Do you keep ALL your negatives?

[Asha]

Following on from the recent thread about "Keeping track about what's on the film", I'm curious as to wether filmies hold onto every negative that they shoot / process..

I suspect that I am possibly in a minority as I only keep those negs that offer me an image that I am happy enough to print out onto paper and thus keep as what I call a "true photograph" which will give me pleasure when viewed in the future.

Up until quite recently ( several years ago) I kept all the negatives that I shot, regardless of wether they were good, bad or darn right ugly.

Following a number of changes in my life ( including changes within my photography), I cleared out masses of negatives / photos ( and no I have no regrets, quite the opposite in fact as it has been quite liberating ( for me personally)
This clearout included all formats.
The frames of formats such as 35mm that I have kept along with their positive prints are often just individual negatives cut from the rest of the film, thus, ., destroying the other 35 negatives.

From experience I m aware that sometimes one can have a different view of any given shot and effectively "revisit" the processing of that said frame to come away with a pleasing photograph.
I continue to keep this in mind and don't destroy the negs immediatley after processing ( unless they are completely naff / ruined), however if after several months, ( a max of a year ) has passed and the frame still offers an unpleasing photo, then the neg finds its way to the bin.

This process that I have also applies to digi files but for the purpose of this thread posted in F&C, I'm relating the topic / thread to film negsatives.

So what do you do with yours?...…...

 

[donut]

keep every single one ,,,,,,,,,especially those with any family and friends on no matter how bad they might be ,,,,,,,,

 

[srichards]

I keep them all. Same goes with digital. If you don't keep the duffers you don't see how the duffer to keeper ratio changes

 

[john.margetts]

I am vicious. I cut my 35mm films into stripes of six and if there is nothing exciting in a strip of six it goes in the bin. Might be the whole film on a bad day.

I am the same with digital. After 15 years of shooting digital, I have about 20,000 digital images which might sound a lot but is only four images a day. I have been known to delete an entires day's shooting on occassion.

 

[StephenM]

I keep them all also. It's not always possible to predict when a photograph that failed in its original intent (in my case to be "good" if nothing more) may be transformed into a record of something long gone, whose passing wasn't expected. As a recently found example, in looking through the photos taken in the shop where I bought film, chemicals (and even my first enlarger) I found one that wasn't up to much as a photo of the staff (it's original purpose) but did show just incidentally the view through the window. The other side of the street no no longer exists, having been cleared for a massive roundabout.

I did - to my regret - when I first started have the mistaken idea that once exposed to light, the negatives were ruined. And since I always took a look, my early negatives are no more

 

[Nod]

I've got 'em all. Mainly because it's a faff to snip out so few decent ones from so many crap ones! I've also got pretty much every digi shot I've taken, although I only shoot JPEGs so the files/folders aren't huge.

 

[Kevin Allan]

The only ones I throw out are those with obvious exposure or developing mistakes beyond redemption. Even then they might be of use to write a blog article about all the things that can go wrong and how to recognise them.

 

[simon ess]

I keep 'em all.

I dump all digi stuff I don't like.

 

[Jao]

Yep!

 

[Asha]

keep every single one

I keep them all

I keep them all

I've got 'em all.

The only ones I throw out are those with obvious exposure or developing mistakes beyond redemption.

I keep 'em all.

Yep!

Seems I am very much in the minority!
Not that it bothers me, if a certain method works for someone then it's for them to follow that route.

I am vicious

Good to see that I'm not completely alone

 

[Asha]

If you don't keep the duffers you don't see how the duffer to keeper ratio changes

I don't personally see a reason for keeping tabs on how many keepers / duffers I produce.
I have a general idea witout having to keep a check and that can be depressing enough lol

 

[Asha]

I have been known to delete an entires day's shooting on occassion.

Likewise!

 

[Asha]

may be transformed into a record of something long gone, whose passing wasn't expected.

I appreciate this but at the same time I feel that if I felt it necessary to hold onto negs for that reason, then I'd be taking "snapshots" of everything and everywhere "all the time" in order to keep a record of changes whichoccur regularly and quite rapidly in modern society.

Without doubt when I look at a photo taken some time ago and see the modern changes, it is without of interest but no so much for me to stash away every photo file / neg that I shoot.

 

[Asha]

it's a faff to snip out so few decent ones from so many crap ones

It does make it easier to find those decent ones later on though if you wish to rescan….

 

[Asha]

they might be of use to write a blog article about all the things that can go wrong and how to recognise them.

Fully agree but like the keeping of notes of film, and frames taken, I think I've only ever dug out those negs to explain / help someone else with a similar issue.

Nothing wrong with that of course but to hold onto everything for no personal benefit is, imo a non starter.

 

[simon ess]

In 20,000 years an archeologist will look at my negs. and conclude that our society was in awe of, and governed by, rubbish.

And he will be right of course.

 

[Asha]

I keep 'em all.

I dump all digi stuff I don't like.

It sounds like you find it somewhat easier to rid yourself of digi files than negs.
Is that because negatives are an actual physical object as opposed to a pixelated file?

 

[simon ess]

It sounds like you find it somewhat easier to rid yourself of digi files than negs.
Is that because negatives are an actual physical object as opposed to a pixelated file?

Maybe. Digi photography, as wonderful as it is, just doesn't float my boat, so it is, for me, totally disposable.

 

[FujiLove]

I only shoot ‘keepers’ so everything is saved.

 

[Nod]

I don't personally see a reason for keeping tabs on how many keepers / duffers I produce.
I have a general idea witout having to keep a check and that can be depressing enough lol

I used to reckon on 2-4 good keepers per 36exp roll and about the same on a 16GB card!!!

It does make it easier to find those decent ones later on though if you wish to rescan….

Red * on contact sheets which are filed with the negs.

 

[Asha]

I only shoot ‘keepers’ so everything is saved.

 

[dmb]

Having lost almost all of my first 15 years of negatives back in 1980 (left in school staff room at end of term by accident and are in a landfill in Dagenham) I have kept all that I have shot since - still going back and looking through them from time to time to rethink possible ones to print as I have improved that part of my process and get a pleasing print from some I did not think possible.

 

[gunnar]

I've been keeping all my films so far, unless the entire strip is a failure, but it only happened once... so far. I am a freshman in these parts

I find that my keeper ratio with film is order of magnitude better than with digi. With digital I usually throw away 70-80% of the material. With film I am far less trigger happy and far more tolerant to technical image quality.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

Not decided yet!

I threw away all my negatives I had when I used to love photography many years ago.

Since I've started again I've been keeping them but I think I will throw them out when my folder is full.

 

[RaglanSurf]

I have all of mine from the very beginning, I only binned the negatives that were completely fubar’d.

 

[Asha]

I have all of mine from the very beginning

I have to ask ( the question refers to everyone who holds onto all their negs), how often do you actually dig any of those negatives out to "re use" / re process them?

Or do they simply lie around boxed up waiting for that day when you might be happy to still have hold of them?

 

[Mintchocs]

I don’t shoot that much film now so I keep all. I do tend to use film more for friends and family so even bad ones are good ones. With digital I do delete as it gets to much to store and backup.

 

[FujiLove]

I have to ask ( the question refers to everyone who holds onto all their negs), how often do you actually dig any of those negatives out to "re use" / re process them?

Or do they simply lie around boxed up waiting for that day when you might be happy to still have hold of them?

I've been doing that a lot recently. I scanned a load of old negatives from the 80's a few months ago and yesterday I was in the darkroom printing from the 2nd roll I shot after getting back into film about five years ago. That roll had only ever been scanned on a flatbed, and the files in Lightroom aren't that great. The wet prints look much, much better.

 

[srichards]

In 50 years times will all the jpgs still be there? At least negatives are an actual physical thing. I've still got negatives from the 1930s that relatives have taken. I think I have a few from even earlier than that.

 

[Peter B]

I have to ask ( the question refers to everyone who holds onto all their negs), how often do you actually dig any of those negatives out to "re use" / re process them?

Or do they simply lie around boxed up waiting for that day when you might be happy to still have hold of them?

In my darkroom days, it was a case of a contact sheet for every film and filed together with the neg sheet for the whole film. While I still have a couple of folders and boxes like this, I stopped doing contact sheets many years ago when I moved to scanning.

Revisiting old negs has largely been caused by the "New/Old" thread on here, which in turn has prompted me to re-shoot a couple of places where I wasn't satisfied by the original effort. Where I've been really bad so far is with my negs from Filmdev, since they're pretty much in a bundle rather than properly stored.

 

[excalibur2]

In 50 years times will all the jpgs still be there? At least negatives are an actual physical thing. I've still got negatives from the 1930s that relatives have taken. I think I have a few from even earlier than that.

...and boring uninteresting shot taken today could be very interesting in 50 years time, the problem is:- if you (meaning anyone) passed away would there be anyone interested in your negs with all the brainwashed digi guys in the future.

 

[Asha]

a contact sheet for every film and filed together with the neg sheet for the whole film.

Revisiting old negs has largely been caused by the "New/Old" thread on here

T'is what I used to do but then realised that they were never revisited except to help someone out with certain issues ( light entry, development problems etc) or like yourself for competitions. All these reasons were and are not strong enough to warrant me hanging onto hoards of negs, scans and contact sheets.

which in turn has prompted me to re-shoot a couple of places where I wasn't satisfied by the original effort

Fair enough I can see how reviewing old images can prompt a re shoot, but for me personally, I have, over the years, listed many subjects to reshoot due to the original shot not being acceptable, yet for the past part, they've never been done…….I think mainly as I prefer to go out with a camera with no set plan, prefering to simply take a stroll and see what, if anything catches my interest.

 

[Sky]

I have all my negatives going back to 1969; all catalogued (with the exception of a shoe-box full from about ten years ago that still need sorting).

 

[john.margetts]

In 50 years times will all the jpgs still be there?

Yes, they will - well, not all of them. When I die, Bestbeloved is very likely to delete all my photo files but Jpeg format files will be around for centuries. Even if Jpegs come to be no longer used, archivists will need to maintain computers and software that can use Jpeg files for the simple reason that they are currently ubiquitous. For that same reason, the BBC archivists can read virtually all recording formats that have been in use over the last 100+ years even if a particular format has not been used for recording for a century or so.

 

[StephenM]

So long as the BBC endures then...

The practical problem is that faced with clearing out a house after death, photo albums can be viewed there and then as they turn up, and possibly be found to be of interest. USB sticks and hard disks don't offer the same immediate possibility of viewing, and are more likely to find their way into a skip.

 

[StephenM]

I have to ask ( the question refers to everyone who holds onto all their negs), how often do you actually dig any of those negatives out to "re use" / re process them?

Or do they simply lie around boxed up waiting for that day when you might be happy to still have hold of them?

I have pulled out a few that I have previously scanned, because I can better now; and their are still a lot of 35mm negatives from the 1960s that I'm intending to scan for the family. The same goes for some of the old photo albums. Sue and I have been the clearers of two houses from my my side of the family, and have a number of photo albums/show boxes to show for it.

 

[john.margetts]

So long as the BBC endures then...

The practical problem is that faced with clearing out a house after death, photo albums can be viewed there and then as they turn up, and possibly be found to be of interest. USB sticks and hard disks don't offer the same immediate possibility of viewing, and are more likely to find their way into a skip.

applies if the negatives have been printed and placed in an album - which also applies to digital files. A non-photographer looking at negatives will see nothing of interest.

 

[FujiLove]

Yes, they will - well, not all of them. When I die, Bestbeloved is very likely to delete all my photo files but Jpeg format files will be around for centuries. Even if Jpegs come to be no longer used, archivists will need to maintain computers and software that can use Jpeg files for the simple reason that they are currently ubiquitous. For that same reason, the BBC archivists can read virtually all recording formats that have been in use over the last 100+ years even if a particular format has not been used for recording for a century or so.

I wouldn't be so sure about that:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081027174646.htm

"According to the National Archives Web site by the mid-1970s, only two machines could read the data from the 1960 U.S. Census: One was in Japan, the other in the Smithsonian Institution. Some of the data collected from NASA’s 1976 Viking landing on Mars is unreadable and lost forever."

I'll stick with my negatives and silver gelatin prints.

 

[simon ess]

And, of course, in the aftermath of the nuclear, asteroid, climate, mega eruption, zombie apocalypse, there'll be no electricity.

 

[Alan Neilson]

Don't shoot film now, still have my film cameras though but like a majority kept all my negatives 7 files all full of sheets, just easier to keep all. Slides were slightly different but still kept most of them only dumped really badly exposed or focused again they are all stored suspension files in a filling cabinet.