Should/do you keep you negatives

tibi1978 · Feb 28, 2020

I would definetely keep the negatives.

1) you make the best prints out of negatives

2) if you get your digitized image stolen let's say what will prove is the negative

3) If you rescan with new technology /scanner over the years

4) you can also re/visit decide over the years if you want to print an image from a negative or do contact sheets

PerTulip · Mar 3, 2020

I keep most of my negatives. Easy to store (binders with inserts for 135 and 120), quickly done.

Also:

I scan them with a V600, which is OK for getting a good preview of the image and a good feel of what adjustments will do. If I find great images (as in: I want to print them for display), they get rescanned with an Imacon. During import I add the binder/insert number to EXIF/IPTC and can easily find them. And since there might be weeks/months between the initial scan, the postprocessing, the rescan and the actual processing (most of my shots from the summer get processed in winter, when time is abundant).

Wallace Ross · Mar 3, 2020

The negative is the archive and backup and original. Would you make a jpeg and delete the RAW? A years worth of negatives take up about a 2” binder and I can always rescan or print optically in my darkroom.

Parry Johnson · Mar 3, 2020

Wallace Ross said:
Would you make a jpeg and delete the RAW?

Yes, I do, occasionally. I almost always use RAW+JPG (Large) while shooting, but if it's not as important, I will not always keep the RAW file.

However, before I delete it, I make sure that the JPG version is the best it can be -- it usually isn't, so there's often an intermediate step of further RAW processing into another JPG that replaces the original. In most cases, that's sufficient; and if that means that the superfluous RAW file is deleted to free up space, then so be it.

When I'm doing a paid shoot, I always keep the RAW files for about five years, just in case the client needs to have me go back and tweak something (e.g. colour balance, fine detail, perspective). Sometimes, I'm glad I did; but mot often those big files are just taking up space -- they've already been paid for, the client doesn't need them anymore, and I certainly don't need them as well.

So, if you take the same stance on negatives, I guess you could say that the final print is all that's needed. However, if there ever is a chance that you want to go back to the original, then keeping the negative is the very best solution. Since I've seen a continued progression of improvement in scanning and photographically duplicating film (as well as the improvements in film / chemical processing technology), I still don't see the need to get rid of those original negatives and slides. Yet there are many bad or unwanted 4x6 prints that came from bad negatives -- are those really worth keeping? Probably not.

Wallace Ross · Mar 4, 2020

I have an archive of an old street photography company from around 1949-1950 in Vancouver. The only reason that it exists is someone kept the negatives. Looking at the film you can see what it is and what it might mean a hard drive is just a hard drive.

--

My notebook | Wallace Koopmans Artlog

1cb · Mar 4, 2020

when I picked up my first flatbed scanner with the ability to scan negatives (ScanJet 3570c) I scanned all my negatives. (2001 or so)

Later on in 2006 when the 3570 got toasted by a power surge, I picked up the HPg4050. I really liked the quality and I re-scanned some of my favorite shots and was very happy.

Now that the G4050 is old, and I learned more about scanning. I picked up the Plustek 8200i and then re-scanned a couple of my more favorite shots. The difference in quality from 2001 to last month is incredible.

While the 8200i cannot scan 120 or larger, the old g4050 does scan 120 and 4x5 pretty nice. it was terrible with color 35mm. I hope that Plustek makes a new 120 scanner someday.

I'm glad I didn't trash my negatives.

Parry Johnson · Mar 4, 2020

1cb said:
when I picked up my first flatbed scanner with the ability to scan negatives (ScanJet 3570c) I scanned all my negatives. (2001 or so)

Later on in 2006 when the 3570 got toasted by a power surge, I picked up the HPg4050. I really liked the quality and I re-scanned some of my favorite shots and was very happy.

Now that the G4050 is old, and I learned more about scanning. I picked up the Plustek 8200i and then re-scanned a couple of my more favorite shots. The difference in quality from 2001 to last month is incredible.

While the 8200i cannot scan 120 or larger, the old g4050 does scan 120 and 4x5 pretty nice. it was terrible with color 35mm. I hope that Plustek makes a new 120 scanner someday.

I'm glad I didn't trash my negatives.

I've got the HP 4050G as well. Try Vuescan for 35mm -- you might like the results better and it's considerably faster. I agree, though, that duplication for 35mm isn't the best. Good for web, but not good enough (in my opinion) for enlargements.

Parry Johnson · Mar 4, 2020

1cb said:
when I picked up my first flatbed scanner with the ability to scan negatives (ScanJet 3570c) I scanned all my negatives. (2001 or so)

Later on in 2006 when the 3570 got toasted by a power surge, I picked up the HPg4050. I really liked the quality and I re-scanned some of my favorite shots and was very happy.

Now that the G4050 is old, and I learned more about scanning. I picked up the Plustek 8200i and then re-scanned a couple of my more favorite shots. The difference in quality from 2001 to last month is incredible.

While the 8200i cannot scan 120 or larger, the old g4050 does scan 120 and 4x5 pretty nice. it was terrible with color 35mm. I hope that Plustek makes a new 120 scanner someday.

I'm glad I didn't trash my negatives.

I've held off scanning most of my old negs, as it takes MUCH time! I couldn't imagine re-scanning and converting thousands of images several times, so I'm happy enough with the G4050 results I got a decade ago as useful "contact sheets." The photos I really like are worthwhile redoing years later with better technology.

I had an HP Photosmart film scanner in 1995 that was painfully slow and often produced streaks because dust would easily be caught inside. I'd spend 20 minutes waiting for a strip of 5 negs to go through, only to find out I'd have to clean the unit and start over.

I'd say that it's now safe to photograph negatives with a 36MP+ camera and macro lens and be able to get all the detail and dynamic range you want from a 35mm original to make quality enlargements that rival silver emulsions. In that respect, I can accept the arguement that it's okay to destroy some negatives. Just as scanning technology has improved, so should post-processing a good RAW capture. At the moment, we've pretty much reached the limits to MP and lens resolutions for full-frame sensors, which was the original problem with 35mm film also! Each silver grain has multiple and overlapping pixels of data (for most films). Is it "good" or just "good enough"? Only you can decide.

1cb · Mar 4, 2020

Parry Johnson said:
1cb said:

when I picked up my first flatbed scanner with the ability to scan negatives (ScanJet 3570c) I scanned all my negatives. (2001 or so)

Later on in 2006 when the 3570 got toasted by a power surge, I picked up the HPg4050. I really liked the quality and I re-scanned some of my favorite shots and was very happy.

Now that the G4050 is old, and I learned more about scanning. I picked up the Plustek 8200i and then re-scanned a couple of my more favorite shots. The difference in quality from 2001 to last month is incredible.

While the 8200i cannot scan 120 or larger, the old g4050 does scan 120 and 4x5 pretty nice. it was terrible with color 35mm. I hope that Plustek makes a new 120 scanner someday.

I'm glad I didn't trash my negatives.

Click to expand...

I've held off scanning most of my old negs, as it takes MUCH time! I couldn't imagine re-scanning and converting thousands of images several times, so I'm happy enough with the G4050 results I got a decade ago as useful "contact sheets." The photos I really like are worthwhile redoing years later with better technology.

I had an HP Photosmart film scanner in 1995 that was painfully slow and often produced streaks because dust would easily be caught inside. I'd spend 20 minutes waiting for a strip of 5 negs to go through, only to find out I'd have to clean the unit and start over.

I'd say that it's now safe to photograph negatives with a 36MP+ camera and macro lens and be able to get all the detail and dynamic range you want from a 35mm original to make quality enlargements that rival silver emulsions. In that respect, I can accept the arguement that it's okay to destroy some negatives. Just as scanning technology has improved, so should post-processing a good RAW capture. At the moment, we've pretty much reached the limits to MP and lens resolutions for full-frame sensors, which was the original problem with 35mm film also! Each silver grain has multiple and overlapping pixels of data (for most films). Is it "good" or just "good enough"? Only you can decide.

I'm not saying I re-scanned the whole collection, just the few choice shots and each time was an improvement.

I do like the camera/scanner results I've seen.

1cb · Mar 4, 2020

Parry Johnson said:
1cb said:

when I picked up my first flatbed scanner with the ability to scan negatives (ScanJet 3570c) I scanned all my negatives. (2001 or so)

Later on in 2006 when the 3570 got toasted by a power surge, I picked up the HPg4050. I really liked the quality and I re-scanned some of my favorite shots and was very happy.

Now that the G4050 is old, and I learned more about scanning. I picked up the Plustek 8200i and then re-scanned a couple of my more favorite shots. The difference in quality from 2001 to last month is incredible.

While the 8200i cannot scan 120 or larger, the old g4050 does scan 120 and 4x5 pretty nice. it was terrible with color 35mm. I hope that Plustek makes a new 120 scanner someday.

I'm glad I didn't trash my negatives.

Click to expand...

I've got the HP 4050G as well. Try Vuescan for 35mm -- you might like the results better and it's considerably faster. I agree, though, that duplication for 35mm isn't the best. Good for web, but not good enough (in my opinion) for enlargements.

I have vuescan, the B&W shots come out super! My color shots, no so much. It is probably me. But I can say that when I scan the same shot that came out muddy on the G4050, it looks so much better on Plustek scan. I use the vuescan on the Plustek as well.

Dunno, it is probably 80% me not doing color right. I have made 35mm scans on the plustek that look super on a 13x19 print.

teraflame · Mar 4, 2020

What’s an economical and practical way to store negatives?

Parry Johnson · Mar 4, 2020

1cb said:
Parry Johnson said:

1cb said:

when I picked up my first flatbed scanner with the ability to scan negatives (ScanJet 3570c) I scanned all my negatives. (2001 or so)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'm not saying I re-scanned the whole collection, just the few choice shots and each time was an improvement.

I do like the camera/scanner results I've seen.

Olifaunt · Mar 5, 2020

Talking about family photos: Nobody looks at digital pictures (including scans from film) ever again; they eventually get lost in a dusty corner on some old hard drive; even in the cloud nobody ever looks at them.

Prints do get seen from time to time; even if it is just when someone dies; their albums get looked through. Albums can become heirlooms. But prints fade or damage, and you cannot copy them, and that's when you need the negatives.

Parry Johnson · Mar 5, 2020

teraflame said:
What’s an economical and practical way to store negatives?

Archival pages are available that'll hold strips of 5 or 6 35mm frames. I stored E6 slides (well, positive strips) that way, too. The last pack of 100 sheets cost me around $45 CAD about 20 years ago, and they're even cheaper now. Since DPReview is owned by Amazon, I don't think anyone would complain if I send this link:

Loading…

www.amazon.ca

SylverFox · Mar 5, 2020

I keep mine, partly because I am not certain I have the best scan but mostly because technology changes and the formats we store images in now may not be around in the future. People once kept their video memories on VHS which obsolete and difficult to get hold of now. Audio formats that were common a few years ago are past their licencing period and so not supported by many applications. The same could be true for JPEG and TIFF for all we know. So I believe the original physical format is the best to allow my great grandchildren the opportunity to rediscover my images and enjoy them in whatever technology is available then.

In additional digital storage has it's risks; drives fail, data gets lost, cloud businesses change and go out of business.

That my fourpenneth

Neil-O · Mar 6, 2020

I have to say I find it bewildering that anyone who shoots film would destroy the original after digitisation. Having a tangible record is one of the main advantages of film. Why would you strip photography back to its simplest elements then have to totally rely on some very sophisticated technology to see the result?

Many have commented on the possible improvements in scanning technology. For me I hope that one day there will be a resurgence of chromogenic printing services. When I look at some of my (colour) analogue prints from years ago I much prefer the rendition to modern scanned output, but in the UK "wet" printing has pretty much disappeared from the marketplace - unless someone knows different?

Olifaunt · Mar 6, 2020

Neil-O said:
Many have commented on the possible improvements in scanning technology. For me I hope that one day there will be a resurgence of chromogenic printing services. When I look at some of my (colour) analogue prints from years ago I much prefer the rendition to modern scanned output, ...

Definitely! I got back into film a couple of years ago after looking at some of my color prints from the 90s and noticing how beautiful they were. I get scans of my color negatives now but they still don't quite look as good as those wet prints one could get from any good quality photo shop.

For black and white, I have been doing some darkroom wet printing. Scans from photo labs are okay for screens but frankly don't compare to wet prints for tones, blacks, grain structure, etc. If anyone doubts this, inspect a good 6x9 (or larger) wet print (from 35 mm) with a loupe in good light. First time I did this was a revelation.

Neil-O · Mar 7, 2020

Olifaunt said:
Neil-O said:

Many have commented on the possible improvements in scanning technology. For me I hope that one day there will be a resurgence of chromogenic printing services. When I look at some of my (colour) analogue prints from years ago I much prefer the rendition to modern scanned output, ...

Click to expand...

Definitely! I got back into film a couple of years ago after looking at some of my color prints from the 90s and noticing how beautiful they were. I get scans of my color negatives now but they still don't quite look as good as those wet prints one could get from any good quality photo shop.

For black and white, I have been doing some darkroom wet printing. Scans from photo labs are okay for screens but frankly don't compare to wet prints for tones, blacks, grain structure, etc. If anyone doubts this, inspect a good 6x9 (or larger) wet print (from 35 mm) with a loupe in good light. First time I did this was a revelation.

This is the problem today - even with the resurgence of interest in film, output is still mostly viewed backlit which flatters everything. This is how modern labs get away with poor scanning.

Sadly many photographers in the modern era do not have a perspective when it comes to the printed medium, all they have ever known is inkjet printed photos, if they bother with printing at all. In fact I would bet a substantial number of photo enthusiasts today have never even seen an emulsion print.

Parry Johnson · Mar 7, 2020

Neil-O said:
Sadly many photographers in the modern era do not have a perspective when it comes to the printed medium, all they have ever known is inkjet printed photos, if they bother with printing at all. In fact I would bet a substantial number of photo enthusiasts today have never even seen an emulsion print.

There is a certain magic about watching an enlargement appear slowly before your eyes in the B&W developer! What you think might be a good picture suddenly grabs you and you get excited to the point that you just can't wait to see it in full light.

Now that certainly doesn't happen all the time, but every once in awhile there's a picture where you think, "Damn, I'm good!" Of course, that's probably because you have to wait for days or weeks after you take the photo, and you often don't really know what's going to happen. More often the reaction is, "Damn! I really don't know what I was thinking!"

With digital, we all review our photos and cull those we know aren't worthwhile keeping, then redo a shot if it looks promising until we're satisfied.

Perhaps we need a digital camera without a screen on the back so we can't chimp. Then, a progressive JPG form will only allow the image to fade slowly into view on our monitors. (Well, first perhaps, tiny upside down or sideways negative images with an awful colored background should flash to add some confusion and excitement.) Of course, you have to wait at least an hour for the images to load on your computer -- maybe even drive an hour away to allow a special wifi connection. To top it off, if you want to share any photos on Facebook, you have to do it all over again.

OBI656 · Mar 7, 2020

Taking pictures on film is a matter of choice, knowing why to choose a film in the first place, in front of a digital camera.

There are private services, that master the B&W printing in a way that takes one's breath. Certainly depends on the quality of the negative and the choice of your subject, but the technical side of processing still exists at the highest level of gallery quality.

No wonder these photos, go to private collectors' galleries and for sure, the prices for these photos are not the lowest.

Should/do you keep you negatives

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Active member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts