Question pictures versus negatives

[Stijn David]

Hello,


I have a question in regards towards pictures versus the negatives. Wich is the most interesting to have : a original picture or the negatives for these pictures ? .

Alos how does one properly preserves the negatives ?, how do you store them etc ....


Cordial greetings,

[Akira Takiguchi]

I love Farbdias (color slides) best of all , but it is not listed .

As a collectible, I prefer excellent, large-sized prints over negatives. Contact prints made from larger negative is also desirable.

Negatives need enlargement process or scanning. Then what you see is not collectible itself... So you would be seeing derivatives, not original. To me, it does not differ much from scan collection...

As a research material, I prefer 35mm negative strips (or contact prints of them). Order of events never lies here!

[erichcraciun]

I guess I will add my opinion here. I prefer the actual print over the negative(though I do have both). The print made during the war, no post war Abzüge. I feel that it is the 'first generation', the original of the image.

Erich Craciun.

[Chris Taylor]

Negatives are a unique collectible, but I'd have to say a photo.
Most photos are one of a kind, and the negatives being long gone, no chance of other copies out there.

[R MICHAEL]

Hmmm, This a tough one but I came out with period photos. I have both types in my collection, but on reflecting I found I enjoy the photos best as they are more readily available for enjoyment.


Akira I am a new found fan of contact prints. I purchased a fair number recently and the logical progression of photos is very evident. it is like following in the footsteps of the photographer.

[helsel,j]

I like the photos much more, they are easier to display, scan, and show. I think the negatives might be more valuable, but the vet photo albums have survived, and tells a history much quicker then trying to look at negatives.

[coastie]

For collectablilty I would go for the photo, but for research you can't beat the negative. If it is preserved, unscratched it can be a valuable tool. If you need to enlarge an area to show certain details (uniform, equipment or a sign post) you can't beat the negative.

[randy@treadways]

The negative is the original image as captured inside the camera. When it's not available, the earliest print that can be found may be the most collectable, but not necessarily the best if you want the image for the information that it contains.

Just look at what labs have done recently with the Zapruder film- yielding a lot more information than the 1963 and 1964 prints revealed. Many high volume labs use to cut off the edges when making prints- and those edges sometimes contained some good stuff- like more letters on a sign next to the road- maybe just enough extra letters to determine what the town was!

If I can get the negatives today, I'd rather scan them myself to make my own positives.

I was able to flip the images posted in another topic a few days ago from negative to positive in about three seconds each- and there were some good ones! I like the group picture next to the sea.

I like color slides (when they can be found) even more than film negatives because of the format- 35mm captured a *lot* of detail.

[Simon O.]

If value is measured by information (ie. the amount of information you get from a photo) then it must be a negative.


For those concerned with copyright then you have a better case i think if you own the negative, after all a print may be just one of many, as is often the case with good photos.