Andrea Taurisano
il cimento
I thought of sharing this reading, which I found interesting:
http://lightbox.time.com/2013/08/13...own-negatives/?xid=newsletter-photos-weekly#1
Have you ever done anything like that? I haven't but thee are indeed loads of my old negatives that's almost embarrassing to look at, as they no longer represent my vision, my interest, me.
I seem to remember that some painters also destroyed their old canvas, and for sure the great music composer Brahms destroyed most of his earlier work as he later considered it garbage..
Feel free to share a thought or ignore.
http://lightbox.time.com/2013/08/13...own-negatives/?xid=newsletter-photos-weekly#1
Have you ever done anything like that? I haven't but thee are indeed loads of my old negatives that's almost embarrassing to look at, as they no longer represent my vision, my interest, me.
I seem to remember that some painters also destroyed their old canvas, and for sure the great music composer Brahms destroyed most of his earlier work as he later considered it garbage..
Feel free to share a thought or ignore.
back alley
IMAGES
didn't weston destroy his negs as well?
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I did throw out a lot of my very early stuff (mostly high school) and will never do that again...
Not that what I have are all works of art, there are images in there that I might find to like later...
I wish I had the old stuff I threw out...
Not that what I have are all works of art, there are images in there that I might find to like later...
I wish I had the old stuff I threw out...
DNG
Film Friendly
Yes he did,
Because he believed only the Photographer knew how to print them to the intended end look, and framing. And.. he thought of his work as Art (rightly so)...and therefore no one else should be able to produce (An Original) from his negatives..
Although some artists DO have an intern (long standing), paint, and the artist signs it... it is still an Original by the Signing artist too!!
Negatives will last maybe 80-100 years? so at one point, they will be worthless.... IF, that is important to save them... Scan at a high resolution and put them on Archive Stability DVDs or BlueRay disks that can be stable for 100 years or so....but, will the DVD or BlueRay be a obsolete media by then? Yes
So, as tech changes.... redo the archive... again and again
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Brett Weston did, Edward Weston did not. After Edward died, his kids made and sold prints from his negs. Of all of Edward's sons, Brett was the most famous, an incredible photographer in his own right. He burned his own negs before he died.
charjohncarter
Veteran
My father-in-Law took 35mm negatives all through North Africa, Italy during WWII. He had them developed but never printed them. I saw some at one time. But he moved and I guess tossed them, even after my begging to print them. When he died I turned his place upside down: none. Never throw a negative away.
I was luckier with my Dad, here is my aunt:
Some photographers destroy their heritage because they think it will make their prints more valuable. I'm against it. Who knows what printing techniques will be invented, say, 25 years from now? There are a lot of posers in this business so what else is new?
msbarnes
Well-known
Makes me wonder how Vivian Maier would feel about someone else profiting from her work.
DNG
Film Friendly
Well, is the state of ILL wins the law suit they stated against the 3 owners of her work.... The State of ILL will own the VM Copyright since no "Closest of Kin" can be found!
The 3 owners of her work may be in violation of Copyright laws, since they profiting off her work.. (in a respectful way), and since they are not family. And VM did not register her work with LOC.
The Orphan law may not apply for them to sell and show her work. And buying it an auction in ILL won't stand in court in ILL for 2 of them. The guy who bought the Trunks from an abandoned city locker, may be the only one with a claim to Copyright at this point.
But, back on topic...
It is always a good idea to pass on photo and negatives/slides to your family... or close relatives to share and or for heirlooms
I am glad I have 10k's of my dads family and travel photos/negs/slides to enjoy....from 1940's to the 1990's
My Avatar is from a Fishing trip with my Dad and brother in 1968. I am 15 in that photo.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
Being a film based photographer, I would agree with that. The only exception might be the ugliest of the fugliest negatives.
Or maybe our mantra regarding negatives and chromes ought to be "Always edit, sometimes print, never destroy."
Yeah, I like that outlook...
x-ray
Veteran
Kim Weston who's the grandson of Edward tod me his uncle Brett Weston burned his negs on his 81st birthday.
Edwards begs were printed by Cole and then donated to the Center for Creative Photography in Tucson. Ansels and many others negs reside there as well
A painter friend destroyed his portfolio of original oils.
I destroyed some negs recently in a shreader. Also have been throwing out negs and cd's from my commercial business. Of course these were ex clients work. The negs I shreaded were something I wanted to put behind me. I'm retiring next year and I'll give my clients a chance to get their cd archived images but I'm guessing most will get tossed. It feels so good!!!
Robert Lai
Well-known
I will throw out a strip of negatives frames if they turn out badly. Same with poor quality slides. However, once I've got it edited, I keep everything in archival quality storage sleeves. Looking back at slides from a quarter century ago, I see family and friends who have left this earthly existence. I'm glad that I still have images of those people when they were in their prime.
back alley
IMAGES
i do not get attached to many things in this life...i wrote a book when i was very young and threw it out...it was bad...i have several rubbermaid totes with old negs and prints in it...i know that i will never organize it and if i ever have move again it is very likely that they will get tossed.
i like some of my current images enough to save them but that's all digital now.
after i'm dead i can't imagine anyone being interested enough to want any of it...maybe the gear but i plan to have my cameras cremated along with my old tired bones.
i do what i do for me and in the here & now without much regard for the future.
i like some of my current images enough to save them but that's all digital now.
after i'm dead i can't imagine anyone being interested enough to want any of it...maybe the gear but i plan to have my cameras cremated along with my old tired bones.
i do what i do for me and in the here & now without much regard for the future.
I have to wonder if the famous photogs who claimed to burn their negs really DID.
I mean, its a great way to increase their $ legacy to their families.
Hold a big publicized burning negative party.
Instantly their original prints double or triple or more in value .. NICE!
then, x number of years later, their families "discover" more negatives. WOW!
more prints, more $$$.
I love creative marketing,
which by definition if you are honest
is ALWAYS devious!
Stephen
I mean, its a great way to increase their $ legacy to their families.
Hold a big publicized burning negative party.
Instantly their original prints double or triple or more in value .. NICE!
then, x number of years later, their families "discover" more negatives. WOW!
more prints, more $$$.
I love creative marketing,
which by definition if you are honest
is ALWAYS devious!
Stephen
Pioneer
Veteran
I do toss out some negatives just like I toss out (or delete) certain digital images.
- First, if the exposure is so far out of wack, or the focus makes the subject or intent unrecognizable, then they get tossed.
- Second, it may be focused and exposed well, but if there is nothing there, then there is nothing there. I generally get rid of those as well.
- Finally, if there are people in them, especially family, I do not throw them out. I do the best I can to identify the people in the picture for others coming along behind me.
This is the negatives. As for pictures, if I have the negative they have to be pretty special for me to hold onto them
Of course digital has now messed this up entirely. I try to archive my digital images but I have no idea how well they will survive. I had stored a number of family digital images from years past onto floppy discs. I gathered them up this year and sent them out to be transferred onto DVD discs. Over half of them were corrupted and the data could not be recovered.
IMHO the long-term recoverability of digital image data is very, very unlikely. It is this problem that will almost certainly ensure the survival of film. I think that the only way to truly save this data for very long term is by transferring the digital images to film stock and turning them into positives or negatives that are then stored. This is the only proven long-term storage system.
- First, if the exposure is so far out of wack, or the focus makes the subject or intent unrecognizable, then they get tossed.
- Second, it may be focused and exposed well, but if there is nothing there, then there is nothing there. I generally get rid of those as well.
- Finally, if there are people in them, especially family, I do not throw them out. I do the best I can to identify the people in the picture for others coming along behind me.
This is the negatives. As for pictures, if I have the negative they have to be pretty special for me to hold onto them
Of course digital has now messed this up entirely. I try to archive my digital images but I have no idea how well they will survive. I had stored a number of family digital images from years past onto floppy discs. I gathered them up this year and sent them out to be transferred onto DVD discs. Over half of them were corrupted and the data could not be recovered.
IMHO the long-term recoverability of digital image data is very, very unlikely. It is this problem that will almost certainly ensure the survival of film. I think that the only way to truly save this data for very long term is by transferring the digital images to film stock and turning them into positives or negatives that are then stored. This is the only proven long-term storage system.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I don't think that has ever been the case. I don't think Brett Weston's prints became more valuable after he burned his negs, and his father's prints are very, very valuable despite his negs not being destroyed and his sons making prints from them to sell after he died. The 'vintage' prints (artworld speak for prints made during the photographer's life) are worth much more than the later prints made by Edward's sons. Ansel Adams didn't burn his film either and his prints still sell for high prices.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
Or Emily Dickinson. I for one feel the world profited from their works.
Ron Slattery
Newbie
Allow me to clarify. 2 of the owners have made prints from Vivian Maier negatives and are selling them. I have sold zero prints from negatives, nor have I reproduced her work for profit. I own negatives that will knock your socks off - but have not reproduced her work until I am comfortable with the situation.
And yes, according to some legal experts, it may be possible that the state of Illinois does own the copyright for Vivian Maier's work. More info here.
DNG
Film Friendly
Thanks for clarifying your situation Ron.
According to what I saw on a You Tube Video, and the article you referenced, you may have the only claim to ownership..the other 2... maybe not.. something to do with the how the agreement of the locker renter reads, if is abandoned and the contents sold at auction.
I can totally understand you waiting out the legal procedures..
I just hope that ILL will do the right thing, and allow you all to be able print and show her work, so all can see it.
I don't believe the other 2 are doing anything in a malicious way, Just trying to make her work avail to the public. Figuring they do own them...
It is really astounding that they can't find a "Closest to Kin"!!
I really want you 3 to win in court... I can't see ILL commissioning anyone to make her work available.
And it all gets boxed and stored in an non-temperature controlled storage locker
That will be a travesty!!Murchu
Well-known
I can see how a photographer at an advanced stage of their life, may feel they've said everything they've wanted to say with their work, and thus destroy their negs. Also it is the last act of creative control, ensuring their body of work remains theirs, and not what somebody or their estate may choose to create from their raw materials posthumously. What I find more difficult to understand is what someone like Bailey did with their negs, when only 60 or so, if I am right, but then that's his cross to bear should he have a change of heart in the subsequent years of his life.
On a related note, I remember reading recently how we are shaped more than the experiences we experience, rather than the physical things we accumulate in a lifetime. Artmaking of any sort is a very personal act, and I can see how some may feel at a certain stage of life, that photography or their art has played out its role in their life, and the experience of their artmaking may be the thing they feel truly important, rather than the art itself.
On a related note, I remember reading recently how we are shaped more than the experiences we experience, rather than the physical things we accumulate in a lifetime. Artmaking of any sort is a very personal act, and I can see how some may feel at a certain stage of life, that photography or their art has played out its role in their life, and the experience of their artmaking may be the thing they feel truly important, rather than the art itself.