By David Gewirtz
Last week, I ran a rant about saving your negatives in a digital world (at http://www.connectedphotographer.com/issues/issue200504/00001528001.html). Apparently, I'm not alone in my belief that it's moronic to throw out negatives, because I got a ton of reader response. A few of those letters are further down in this article.
The responses, though, got me to thinking about Connected Photographer itself. It's really interesting. Whenever we do a "traditional" photo magazine article, like a review of some piece of equipment, there's rarely any reader feedback. But when we do the kind of article that reflects how you use photography in your life, we get a ton of response.
It's become clear to me that in the eighteen or so months we've been publishing Connected Photographer, we've established a "voice" that resonates with readers. Unlike most photo-related magazines, our focus isn't on the thirty or so days before you buy a camera. Instead, we focus on the rest of your life, now that you have a camera.
Our most popular articles are what seem the least serious, but turn out to be the most needed. Three such articles come to mind:
- "The $0.69 budget backdrop for perfect eBay product photos", at http://www.connectedphotographer.com/issues/issue200407/00001331001.html
- "How to make sure your frames hang perfectly level on your wall" at http://www.connectedphotographer.com/issues/issue200409/00001388001.html
- "How to take fabulous photos of your jewelry without using a camera" (written by my mom, believe it or not!) at http://www.connectedphotographer.com/issues/issue200406/00001334001.html
Another example of this is the strong popularity of James Booth's ebook, Do-It-Yourself Wedding Photography, at http://shop.zatz.com/customer/product.php?productid=23, which turned out to be a top seller.
It's clear you're grooving on the real-world stories. But there are only so many James and I are going to come up with on our own. We need your help. We need you to tell us your tricks, your neat ways of doing things, your apparently tiny but oh-so-helpful discoveries.
If you've come up with something cool, write about it. The articles don't need to be terribly long, just long enough to introduce the problem, describe how you solved it (maybe with a picture or three), and some suitably useful conclusion. If you'd like help, we've got a great resource for writers at http://www.authorpower.com. And, you're always welcome to contact me or James.
Consider this an open invitation to share your neat tricks and cool techniques. When you've put something together (or want to talk about your ideas), pop off an email to me at david@ZATZ.com. I know the rest of our readers will get a kick out of what you're doing!
So, let's go on to the reader letters. Mary Beth Figgins writes:
I totally agree with your comments on preserving negatives and on the shows Clean Sweep and Mission: Organization. As someone who has worked at a state historical library for almost 30 years and as a family historian, I am always appalled at their firm "suggestions" to toss negatives, "excess" prints, and items passed down from family members including paper materials. If someone made those suggestion around here they would immediately be thrown out.
There seems to be little regard for the past in any form on these shows. "If it can't be displayed, you don't need it". How about preserving those items for future generations to enjoy? Instead they need to find a way to organize those negatives so they can be easily matched up with the prints if more are needed. Negatives are too valuable to be put in shoe boxes and allowed to get bent and torn.
Another representative letter comes from Kate E. Corcoran, who says:
David, I wanted to drop a line to THANK YOU! for your article "Saving your negatives in a digital world". At one time I also had to be restrained from attacking the TV when I heard the advice about throwing away negatives. Even if you do scan negatives, the first time you lose a computer hard drive or had a CD-ROM get too scratched up should convince you that originals of whatever kind are much better than copies. Thanks again -- Kate C.
These are great comments. I store my negatives in a sealed plastic bin in my closet. If any of you have some great ideas or tips for negative storage, please send them in!
And, proving that justice isn't blind, Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Mirsky writes:
David, do you have any recommendations regarding negative scanners? Thanks in advance for your response.
Joe, I haven't done any comprehensive reviews of negative scanners. About six years ago or so, I bought an HP PhotoSmart S20 which had the benefit of, at that time, being relatively cheap at under $500. It's not the best scanner in the world, but it's served me without fail all this time. I did a quick search on eBay, and as of this moment (with 4 days left), there's one there for $41 -- although it's likely to go up.
It used to be that negative scanners expensive, in the $4,000 and up range. Now, there's a whole range of them in the $200 to $500 range. In most cases, you want to look for the class of product known as a "slide scanner" rather than the flatbed scanners that have a negative attachment. The slide scanners are built for scanning that one or two inch square and optimizing the optics for a scan of that size.
In terms of brands, I'd recommend sticking with the slide scanners from one of the camera companies. Whether you're talking a Canon scanner, a Minolta scanner or another brand, you know the optics are going to be reasonably good and the technical support reasonably mediocre. Like I said, I've had no real complaints about my HP PhotoSmart and it's put up with my abuse for years.
If you pick one and really like it, send us a short review. We'd all like an excuse to go buy more hardware. Really. Some of us can't help ourselves!
Take care and we'll see you next week!