How do you edit your films in 2013?

[brbo]

Motion picture houses do what they do to protect their assets in the most foolproof fashion possible. Ask yourself why they're printing even digitally shot movies back to film stock for long term archiving. Do you think they don't know the research?

Why? Cost. They care about cost more than quality.

 

[c.poulton]

Negatives are developed.
Negatives are scanned into DNG encapsulated TIFF files.
DNG files are imported into Lightroom for everything else.
Negatives are shredded.

G

Godfrey, I just curious - do you scan ALL your negs or only the ones that you consider 'good', or keepers.

I just scan the negs that I consider are good enough to process further and either upload and or print. Although I've very rarely had occasion to go back to a strip of negs to re-scan or scan a new neg, I like to think that the option is always there. Also, it's very interesting to go back over an old strip of negs sometimes to see the sequence the shots were taken in (contact sheets are good for this too).

I guess if you scan all your negs then the above is not an issue?

BTW, I scan at my scanners maximum resolution, in 'raw' format; I use Silverfast which can output this "raw" data into a TIFF format, i.e., there is no processing within the scanner software.

I must admit that I would feel uncomfortable not keeping my negs, however storage is a major issue and I'm beginning to run out of suitable space. My wife would support your workflow wholeheartedly! 😀

 

[c.poulton]

As SayCheese suggested, please allow the thread to return to the topic posed and concentrate on talking about your workflow, not mine.

G

Totally agree! Each to their own methodology and whatever system works for them!

I'm enjoying this thread and actually learning from it, so I would rather read more about other peoples workflows than a prolonged diatribe on why one person's method is 'wrong'... :bang:

 

[c.poulton]

When I can afford it, I get contact sheets made when I send my film off for lab processing (still haven't set myself up for home processing as yet, but that's my ultimate goal) - so much easier to edit and review. However I find that the quality is poor - it looks like the negs were scanned at low res, then a 'contact' print made from these scans. How I wish that I had the room for a darkroom - I remember from my teenage years when I had my own darkroom in my parents house that a true contact sheet was actually quite good quality and stood up to viewing via a loupe.

As my home scanner is somewhat old and slow I tend to review my negs directly on a light box before deciding which ones to scan. However I don't always find it easy to get my brain to translate negative into positive......

 

[Godfrey]

Godfrey, I just curious - do you scan ALL your negs or only the ones that you consider 'good', or keepers.
...
I guess if you scan all your negs then the above is not an issue?

BTW, I scan at my scanners maximum resolution, in 'raw' format; I use Silverfast which can output this "raw" data into a TIFF format, i.e., there is no processing within the scanner software.
...

Yes, I scan every negative, including the bad ones. Why? Well, it's just quicker that way ... I make the decisions on what's good and what's bad after I finish scanning and I have all the images in Lightroom.

Since my goal is to retrieve all the image data for sorting, picking, rendering, and archiving, everything is scanned and then, when I'm sure there's nothing more to be had out of the negatives, they are discarded. It saves a lot of storage and maintenance on physical media; the computer media backup, testing, and archiving is all automated and warns me of impending problems.

I scan at full scanner optical resolution into 16 bit per component TIFF format, which are then encapsulated into .DNG output format raw files. Those are my image source masters. I can also output TIFF "raw" files, which VueScan can reprocess with any settings I want ... they're linear gamma files with no inversion, gamma correction, etc. Sometimes, on difficult negatives, I output both so I can go back to Vuescan and reprocess several different ways without having to deal with the media again, but most of the time I find that unnecessary.

G

 

[Photo_Smith]

Don't call people names. Calling someone's ideas "misguided" is insulting and rude.

No it isn't; it just means he thinks you're misguided in shredding your negs, he didn't insult you and has not been rude.
I think many people are misguided, politicians, writers and religious leaders etc.

Idea's are there to be challenged and criticised, that's how we as a society can move forward—respect people and criticise idea's.

I also think that shredding negatives puts you in a potentially difficult position, one where you can't easily wet print. You've obviously thought about it and decided that a tidy office with less cabinets is more than offset by destroying your originals and that your scans represent the height of perfection getting all info from the negs–I hope you're right.
You surely must see that your statement about destroying negs will raise more than a few eyebrows? You made that statement and should therefore not be surprised in peoples interest and the ensuing discussion.

If you don't want people judging your food don't serve it at the table.

It's your choice I respect you for it, I still think it's misguided. 😱 😉

That said my workflow is develop negs/slides, sort on light box, scan best ones low resolution for web and wet print.
The negs are sleeved and numbered and indexed put in a file on a shelf.
I don't shoot enough for this to be a problem, about two films per week, so have negs back to the late 1970's.

Sometimes I scan the prints, especially if I'm short on time, most often the low res scans come first.

 

[semrich]

I sleeve my negs, edit them with a loupe on a light table, scan the ones I like to post and also determine which ones I want to spent the time in the darkroom to print.

 

[clayne]

Burned to Nothing: When Photographers Destroy Their Own Negatives

 

[HHPhoto]

Negative film: classic contact prints made in my own darkroom.

Reversal (positive) film, BW and colour: viewing with the outstanding Schneider loupes on a daylight light table.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Photo_Smith]

Godfrey please don't take this as a criticism of you but your workflow without keeping safety copies (how I view negs) has piqued my curiosity.

My question is; with every negative you shoot scanned to extract every detail, saved as a 16 bit TIFF and you have 400,000 negatives/trans going back to 1984 – how much time does that take? What sort of off line and safety back ups do you have? What does it cost to maintain those copies, I note uou use auto file verification software, which is massively expensive do you have any emulation systems?

You see I don't shoot much, keep my negatives, only scan low quality (1000 pixel wide) and do the occasional print.

To take on your workflow would exponentially drive up my costs, investment in time and equipment.
I have a Dell 12 tape drive and fireproof safe for digital files, the big issue for me would be the time scanning to the quality you state-but increased cost also factor.
I'm mindful that most of what I shoot is 120 or 4x5 but scanning is a pain especially to extract all detail so you can destroy your originals.
I've read your above post, but scanning full res 16bit TIFF and storing all shots represents an unnecessary over complication of what should be a simple process.

 

[dct]

Interesting debate. But every one's opinion is all right, as long as it satisfies his or her needs. Don't want to be involved too, just sharing my workflow:

1. Process and scan high resolution (~6800x4500px for film type 135) from a service provider
2. Use the scans to check every frame (good, keepers, forget it...)
3. Starting from here same workflow as for digital images

 

[noisycheese]

Negatives are developed.
Negatives are scanned into DNG encapsulated TIFF files.
DNG files are imported into Lightroom for everything else.
Negatives are shredded.

G

I just can't imagine shredding my negatives. 😱

I'm glad your system works for you but it wouldn't work for me.

 

[DNG]

Burned to Nothing: When Photographers Destroy Their Own Negatives

I read this..

It is all up to the photographer. and their priorities in life..

I have over 10k of negatives and slides from my dads inheritance...
I am scanning them all, at high resolution, and re-storing them in new archive holders... no paper or coated paper sleeves... they can deteriorate over time.
BUT, I may toss them later in life, and hopefully, I will have them on archive Blue-ray 128gig disks.... (1tb = 9 disks)..

I see the value of saving negatives/slides...BUT..... I also see why a Photographer will destroy them also... so no one else can print them...

Painter Artist that make multiple litho's of different qualities, then some, destroy the original plates used to make them... Why??? When you answer that Q, you can apply that answer to some photographers..

You may this is totally insane... Is it???
It is not our call to demand they follow a certain workflow.

 

[clayne]

It is our call to have an opinion on the preservation of history however. Nobody is calling for laws limiting the actions of individuals but I think it's a bit unfair to infer that expression of opinion on it is frowned upon.

Example, scanning dad's negatives, and all the positives that come with that, would not be possible had said dad shredded or burned all of his negatives.

I think we should all be prioritizing preservation and raising ourselves above the self-centered actions of self destruction of art.

 

[shadowfox]

I keep all my negatives.
Not only for printing (darkroom) in the future, but these are also good learning materials.

By learning to examine and compare my negatives I learn what kind of exposure, development, and film type to use that will give me the results I wanted. Remember, our tastes develop over time, we may not like the same style of photos all the time.

I rarely scan my negatives anymore now, it's faster to look at it a the lightbox (or sometimes just bright bulb) and print it directly on my enlarger.

But I'll never sell my Nikon Coolscan, I still use it for those that I want a good digital copy of.

 

[lawrence]

(1) Process the film and store in negative file. Once in the negative pages will check on light box to see how they've come out.

(2) Scan at 2400 in V750 using the standard 4 strip 35mm holders (2 strip for 120) and Epson Scan.

(3) View scanned images in Photo Mechanic and rotate as needed in FastStone Photo Resizer.

(4) When I'm ready I'll import everything into LR, choose the best ones and re-scan them at 4000 using using Canon FS4000US and VueScan.

 

[lawrence]

Today's digital generation is at risk of losing valuable memories as the archiving is not automatic.

This has nothing to do with using digital or film. Film archiving is not automatic either and I've lost a few important negatives as I've moved about a lot over the last ten years. Fortunately I have scans of most of them and in this instance scanning proved to be more 'archival' than film!

 

[DNG]

It is our call to have an opinion on the preservation of history however. Nobody is calling for laws limiting the actions of individuals but I think it's a bit unfair to infer that expression of opinion on it is frowned upon.

Example, scanning dad's negatives, and all the positives that come with that, would not be possible had said dad shredded or burned all of his negatives.

I think we should all be prioritizing preservation and raising ourselves above the self-centered actions of self destruction of art.

I totally see your point... and I was astounded with that treasure trove left behind... My parents were very private... I had no idea they visited over 10 countries.. it was always, "I have a 2 week business trip to go on", or other such reason. So, I guess they wanted us to see what world travel they did while we were growing up, but after their passing... They never showed us their travel slides!!!

So, I am glad they did not destroy them... OTOH, it makes no difference in my life, since I was never affected by it anyway..

He was a detailer too... all his 140 slide carousals have every slide description listed on the supplied card with each carousal.

He kept great written records for sure..And since he did not destroy them, I can archive them the best I can afford to...

I do have a FB page for his life's photographic history...

So, your point is valid also...

 

[Keith]

My negative storage system is a dog's breakfast. One day I would like to try my hand at wet printing so I may have to address this situation.

 

[Wardor]

Interesting topic!

I personally develop, then scan at low resolution to decide which images are to be kept. Most of the time I have been scanning everything at full res as well for archiving, and then I sleeve the negatives and file them. At this point, I have only a small binder of negs, and a few uncut rolls from process&scan at the lab, but I dislike clutter and wasted space, so I can see myself removing the negatives from the equation in the future, although I would scan at a higher quality before destroying anything.

I think that archiving digitally is probably a safer bet in the long run, but even hard drives decay over time. If any work I produce is to survive say a century, it would have to be copied in some form no matter the archival method.