How to destroy/discard 35mm film negatives?

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by pavel_kupcik, Feb 12, 2009.

  1. I've scanned tens of thousands of family pictures from negatives to my computer. Now I'm stuck with a suitcase full of negatives and positives. What would be the easiest way to destroy the original film, I don't want to just throw it to trash can and risk that someone can take a possession of them. Cutting them with scissors is not practical due to the large number if film. Burning it may not work as I've heard that film doesn't burn and not sure of how toxic/smelly the fire would be if it did burn. Paper shredder probably also wouldn't work as most of the film is rolled up and I would have to tediously unroll each film and feed it to the shredder.
    Mabye I could put them all in a large bucket and pour a "chemical" on them - not sure what chemical that would be and how enviromentally safe it would be?
    Any ideas?
     
  2. Why not just stuff them in a box and forget about them? You never know, one day there may be a technology to make the images 3-D and you may need those negatives again...
     
  3. First: how are you backing up the data from those scans? Do you have multiple copies, on more than one media?

    As for disposal: do you know someone with a fairly sturdy office shredder?
     
  4. Wow! I would never consider destroying them ever! Your scanned copies might go *pffft* (or *poof* depending) and all you will have left are fading memories.
    Put them into negative sleeves (or slide sleeves) and put them in a binder, put it on a shelf or where ever and pray you never need them again. But destroy them? Your slapping lady luck in the face if you do that. You'd increase the chanes of loosing the digital copies by at least a jillion% but Im no mathmatician..
     
  5. Funny! I have always seen question regarding how to preserve not how to destroy never thought it is so difficult.
    As already recommended don't destroy it, it's an easy back-up.
     
  6. You could run them through a shredder. Mine takes plastic and it's a home version I bought at Office Max.
    Once it's done, it's done.
    Have you thought of keeping the negs, just in case.
     
  7. I've GOT to chime in on this also. Why on heaven's Earth would you destroy the original negatives and slides? Digital technology is ever
    changing. However you have the digital files saved now will likely be obsolete 20 years from now, plus as mentioned, even what you have
    now could go "poof" at any time. To me it would be un-imaginable to destroy your REAL originals. DON'T DO IT.
     
  8. Dont even think of destroying them. How foolish. You may need them one day, or perhaps a relative will want them one day, or maybe even your kids. They are the originals, safegusrd them.
     
  9. Thanks everyone for your responses. I have actually a fairly robust backup. Two on-site copies and two off-site copies (different continent) plus many other copies shared with family members. Scanning the negatives was a nightmare and I don't think I would ever want to redo it, no matter what future holds. The scanning part was actually ok, but the post processing and cataloging was a lot of work. I don't think there will be a machine in the future to which I can just drop a suitcase of negatives and have it scan them, catalog them, post-process them, etc. It will be much easier to convert jpg or tiff to whatever future format is there than reprocess everything. Again these are family photos and not a great work of art worth of preserving for hypothetical future benefit. As of now it's just collecting dust and taking space, just like many more suitcases of VHS tapes and 8mm tapes that I'm in the process of converting to DV.
    As far as suggestions to my original question, so far it looks like the only idea is to get a more robust office shredder. I'll have to check them out.
    Thank you.
     
  10. So, are these pictures of a grassy knoll, a desert sky with an odd shape in it, or of some northwestern hairy figure? Inquiring minds want to know.
     
  11. If your hell bent to destroy them. Have some fun - burn the suckers.
     
  12. I'm with Derek. No currently available digital storage medium will last as long as the negatives themselves. Keep them as a backstop. The worst thing that can happen is that you won't need them. Most people do not use gold CDs or DVDs. Over time, sometimes not very much time, air penetates the plastic in a CD/DVD. When it comes in contact with the aluminum you get aluminum oxide. At that point the CD/DVD is unreadable. It doesn't matter how robust your storage is. All digital storage is temporary. This includes having the same temporary storage located in different places. A young man at the local camera store once told me, with a straight face, that a DVD would last 50 years. I have b&w negatives which are much older than he is. I understand the convenience of digital storage. I just don't think its longevity should be oversold.
     
  13. I have a few cd's that I burned in May of 2006 - one third of the images are no longer retrievable.
     
  14. Just because you don't want them, doesn't mean some grandchild of yours won't want the originals because you used some incredibly poor 75 year old technology to scan the originals.
     
  15. A few years ago I attended a conference at the Eastman House Museum on image archiving. The conference was aimed at museum curators. The panel agreed that the best way to preserve images is to:
    1. scan everything
    2. store multiple redundant copies on servers in geographically separate locations
    3. endow the IT department in perpetuity
    They said that if you can't do all three, don't start because all digital collections will ultimately be lost if they are not actively managed.
    When I was still at Kodak, I participated in an ad hoc group to develop recommendations for amateur photographers to store their images long term. Our conclusion was that to preserve images for future generations, they should be in human readable form (prints, negatives, and slides). Our findings were never published because they conflicted with the corporate strategy which urged everyone to "Send you pictures to the Kodak Gallery and we will keep them forever." Now that Kodak is reportedly seeking a buyer or partner for the Kodak Gallery, the "forever" promise seems doubtful.
    My bottom line: While I have scanned many of my slides and negatives (and have uploaded most to the Kodak Gallery), I have never thrown out an original.
     
  16. Sounds like the best way to lose the lot forever.
     
  17. James G. Dainis

    James G. Dainis Moderator

    Is this a joke? You want to destroy the originals? For Pete's sake just put them into a shoe box for your descendants to find. People pick up an old photo album and flip through the pages looking at the old photos. How many people years from no will flip through old CDs or DVSs and wonder what is on them, assuming they still have CD or DVD players.You look at a CD disk and what do you see? Nothing l Toss that into the trash along with Bug Battle.
     
  18. Further ramblings:
    On another project at Kodak I had to prepare a waste stream analysis for one of the chemicals used in film. One chemical was retained in the film after processing while a potential replacement washed out in the developer. We found that we really didn't know what happens to film, especially negatives. We assumed that most would ultimately end up in land fills, but only after residing for years (if not decades) is shoeboxes or other storage containers. Many negatives are only tossed after the originator dies.
     
  19. Thanks guys. I guess the thread is changing toward "reasons not to destroy negatives" - I'll play along as this is an interesting topic. I agree that there may be a reson to keep film for all the various reasons you all stated (future better technology, sentimental value, pass it to grandchildren...) , but in my case it's not a very good solution for emergency backup. In today's world, I'm dealing with a lot of data that's only in digital format - DSLR RAW files, AVCHD camcorders, downloaded music, etc. The amount of data from these devices far outnumbers anything I have in analog form (35mm film, VHS, etc). The reality is that I need to have a robust backup for all my data no matter what because most of my data does not have analog backup. My primary focus is therefore to have a robust digital backup. Another big problem for me is that with that much data, organization of the data is of a great importance. If I'm not able to tell which media is where, who is on which photo, locations, dates, etc, than I'm sure my grandchildren will not know. Cataloging analog media would be another huge project that I will not go through. It's much easier and more managable to have a digital catalog and robust backup.
    Your thoughts..?
     
  20. Just to clarify, I'm not burning up my photo albums :) Just the negatives. Thanks to the scanning of my old negatives I was actually finally able to re-print photos that I've long lost or whose negative could not be found in the unorganized pile of negatives I had.
     
  21. To repeat what others have said...the thought of destroying first generation information goes against any archival thinking. Your negatives may not have any great historical importance at this point for you, but let later generations of your family have access. My great grandparents had many photographs taken from over 100 years ago. The pictures have torn and faded and the negatives are long gone. I would give anything to have a chance to reprint those negatives now.
    Imagine you had some great old vinyl records back in the early 70's, but thought that recording them on an 8-track, then destroying the records, was a good idea. As least with records, they can still be purchased, if you have the money. An example...I can get a fresh LP of The Beatles 'White Album'...for $60.00!
    If you're still hell-bent on destruction, put them into a non-plastic bucket and pour in some acetone. Any paint store carries it. Be careful...VERY flammable!
     
  22. mpo

    mpo

    In the future, your negatives will have value not only for your great-grandchildren but also for sociological studies and the like.
    In the city where I live, the Historical Society collects all kind of photographic images donated by the public. Maybe they burn a great deal of them anyway... :)
     
  23. Pavel Kupcik , Feb 12, 2009; 02:00 p.m.
    "It's much easier and more managable to have a digital catalog and robust backup.
    Your thoughts..?"
    Having been in the IT business for decades, a "robust backup" is a damned expensive thing to maintain, and the work involved only increases at a rate way higher than the addition rate of data. You have to recopy and verify the data frequently and you should have at least two copies stored in secure locations in different cities in different geographic zones hundreds of miles away.
     
  24. All but an handful of Matthew Brady's glass plates from the Civil War ended up as glazing for greenhouses. Ah, what the heck, Pavel, let's build a fire :) We can bring some books to help stoke it - the old, smelly ones with yellow pages and leather bindings.
     
  25. I think that even thinking about throwing out negs/slides is an absurd thought!!
     
  26. So you are going to destroy negatives that will probably outlive your children and maybe even your grandchildren in favor of digital files that can be completely erased in about 5 seconds from the right electrical storm? Aside from your house burning down, those negatives will probably live through just about anything... especially if any of them are B&W's.
    One of the things that got me into film photography was several medium format negatives I found in an abandoned house as a teenager. The negatives were laying on the floor of the kitchen of a house that the roof had compleletly collapsed and the house itself had been empty since 1954. (Newest date on newspapers, magazines and post marks inside) There were rats living there, who had shredded anything made of cardboard or fabric for nests, and there was about 3 inches of snow all over everything. The 4 negatives I found were basically in perfect condition. They had little spots where insects had eaten some of the emulsion, but other than that they were fine and made beautiful contact prints. If you have a method of digital backup that can live through that, I'd really love to see it.
     
  27. Just out of curiosity. Not to be pushy, but how do you all intend to protect your purely digital sources like DSLR Raw files, JPGs or digital movies? According to most of these posts, all of my and also your digital media will be wiped out before our grandchildren get to see them. Should we stop using DSLRs and digital camcorders and go back to analog? Start buying vinyl records instead of CDs? Maybe stuff money into pillows instead of 1's and 0's in bank?
     
  28. Just out of curiosity. Not to be pushy, but how do you all intend to protect your purely digital sources like DSLR Raw files, JPGs or digital movies? According to most of these posts, all of my and also your digital media will be wiped out before our grandchildren get to see them. Should we stop using DSLRs and digital camcorders and go back to analog? Start buying vinyl records instead of CDs? Maybe stuff money into pillows instead of 1's and 0's in bank?​
    Why not get rid of all of those paintings in the Louvre? After all, we have digital images. Why not get rid of the conventional oven? After all, the microwave oven is faster.
    It is true that digital media will probably be wiped out long before our grandchildren see them. That is why, if you are serious about preservation, you should make prints of all of your digital images on archival-quality silver-halide based photo paper.
    Remember, in a world without electricity, one can still make a phonograph record work and view a slide. No one can see the pictures on a CD without highly advanced technology. Don't destroy what you already have, and make sure to archive what you don't. As with another poster above: Keep it if it is viewable by humans unassisted.
     
  29. In the painting world, there was a attitude that rose up with moderism that presevation of artwork is stupid. In that movement, artists created works they specifically knew would degrade over time. Jackson Pollock used oil house paint on raw canvas and now exhibits of his paintings have a pile of colored dust collecting beneath the paintings. Sure I have some digital media... I have designed websites, done a great deal of digital editing, designed icons and interfaces and even done some programming. The stuff I did in elementary school and even in high school 15 years ago is all corrupted data sitting on useless unreadable floppy disks. Music me and my friends recorded on cassette tapes 10 years ago is getting hard to recover. Basically, I consider my drawings, paintings and photographs to be my REAL work, because I know they will outlive me... the rest... I guess I just resigned to the impermanence of it years ago.
     
  30. Salt water as salty from the sea works well. Salt is dirty cheap. If you live by the ocean its free. In Detroit; its below the city and also used in roads for icing. Add the B&W negatives; Kodachromes; C22 and C41's in a 5 gallon pail full of salt water and let sit; sir abit. With Katrina in the summer home any of the above medium's I mentioned got totally hosed; much was only under salt water for a few hours. Place/stuff the negs and positives into a gallon paint can; add water and salt; and place on a shaker.
    Burning works well too; an old barbeque grill works super. A Oxy Acetylene Torch cuts thru pesky negatives too.

    Shreaded B&W can be saved for silver recovery

    In scanning for the public this deal of distroying originals is really not uncommon; or even new at all; it really old. Its more common with sensitive/miltary data; oil field log work; or old ladies cleaning up their house.

    The old lady case it abit odd. The old lady is tired of the say 4 Kodak carousel/boxes taking up space in their (her) master bedroom closet; it competes with shoes and hats. Thus she takes the carousels too be scanned and asks for a disc. Then she asks us to chuck the slides and carousels and boxes.
    Actually very little have I chucked; I expect some of senile chap to either go crazy/biserk (sp); or want their slides back. I have sold some of the carousels to others. I guess I just delay the salt bath in case the old chap arrives at our door mad as a hornet.
    In more daring old ladies;the want the Kodak Carousel boxes back; thus the old husband feel good that the box of 1964 New York Worlds Fair slides are OK; when the Carousel box really just contains the old birds custom jewelry.

    Moral; see if your slide boxes really contain slides or your wifes stuff! :)
     
  31. Kelly,
    me and my wife just had a good laugh - it is so true and sometimes the roles change too.

    Thanks.
     
  32. I guess Kelly's salt water should probably work. I thought that was pretty interesting.
    I once read a Scientific American article years ago that mentioned that magnetic media could only reliably hold data for about five years. While there have probably been innovations since then, I doubt it matches traditional artwork/artifact conservation. Backup, backup, backup. Then, there's the problem of future technologies somehow surpassing the recording already made. But, this would get you back into the scan-again cycle; either hire or self-service.
    I'd keep 'em. But, if you insist on digital archiving, I'd recommend an overhaul every four years of so.
    It really sounds like a Fahrenheit 451 bookburning, though. Why don't you sleep on it, for about a month.
     
  33. Hi Pavel,
    Cataloging analog media is not a problem, if you already have a scan and have the scan cataloged in decent Digital Asset Manager (DAM) - say Lightroom.
    First file your negatives and slides, one roll to a page, in a binder or binders. Next number the pages. Now use the page number and frame number as a key word for that scan in your DAM. You can do the same with prints, but write the number on the back of the print.
    As with most things in life, this is not a matter of "either/or" - either all digital or all analog. It is a matter of using the strengths of each to your best advantage.
    Before I retired, I spent forty years working with computers as a programmer, systems programmer, systems administrator. I have never seen any backup system last more than about ten years, with the possible exception of punched cards. I watched I.B.M. mainframe computers go from 7-track reel-to-reel tape, to 9-track reel-to-reel tape, to tape cartridge, to ... The only thing to do is to migrate your data as new systems and devices become available. That is what I do with my digital only data.
    If I had data on 8" floppies from the 1980's, I would have a difficult time retrieving it. If you had data on MFM hard drives from the early 1990's you would have trouble reading it. Solid state "disks" are just beginning to make their appearance. Will there be a rotating disk drive left 10 years from now? On the other hand, I have no problem printing my negatives from the 1960's.
     
  34. I don't care how robust your backup is DIGITAL IS NOT ARCHIVAL!!! Do you have any concept how many computer operating systems, storage media, file formats etc have existed in the short few years that computers have been available? How many people online right now can still open a WordPerfect file on a 5 1/4-inch floppy? That was the universal standard not even 15 yeas ago for text documents let alone pictures. Today anybody can open a jpg on a CD but are your grandchildren even going to know what the shiny round piece of plastic is. How are they going to know it has pictures on it let alone have the equipment to play it back? Yes, professionals with revenue producing images will transfer them from today's media to tomorrow's over and over again, but even then probbly not all of their images. Amateur images and consumer snapshots are unlikely to survive more than whatever the replacement for CD is. For a good example, take videotape. There have been so many formats of video from the first B&W reel to reel tapes to today's digital formats that there's a comany called Vidipax in New York whose whole business is transferring obsolete formats not even the networks have the equipment for any more. But the 35mm local newsreels my grandfather shot for his theater in the 1930s can still be threaded up at the local multiplex. And the glass plates that Matthew Brady shot in 1865 can still be held up to the light and recognized as photos, and printed in any darkroom. Please, please, please don't be so short sighted to throw away your negatives. If you can't be bothered with them, stuff the box in a closet somewhere and leave them. Your grandchildren will find them and they will thank you for it.
     
  35. Pavel, you have not indicated the resolution of your scans. Did you drum scan them to the highest resolution possible? If not, what if one day you need a higher resolution scan?
     
  36. I find it amusing that the negatives are more valuable to an imagined dumpster diver than they are to you. Everything else has been said.
     
  37. Hi Stanley,
    "I find it amusing that the negatives are more valuable to an imagined dumpster diver than they are to you."
    Unfortunately, I do not find it amusing at all. That is why I shred anything that that has any possible personally identifying information before I discard it in the garbage. It is, unfortunately, part of living in the 21st Century.
     
  38. Hi Brooks,
    Dumpster divers are looking for something of value.
     
  39. Pavel Kupcik , Feb 12, 2009; 05:32 p.m.
    "Just out of curiosity. Not to be pushy, but how do you all intend to protect your purely digital sources like DSLR Raw files, "
    I only shoot film, print it with an enlarger and buy stamped cds that duplicate my favorite lp records. :) Anything transient like pdf files I want to keep are turned into paper copies, or I'll burn 6 or 7 copies onto cds.
     
  40. again, as others have said
    just the thought of destroying the negatives is absolutely crazy.
    not much more to say than that really.
     
  41. Should we stop using DSLRs and digital camcorders and go back to analog?​
    I did.
    Start buying vinyl records instead of CDs?​
    I do that too.
     
  42. Pavel, you put the question in the wrong forum, no-one here would do what you wanna do, so no-one can recommend how to do it, even if probably we know the recipe, sorry. Try in the digital forum, some of them hate film, they should be happy to give you the recipe, may be can help you too when you do it.
    To other poster: don't try to persuate it, not all people give the original the importance they deserve, if he think this way he probably will never fell the need to use it again, sad but thrue, amen.
     
  43. Thansks everyone again. I believe I had gotten the answer to my original question and a lot of interesting "why?" responses. I did not intend to start another film vs. digital heated debate. We all have to put our own value on our photos and we all have our own unique strengths/skills. For some its easier to maintain backups, for some to look after the environmental longevity of film and prints. For many it's just a personal preference and the world would not end if all of it did not survive tomorrow.
    Thanks again.
    Pavel
     
  44. "Not to be pushy, but how do you all intend to protect your purely digital sources like DSLR Raw files, JPGs or digital movies?"
    The Kodak answer (for still images) was "send them to the Kodak Gallery and we will keep them forever." As I suggested before, that strategy will work as long as:
    1. the Kodak Gallery exists
    2. the Kodak Gallery maintains the same policies
    3. Gallery memberships are kept in good standing (at least 1 purchase per year)

    That ad hoc group of film people at Kodak recommended imaging digital files on stable human readable media. The ideal for longevity would be B&W separations. A close second would be Ektachrome Dupe film. There are a few labs that will provide this service. The typical customer is an artist who has a digital reproduction of their artwork and needs to submit a slide for an art show.
     
  45. Is this a joke?...
     
  46. Well Pavel, I imagine as many negatives as you have possibly more, I've just decided to keep mine and not worry about it.........Jim
     
  47. Do NOT destroy them. Put them away somewhere safe.
    Russ
     
  48. You may not think that you want them now, but as you go process each of those scans with your editing software, you'll probably see a few that need rescanning. As with everything else, the more you scan, the better your technique gets.
    While you were scanning, it would have been easy to put the negs and slides into archival storage sleeves. It's still possible to do it now, as time-consuming as that is. But, then you only have to do it once, and you'll be in a better position to find any particular image again in the future.
     
  49. Should we stop using DSLRs and digital camcorders and go back to analog?​
    After using digital for 14 years, yeah, I would love to go back to all film. I like the product and the workflow better. The reality is that I will always have to shoot some digital for work, but I am really making a concerted effort to get away from it..
    As for you tossing your negs? I have no advice for you, it is not a thought that has ever crossed my mind to tell you the truth.
    If you are really insistent on getting rid of them, why don't you make something out of them instead of destroying them? Be creative, there has to be something you can do besides destroy them.
     
  50. Kelly Flanigan: Thank-you very much for a good laugh.
    Dan Ferrel: You got to my answer first.
     
  51. Craig , Your reaction to the thought of archiving in digital is overstated. Any method of archiving requires some periodic effort. With film it is watching heat and humidity, the pH of any paper contacting the film and concern/intervention about certain fumes. Should the original fade, and it eventually will, then a copy is made to recover as much of the original as possible, but at a loss of some information.
    With digital it requires that at least annually, copy your photo files again to the then prevailing digital media. With digital no information is lost from one copy to another. Each medium will have life span but move the information to a newer media. I have backed up all the important info from my floppies a long time ago and didn't lose a thing.
    Pavel - you have the right idea about storing digital copies in multiple places. I recommend keeping the originals though. I know that scanning and post editing is a pain - but it might be easier later to repeat the process. In a decade and 1/2 or so expect to see the home personal general purpose robot becoming the norm. Just give it the task as the technology then will undoubtedly yield more detail.
    New prediction: I expect the technology of 20 years from now will be able to yield the maximum sharpness in a scan but the original will have faded some - so that digital file will be merged with the one made now to result in the best sharpness possible and include the shadow detail that will have been compromised in the original (or highlights in slides).
     
  52. Terence,
    The robots you describe are possible with today's technology, but it will take some concerted algorithm development to make them a reality. Kodak and others have developed algorithms to recover the tone scale of faded originals. They are not quite as good as custom manipulations, but they are still pretty good. The problem is selling the service. While there is a huge reservoir of faded photographs that could be restored, it is a very tiny fraction of those whose owners are motivated enough to pay for it.
     
  53. See if there is a commercial shredding business in your area. They come to your location in a truck that's equipped with a shredder. You get to watch your stuff shred so there is no doubt it's been destroyed. It will cost less than buying a heavy-duty shredder that you might not need again.
     
  54. Please don't destroy them. Just find somewhere to hide the suitcase. A loft, maybe?
    If you must destroy them, how about a shredder. Can't believe i suggested that. Ok, back to my negative archiving project.....
    Cheers
    Geoff
     
  55. Destroy the negatives because they are copied onto your computer? Do you actually think that your computer will last longer than a negative?
     
  56. Just to add my own twist to this. I regret not taking proper precautions on an old print of my dad when he was a teenager. The print was stuck on one of those old "magnetic albums". I put the album in the garage when the temperature was about minus 40 degrees Celsius, hoping that the cold will allow the glued photo to separate from the album. My dad was cleaning out the garage and threw out the album. He later said that the photo was not him, although it clearly was.
    My only "backup" was a *photocopy* that I made for "just in case". I don't believe scanners were widely available then. The photocopy is fading and now I plan to take both a digital and film photo of it so that I can preserve it.
    Although my dad didn't think it was valuable (especially since he didn't recognize himself in it), I felt it important to keep and to show my children in the future.
     
  57. There were some baby photos of me that I wouldn't mind being destroyed ;-)
    Ron, - my prediction that personal robots will be a common thing by 2025 is a prediction I've had for some time. But basically I'm saying technology will change in ways that is not easily predicted now - the only thing certain is that it will change.
    I'm talking about future recovery of film images that goes way beyond curve manipulation (Photoshop presets for some typical emulsions aged by particular amounts are available on the internet now). I'm talking about scanning the negative at various angles to get to the sides of individual dye clouds etc.
    So keep the negatives - better scanning will be possible later.
     
  58. Ship them via USPS to Guam. They turn up again in 50 years in some house in Chicago.
     
  59. Never store just images electronically with using par, rar MD5.
    No they won't be compressed but they will have recovery records if they get corrupted.
     
  60. elf

    elf

    Sorry, you guys. I don't agree about discarding this stuff. I'm in the middle of a similar project right now and have about 5% keepers of my film material. Despite years of slide shooting, where I discarded some material according to sensible critera, there are still binders of negatives, both color and b&w which could not be discarded because 1 of every 25 or so was worth keeping. Now I have an opportunity to get rid of the junk.
    Here are some of the options I'm choosing:
    1. Donate material of historic or subject value to historical societies and interest societies that will take proper care of the material.
    2. Distribute some of the material to people who are connected personally to the subject matter - family, friends etc. (Pass the buck...)
    3. Scan the best of the material at the highest reasonable quality (4000 dpi, Adobe RGB, keyworded, captioned, etc.) and store the originals responsibly while also maintaining the digital collection in a proper manner.
    4. Discard the rest - cardboard slide mounts into paper recycling, plastic slide mounts reused for mounting of scanned negatives, film pitched into the trash (collected by town weekly and sent for incineration at local trash-to-energy service).
    I see no reason to cling tenaciously to every stupid shot, especially since so many of them are variations or experiments which led ultimately to the final thing worth keeping. At this point, aside from the innate historic interest in the content, there is such an overabundance of visual material that the stock licensing industry is impoverishing those who participate in it. Film was a difficult and cranky medium compared to digital to boot. Family snaps were largely done on grainy, high speed film which was sloppily processed by the 1-hr shops, to boot. In addition, all the corresponding prints will be much more valuable to the casual subsequent family member - especially if attention is paid to identifying who, what, where, when, how on the print. Finally, distributing small printable jpgs to the people in the images is likely to be appreciated, while endowing the poor souls with your inability to throw stuff out will not be greeted with such good will.
     

Share This Page