>>2870766
Don't be that guy, OP. Just scan the negatives to your computer and toss 'em out when you're done.

>>2870766
That looks like a slide mounted negative set.

Unless you're shooting with positive B&W, you don't mount negatives.

You need to cut your roll of negatives in to groups of 6 and put them into a special sleeve folder

File: 51zA3rqn0+L.jpg (60 KB, 500x500) Image search: [Google]

60 KB, 500x500

You're supposed to mount slides that way, they're positive photos that get mounted that way so you can put them in a projector to display them. If you are shooting slides and getting them developed at a lab then the lab would give them to you already mounted that way.

I assume you're shooting negative film, though. That's not mounted because projecting a negative would be silly because all the colors would be inverted. You're supposed to cut your film into strips of 6 to fit the roll into a sleeve like pic related. That keeps them safe and protected and labeled, and then you can slide the negatives out when you need to use them for printing or scanning.

Thanks I'll probably just opt for the sleeves, just would of been nice to document time, location and camera settings next to each negative but I'll probably just write them in the folder

i fold a sheet of paper taco style and staple edges. cheap and easy place to store negatives

>>2870775

Toss 'em out when you're done? No. You never know what the future might bring in terms of scanning technology.

>>2871073
kek, I was hoping that line might trigger a few filmfags.

>>2870812
I used some transparent plastic sleeves from an office supplies store.

Apparently all these makeshift film sleeves are bad for long-term storage because they don't have the same archival properties of the real thing and may actually damage the negatives. While this is plausible I don't know how much of it is real and how much is just marketing by companies that sell archival-grade sleeves