of the format. And maybe it's time for a bigger fireproof box for our important docs ;-)

The main reason I keep my negatives is because I may want to re-scan them if better digitizing methods become more available / affordable. Some of my early slides have been digitized a third time.

This. A lot of my early stuff was scanned with a circa-2001 Plustek that I think was 1800dpi - all I could afford back then. Seemed OK at the time, B&W and slide was fine but manually inverting colour negs in Photoshop 5.5 was, ah, a little hit and miss.

Going through and rescanning at 20MP+ with a decent DSLR/macro-bellows setup, and the joys of Negative Lab Pro... well it's like seeing the images anew all over again.

I do tend to agree with another poster though, we're probably not going to see the same kind of improvement again in another 20 years. Only so much detail you can pull out of a typical 35mm frame... medium/large format is a different matter...

 

[runswithsizzers]

The problem is, I doubt scanning or copying technology will improve much from this point on.
There seems to be little point.

Probably true, but...

While the state-of-the-art scanning technology may not improve much in the near future, how many are scanning with state-of-the-art technology?

I may never be able to afford very many drum scans, but today, I can afford to buy better hardware than I could when I first started scanning film. I am getting more resolution and sharpness now by copying film with a 16MP digital camera than I was using a film scanner from 2002. And now digital cameras have 40MP, and more. Will 40MP result in better camera scans than 16MP? I don't know, but if it does, I'll still have my negatives in case I need them.

So if your scans are all done with drum scanners, or whatever is considered to be the gold standard today, then you may have no need to rescan your negatives in the foreseeable future. (Personally, I've never been very good at foreseeing the future. ;-)

 

[Hassasin]

Tossing negatives after scanning or at any point in life is simply insanity. I think only those who lost it, without having any say, can fully appreciate this.

 

[Sharktooth]

I used to get really upset with labs offering up the scans, but pitching the negatives. It just seemed so crass. Lately, though, I've been thinking about this in more practical terms. Even back before the digital era, people were always throwing out (losing) their negatives. The most important thing about photography has always been the final "viewed" image. In the old days, that "viewed" image was on photographic paper, and was stored in albums, shoe boxes, and sometimes framed on the wall. The original negatives were usually lost or misplaced after a year or two, since it isn't convenient to store the negatives with the final "viewed" image. Of course, there are always exceptions, when the photographer was especially dedicated, but that's probably the exception, not the rule.

In this day and age the final "viewed" image is almost certainly going to be on some screen, such as a phone or computer monitor (ala Photrio). Once you've got that final "viewed" image, there really isn't much reason to lament the loss of the intermediate components. After all, you can duplicate the final image an infinite number of times without losing anything. The negative has become superfluous if you've already got what you wanted from the scan.

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.

 

[runswithsizzers]

spending money needlessly

I think you have discovered the not-so-secret definition of the word, "hobby" ;-)

 

[gbroadbridge]

I suppose people are seeking something "different" by spending money needlessly.

Well, you can't take it with you

 

[Hassasin]

There is always going to be someone who simply does not care about the work and mindset put into making a negative (or is entirely detached form the process) thus misplaces or tosses same soon after, and not feel a loss. At least that is what I am getting from some posts.

I have never felt making (and/or) keeping a negative was associated with spending needlessly, but I have felt the loss of a negative as needless and uncalled for. After all why go through the effort and dump it soon, or at any point, after ? I have some negatives from when I started, that are really bad examples of a negative, by any measure. Yet, they are a reminder of past time, the beginnings, where I was going, the progress I made ...

But I also think, outside of a commercial work made to order, keeping negatives has that sentimental vibe some hardly feel, others cannot drop at any point after.

Digital copy will never be what the negative is, even if they ever come up with scanning that will render every analog detail and feel of it, a digital file that can speak up and emanate the exact feelings behind it. Digital file will always be a collection of 1s and 0s.

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.

This is basically made up statistics.

 

[mtnbkr]

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 came to that conclusion myself around 2010 when I realized nobody was doing traditional wet prints anymore, that they were all scanning the negatives and printing from the scan. Why bother with film at that point. I went full into digital, only coming back in 2019.

I've since realized I don't get the images I want from digital, especially B&W (Color is "close enough", but I haven't been successful with digital B&W). I might if I was willing to spend a lot of time at the computer tweaking an image, but I don't want to do that when shooting B&W film in an old camera, then scanning it with my digital camera gives me an out-of-camera jpg that delivers what I want. On top of that, I get to use cool old cameras.

Chris

 

[brian steinberger]

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…

 

[gary mulder]

I don't think you got my point. Making a selection of your photos is an essential part of achieving a good photographic result. Moreover, it has to be done carefully and takes quite a lot of time. If such a selection is lost because you put the photos in a pile, then you are wasting your time and probably the interest of a possible interested party.

 

[retina_restoration]

I came to that conclusion myself around 2010 when I realized nobody was doing traditional wet prints anymore

I guess that makes me a "nobody'! LOL

 

[GregY]

I guess that makes me a "nobody'! LOL

What's this scanning of which they speak RR ?

 

[chuckroast]

As a retired computer sysadmin, I do not place much reliance on computer hardware - I do multiple backups because I know these things fail. Never mind the cloud (somebody else's computer) issues. Digital storage is not cheap if you add it up. Images take up a lot of digital storage space.

But barring fire, flood, or critters, my negatives will be around to annoy the executors of my estate!

A negative is cheap (you paid to get it already), compact, and tangible.

For digital content of all kinds, I maintain mirror images on multiple (2-3) machines as well as an offsite copy on a removable hard drive. That offsite copy gets rotated with an onsite copy every 30-90 days.

Digital media is not reliable in any of its forms. Duplication is the only way to preserve bits.

 

[MTGseattle]

I guess one could view it as the most hardcore form of editing. Run back through the archive, and anything you think no longer passes muster gets destroyed notes, work prints, scans and negs. Are there not anecdotes regarding a few famous photographers burning some/all of their negatives?
I can't even keep a stable digital archive of music, so I will haul around my negatives for a while yet.

 

[Hassasin]

I don't think you got my point. Making a selection of your photos is an essential part of achieving a good photographic result. Moreover, it has to be done carefully and takes quite a lot of time. If such a selection is lost because you put the photos in a pile, then you are wasting your time and probably the interest of a possible interested party.

It looks like you didn’t get his point. What is of seemingly lesser aesthetic or documentary value today, can grow into a substantial piece in time.

 

[chuckroast]

I don't think you got my point. Making a selection of your photos is an essential part of achieving a good photographic result. Moreover, it has to be done carefully and takes quite a lot of time. If such a selection is lost because you put the photos in a pile, then you are wasting your time and probably the interest of a possible interested party.

St. Ansel once commented to the effect that the most powerful creative tool at the disposal of the photographer is the garbage can.

But he was talking about prints, not negs.

 

[GregY]

St. Ansel once commented to the effect that the most powerful creative tool at the disposal of the photographer is the garbage can.

But he was talking about prints, not negs.

more specifically something to the effect of
' the most important piece of equipment in the darkroom is the trash can'