markrich
Enthusiatic amatuer
One of the draws of digital to me has been the ability to better access and catalogue my photos however film still pulls at my heart and I love using it. The problem is what to do with this mountain of pictures I am building up? I am running out of boxes and space. One can easily run through a roll or two in a single photo shoot which means another 70 images to store someplace.
What do the rest of you do?
What do the rest of you do?
David William White
Well-known
I normally just print a contact sheet to store with the negatives. I may print 2 or 3 8x10's to my liking, then scan those.
The contact sheets/negs are all filed chronologically.
Ironically, I prefer this, rather than filling up my hard drive with pointless digital images.
The contact sheets/negs are all filed chronologically.
Ironically, I prefer this, rather than filling up my hard drive with pointless digital images.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Develop and scan only. No prints.
Upload some scans to my photoblog.
Print the odd photo from the scan for casual use.
Have the really good ones printed at the lab.
Upload some scans to my photoblog.
Print the odd photo from the scan for casual use.
Have the really good ones printed at the lab.
Last edited:
lZr
L&M
I am also continuing to think about. I hope I'll have the answer soon..
hans voralberg
Veteran
Just store the negs, tag them with subjects and date etc
KenD
Film Shooter
It is so easy to end up with lots of photos that are not good enough to print 16X20 and frame, but are too good to pitch (insert laughter sound track clip).
I keep saying to myself that I need to edit ruthlessly. Isn't working.
I keep saying to myself that I need to edit ruthlessly. Isn't working.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
You think you have problems?
Well, first of all, I never found a good way to catalog negs except by date, since they're all together in strips of at least 5 or 6 unrelated frames. So the important negatives, like the ones from Germany 50 years ago are well cared for. My more recent negs from the vast array of RFs that were mine, briefly, until they passed to another, are in loose leaf binders, most of which I have some vague idea of where they set. I haven't had a darkroom since 1964 so the negatives were not printed too much until I procured my scanner. Then, I scanned and printed negatives like a man possessed — for about three weeks. Then the negs went back into relative obscurity.
Meanwhile, my main remembrances of photography past — my 40,000 slides and transparencies — still gather dust in several steel filing cabinets. It was always easier to catalog and file transparencies according to a system I invented. The system ultimately proved inadequate, but it was too late to change it by then and I can usually find what I'm looking for. This was handy after the three week negative scanning period I alluded to above. I then indulged in a two week slide scanning frenzy.
Through trial and error and great expense, I ultimately, finally, absolutely learned that it was easier to short circuit the process and just use a digital camera. The trouble with digital cameras was that they weren't impressively mechanistic and precise and distinctive in the Leica manner. They could do more than you usually wanted to do (what do I care about color space?). There was no illusion about keeping "this one" because it would be a classic. It's really hard to pretend I'm using the D300's manual mode when everybody knows it's childishly simple to get great shots in program mode.
And then, there's RFF — the best ol' photo site on the internet. I feel very much the transgressor here, lurking around, enjoying the high visual and text content, knowing I'm a dirty rotten digital shooter, locked out from the RFF scene because of my need to sell a little internet stock and the feebleness of my retirement-funded photo budget.
So, don't worry. Be happy.
Well, first of all, I never found a good way to catalog negs except by date, since they're all together in strips of at least 5 or 6 unrelated frames. So the important negatives, like the ones from Germany 50 years ago are well cared for. My more recent negs from the vast array of RFs that were mine, briefly, until they passed to another, are in loose leaf binders, most of which I have some vague idea of where they set. I haven't had a darkroom since 1964 so the negatives were not printed too much until I procured my scanner. Then, I scanned and printed negatives like a man possessed — for about three weeks. Then the negs went back into relative obscurity.
Meanwhile, my main remembrances of photography past — my 40,000 slides and transparencies — still gather dust in several steel filing cabinets. It was always easier to catalog and file transparencies according to a system I invented. The system ultimately proved inadequate, but it was too late to change it by then and I can usually find what I'm looking for. This was handy after the three week negative scanning period I alluded to above. I then indulged in a two week slide scanning frenzy.
Through trial and error and great expense, I ultimately, finally, absolutely learned that it was easier to short circuit the process and just use a digital camera. The trouble with digital cameras was that they weren't impressively mechanistic and precise and distinctive in the Leica manner. They could do more than you usually wanted to do (what do I care about color space?). There was no illusion about keeping "this one" because it would be a classic. It's really hard to pretend I'm using the D300's manual mode when everybody knows it's childishly simple to get great shots in program mode.
And then, there's RFF — the best ol' photo site on the internet. I feel very much the transgressor here, lurking around, enjoying the high visual and text content, knowing I'm a dirty rotten digital shooter, locked out from the RFF scene because of my need to sell a little internet stock and the feebleness of my retirement-funded photo budget.
So, don't worry. Be happy.
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Whatever archiving/scanning process you use, it is important not to lose linkage from a negative frame to the scan(s) and vice versa.
That means if you have a digital file in some new directory somewhere and wish to find the negative it was produced from (in order to rescan or print it optically) you shouldn't have to spend more than a minute finding it.
That means if you have a digital file in some new directory somewhere and wish to find the negative it was produced from (in order to rescan or print it optically) you shouldn't have to spend more than a minute finding it.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
Kevin, Sie haben ganz recht!
I usually append the date of the negative to my digital file name, since I file negs by date only. This gets me to the right page of negs to look for the image and it usually works quite well.
I usually append the date of the negative to my digital file name, since I file negs by date only. This gets me to the right page of negs to look for the image and it usually works quite well.
40oz
...
Easy answer? Don't take so many shots. You alredy know you don't need or want 22 shots of the same thing from slightly different angles and slightly different exposures.
Otherwise, I scan my negs, saving in a folder named by date, camera, and film. My negatives are cataloged in a binder by date order, with date, camera, and film data written at the top of each. So I can leisurely peruse my scans until I find something I want to print, and quickly locate the original negatives.
Otherwise, I scan my negs, saving in a folder named by date, camera, and film. My negatives are cataloged in a binder by date order, with date, camera, and film data written at the top of each. So I can leisurely peruse my scans until I find something I want to print, and quickly locate the original negatives.