Negatives Often Not Picked Up after Scanning as discussed in the New York Times

[boojum]

The Lost Art of the Negative

Film cameras are seeing another renaissance. But some new photographers are leaving something behind: the tea-colored originals that determine the life of pictures.

www.nytimes.com

 

[KoNickon]

Yes, just saw this in the NYT. I would expect pretty much everyone on this forum who sends their film out to be developed insists on getting their negatives back, but in this digital age I guess the files scanned from the film roll are all that matter to some folks. But (and I have not kept up with copyright law) it's interesting that the image captured on film is the only copyrightable thing. Surely a manipulated digital image would be subject to copyright protection? I guess the law needs to catch up.

I expect most don't care about copyright, but I wonder if they are even aware of this issue. Surely a manipulated digital image would be subject to copyright protection?

I wonder, if film developers required payment before doing the developing work, people would be more diligent about picking up their developed film....

 

[boojum]

This is similar to recorded music. The performance belongs to the artists, the recording to the recordist. It is very rarely a problem, unless some sums of money are involved.

 

[titrisol]

Heard the same thing from the local fotolab, they send the scans to the clients and clients dont bother picking up the negatives anymore

 

[p.giannakis]

This is something I cannot understand. I can throw away my laptop tomorrow with all pictures in it and I will not think of it twice.

If my house goes on fire and my family is out safe, I will run inside to get the folders with the negatives. How can you leave your years of work behind?

 

[Erik van Straten]

For digital photographers, their work is apparently waste that they would rather get rid of.

 

[agentlossing]

I surprise the folks at the lab by asking for no scans or prints, only negatives. I'd rather have control over the process with my PIE 35mm scanner than use lab scans with colors and levels already set for me.

 

[Mos6502]

I think those who were born in a post-film era don't really get the significance of negatives. Nor, apparently, do they anticipate any advances in scanning technology.

Or perhaps it's reflective of how thoroughly disposable our current society is, but that's another can of worms.

 

[armadsen]

I generally ask my lab to only develop my film, since I do my own scanning and printing.

Occasionally I’ve been in the lab when someone is dropping off (presumably) their first roll of film, and the employee is explaining that they can come back and pick up their negatives or just have them discarded. I’ve tried to convince them that they should come pick them up and have gotten basically perplexed responses. They don’t seem to comprehend why anyone would care.

Oh well, to each their own, and as long as people are buying film and keeping demand up so it keeps being made, I’m happy.

 

[raydm6]

They’ll never understand. Remember transparencies? Definitely were born after this period:

 

[WoodallP]

I repair and restore old folders and some 35mm. A lot of my negatives deserve to be discarded as they are tests but I keep them and send them to the eventual buyer. That way they know I’m not recycling the same pictures of mail boxes and rubbish bins.

 

[KoNickon]

I repair and restore old folders and some 35mm. A lot of my negatives deserve to be discarded as they are tests but I keep them and send them to the eventual buyer. That way they know I’m not recycling the same pictures of mail boxes and rubbish bins.

1) That's good service! 2) Good to know you're a possible source of repairs!

 

[KoNickon]

They’ll never understand. Remember transparencies? Definitely were born after this period:
View attachment 4838915

I always wanted one of these....

 

[JohnGellings]

I guess if you are only posting your party photos to social media, it is sufficient. Anyone who is serious about photography is going to be very upset when they figure out that most scans from labs are very bad. I cannot imagine artists are doing this.

 

[Godfrey]

Yes, just saw this in the NYT. I would expect pretty much everyone on this forum who sends their film out to be developed insists on getting their negatives back, but in this digital age I guess the files scanned from the film roll are all that matter to some folks. But (and I have not kept up with copyright law) it's interesting that the image captured on film is the only copyrightable thing. Surely a manipulated digital image would be subject to copyright protection? I guess the law needs to catch up.

I expect most don't care about copyright, but I wonder if they are even aware of this issue. Surely a manipulated digital image would be subject to copyright protection?

I wonder, if film developers required payment before doing the developing work, people would be more diligent about picking up their developed film....

I have successfully copyrighted both scans of negatives and digital captures. What is copyrightable is whatever the creator considers the definitive creation, either in its original or completed form. There's really no difference to the copyright between a negative and a scan of that same negative. Both things are the property of the person who created them. The owner of the scan may not be the same person as the owner of the negative... The tricky thing is whether the end user license agreement of the individual scanning the negative transfers ownership of the scans back to the owner of the negative.

I process all my own film, and scan it too. I have not bothered to shred and destroy the negatives, although I should because once they are scanned, they're really just media to store that I never look at again. Work that I have sold which was rendered from my scanned negatives is copyrighted specifically as the product of my labor, independent of the original negative or scan.

It's all in the provenance.

Obviously, for those considering forensic subject matter where proof of the original is essential, the originals have a higher value than for those who are creating images for their exhibition qualities only.

G

 

[Dralowid]

We used to call the transparencies we put on an OHP 'skins'. The there were the carousels...

You need to be really old to remember epidiascopes!

 

[Richard G]

We had an epidiascope at school when I was 11. I’m 63. Nice to be reminded of that. I never saw another one I’ll admit. And great to see the overhead projector. I was taught physics and chemistry via one of those. It was a strangely intimate process. The mind and hand of the teacher on show in real time. My lab scans have gone off terribly in the last few years. On the verge of not bothering with them.

 

[Erik van Straten]

We had an epidiascope at school. I’m 63. Nice to be reminded of that. I never saw another one I’ll admit. And great to see the overhead projector. I was taught physics and chemistry via one of those. My lab scans have gone off terribly in the last few years. On the verge of not bothering with them.

I'm 69, I have a Leitz epidiascope at home (but I never use it)! It is huge. I think it dates back from the 1920's.

 

[tcmx3]

For digital photographers, their work is apparently waste that they would rather get rid of.

theyre literally film shooters bro.

 

[Alpsman]

We, the small circle of negative imagers
who know the significance of the uniqueness of this small piece of plastic film with silver,
would never leave our negatives behind.
(Unless there is really no other option.)

I don’t want to belittle the work of the image printers here! & !
In no way!
But
What counts is the negative - or slide.
In an emergency, any photo booth can do the rest.

The brainwashing slogan "digital is safe" is having an effect.

Film. What else?