Do you keep 'bad' negatives?

[Frank Bagbey]

Often, a blown slide will still have a photograph in it. For example, I shot a scene that was really pushing it and wound up with a poor transparency. But, in part of that big
4x5 was a great photograph! And it was still bigger than a 35mm slide and made a great enlargment. In an old Pentax book, it was illustrated how there can be 4 or 5 great pics inside a pic, that just makes for a greater overall photograph. So, I think the lesson to be learned is to really look around your scene. And really "look around" your big neg or transparency before culling it or throwing it away!

[George Stewart]

I made a MF image many years ago, that through some error (shutter bounce, development, or something else) had some type on line of different exposure and/or color balance right across the middle of the image. Therefore, the result was one side was normal the other side abnormal. The image was great so I couldn't bare to discard it. I thought, some day it may be salvaged. Then about eight years later, the digital era arrived and I got my first scanner. That film was the first through the machine and today is my best fall foliage image.

I had another image that was out of focus, that I also saved and now is another great shot that has a very impressionistic feel.

I'll only discard that which I know I'll do nothing with. If I feel even the slightest warm toward the thing, I'll keep it. Remember, something can always be thrown out, but can't always be retrieved.

[Gary L. Quay]

I keep everything in proportion to the distance it was from my home. The farther away, the greater the likelyhood that I will keep it, even it the neg has problems.

--Gary

[jnantz]

i save everything.

bad might not look good now, but
after being scattered on the floor of
my basement, and after a few years of being
walked on and damaged, bad can look much better.

[Ralph Barker]

Yea, you would be able to do that easily, if you don't mind printing digitally

Another option is to have real silver prints made from the scans via the system that Bob Carnie (Elevator Graphics in Toronto) uses.

[Ken Lee]

.. or make Platinum/Palladium prints, or even Silver prints, from a digital negative. Depending on the "dot size" of the digital negative, your resolution will vary, such that Silver prints may be pushing it.

You can not only fix the spots, you can make an infinite number of corrections, improvements, and enlargements. With an 8x10 negative and even a modest scanner, you can also make lovely prints from a portion of the negative.

[Richard M. Coda]

Another option is to have real silver prints made from the scans via the system that Bob Carnie (Elevator Graphics in Toronto) uses.

I have found the digital copy negatives from Chicago Albumen Works to be far superior to the digital silver prints from any Lambda. Plus you have control in the darkroom versus a lab, as good as they may be. Just my 2 cents.

[Richard M. Coda]

.. or make Platinum/Palladium prints, or even Silver prints, from a digital negative. Depending on the "dot size" of the digital negative, your resolution will vary, such that Silver prints may be pushing it.

You can not only fix the spots, you can make an infinite number of corrections, improvements, and enlargements. With an 8x10 negative and even a modest scanner, you can also make lovely prints from a portion of the negative.

I did this for the first time the other day at a colleagues place. He makes VERY large palladium prints using PDN. He scanned one of my 8x10 negs in at 3600 dpi (on an Imacon Flex scanner) and made one of his "green" negs on his Epson 3800. We then made a palladium print from it.

I have to tell you, I was absolutely NOT impressed. My silver prints beats the pants off this method, or any method that uses inkjet negatives. If I can see inkjet artifacts it's useless (to me). Also the print was extremely soft... not sharp as a contact print should be.

Again, if you want a digital neg... better to go to Chicago Albumen Works and have it done that way. Just my 2 cents again.

[Filmnut]

When I first started shooting, as a teenager in the early seventies, I kept absolutely everything. But as other posters have said, the amount of film becomes enormous, if one shoots very much, that is. A move is usually a good thing, as one then has to make decisions, but sometimes it can all get put in a box to sort "when I have time" and forgot about till the next move!
I have culled a lot of the bad stuff, and am more discerning now, one of the problems of having too much stuff, is when you want to find something, you have to go through so much crap to find the good stuff, its' annoying. Mainly for this reason I started to be tougher on myself.
I will also agree that time lends some perspective to many images. Especially historical and or family interest. Otherwise unremarkable happy snaps of children and relatives become more valuable than I ever thought possible as people have grown up, grown old, and died.
My father practiced photography here in Toronto, and he has skyline shots of the city taken in the thirties from his small fishing boat that now have historical interest. Ditto for some he took in the Army in WWII.
So as the reasonable guy I am, if the shot is bad, screwed up or such, it goes, unless I need it to determine what has gone wrong. I sort good and bad composition out and toss the bad, but leave some in, you might change your mind as to which ones you might need. Depends how bad it is!
On the good shots, unless a bracket is really off, I almost always keep it, as sometimes you might go one of the others when printing, also it's good to have an extra if something bad happens to the "ideal".
So you could say that I err on the side of caution, and still keep too much stuff!
Keith

[Jon Wilson]

I keep most of my negatives and chromes 35mm, MF, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 & now 11x14. I also try to keep records as to developing the B&W negs, references to specific lens used, and hope that when I review them it helps with subsequent prints. Jon