4 by 5 glass negatives
 

Have searched and searched and not seen much of a market for these. I inherited a few dozen old glass 4 x 5 negatives. Most are Detroit Tigers from the 1920's. A couple of Walter Johnson, one of golfer Bobby Jones. Because of the negative size, they make amazing photos. I've attached 3 that I scanned and converted to photos.

I'd like to sell or auction them, but it seems like they're not worth more than a couple dollars each. Anyone have a clue? What I don't get is why a type-1 photo of, say, Bobby Jones seems to have more value than the negative would.

Thanks for any info!

Mervyn Shea 1927 Spring Training
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/z...sbda8ced2.jpeg

Flea Clifton 5th game 1935 World Series
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/z...sa36dd0e1.jpeg

Bobby Jones in Detroit
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/z...sc9842f93.jpeg

sallen,
I am no expert, but I believe the negatives are worth a little more than you think. Content is the most important thing of the negatives. Are there any negatives that are photos of any star players, they would sell much higher then a common player. But from the 1920s, makes many people interested.
This area is not for offering items for sale. There is an area where you can offer items to Buy/sale/trade.
You can talk about your items here, but cannot offer for sale.
No one can say how much your negatives are worth, due to unknown content, or condition. But I can say, more than a couple of dollars each.
I know I like what I see, especially being from Michigan.
Would enjoy seeing a couple more.

Scott,
I'll let others weigh in with their thoughts as well, but you hit the nail on the head with that statement. In almost all cases, an 8x10ish Type 1 print of any given photo will sell for more than the original negative of the same shot. My theory on the reason being that while collectors like to have something as close to the original as possible, they also want to be able to look at the items in their collection, and negatives do not lend themselves to easy viewing enjoyment (you either have to scan them as you did, or have a modern print made). Unless they're planning to use the image commercially (most collectors aren't), most would just rather have a Type 1 print than to fool with all that.

All that said though, I think that you will find the "collector" market for negatives just starting to take off, though certainly with plenty of room to grow. Negatives depicting Hall of Famers, especially crisp, quality shots such as yours seem to be, are certainly worth more than a couple bucks apiece. Knowing who and when the shots are of definitely helps as well. I personally love working with negatives, as their quality and "resolution" is outstanding, allowing you to zoom in on the smallest details the way even a sharp print doesn't reveal.

Thanks for the response. Sorry to mislead - I had no intention of offering them for sale here. I'm just trying to get a feel for their value - generally. I know PSA lists a type I photo as one developed from the original negative. Does that make the original negative worth more than the photo? There's just not much info on negatives vs. photos and I thought someone here might have a guess.

Most of the negatives are in near perfect condition. I think the photos back that up. I'll try to post some others.

sallen,

Any idea on the photographer???
Those Walter Johnson's should sell half way decent.

The negatives were rescued by my father from the Detroit News. He was a photographer for the News, and they were throwing them out! I think that's why there's no one really famous in the bunch, except a few here and there.

Walter Johnson
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/z...ps2b24d4d1.jpg
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/z...ps5f4bac06.jpg

"Hooks" Dauss
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/z...ps33178f4b.jpg

Detroit Tiger
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/z...ps331b1261.jpg

I agree with everything Lance said. I have started watching the old glass negatives in auctions, but the prices still are too high for me - they have no value other than their ability to be used to create prints, and I can generally already buy prints that are similar to the negative images.

But I did recently buy a group of 5 large-format glass negatives of Willie Hoppe, simply because I collect his stuff and they were cheap. Unfortunately, due to size, my scanner won't even scan them.

Regarding your last statement about outstanding resolution: this is definitely true, and should have collectors of original prints that were supposedly made from glass negatives, questioning the ones that are low resolution. Such low-quality prints have a great chance of simply not being original, even if they were printed within a few days of the event and have the correct date stamp.

Those are great, I love old glass negs, even though they can be a pain to handle and take care of sometimes.

I remember several years ago on Ebay I won a stack of large glass negs on ebay of several boxers. They were larger then the standard 4x5's, I think they were like 5x7.

Of course they were shipped in a bubble envelope with little protection and arrived to me sounding like a children's shake toy. Broken glass everywhere.

Scott,
Those are great photos, good ones of Johnson.

Great slides. I left you a message.

I think one or two of the auction houses had a fair amount of glass plate negatives at tbeir recent auctions. I will figure out which and link it here when I get a chance.

Tom C

Scott, how did you scan them?

Tom C - Thanks, that would be much appreciated!

Runscott - I have an older Canon scanner that will scan up to 4 by 5 negatives. (D1230 I think - I have it at my office and can check if you care) I actually tried to buy a new one for my new mac at home but the newer ones don't scan negatives that large! Why, I have no idea -it was very frustrating trying to find a new one for cheap! I'm worried that if I replace my older mac, the scanner will be incompatible. I'm using mac os 10.4 on the computer I use with the scanner. 10.4 is from about 2007.

Thanks. When I purchased my new Canon, I expected it to be able to handle the large-format glass negatives, but as you also discovered, they are too large.

To my knowledge, the only non-commercial desktop scanners capable of handling large format negatives are the Epson 4990 and Epson V700 (and possibly the V750 which I think is a slight update of the V700). I don't think any of them are made any more, but you can pick them up frequently on eBay in the $300-400 range. The last time I was researching scanner options for some 8x10 negatives that I had was about 3 years ago, so I guess it's possible something could have come out since that I'm not aware of, but at that time most others would only handle up to 2-1/2" width negatives or transparencies, if even that.

I think Mark (lordstan) had some limited success with scanning some large format negatives in multiple strips and then using Photoshop or something similar to merge/stitch them together. It seems like a pretty labor-intensive process, especially if you have to scan very many, but if you're just doing a handful it might be worth trying as opposed to buying another scanner.

Hearing so many people having problems scanning their newly-acquired negatives makes me think I should start a large-format negative scanning service :o

With all the talk about scanners I thought that I would chime in. Many of the 'consumer' flatbed scanners do not have the capability to scan larger negatives. I have an Epson V330 Photo scanner. It is a standard flatbed scanner that has the ability, when you remove the masking plate, to scan transparencies and 35mm negative strips. It cost about $100. I use an older scanner program Ulead Photo Express for my scanning. It is a 32 bit program that I had adapted to my computer when I upgraded. It is a very simple program for cropping and adjusting (turning, adusting brightness, etc).

I also own a photographic scanner. These are designed for use with transparencies (slides) and negatives of all sizes. It has holders for 35mm negatives, slides and 2x2 negatives. You can also place any larger negative directly on the flatbed. I have placed 4x5 glass plates, 4x5 and 8x10 acetate negatives on it and it works great for that. These scanners generally come with their own program for pre-scanning, to preview and adjust before full scan and the silverfast with digital ICE program which will automatically remove scratches. These can be purchased from camera stores like B&H and Adorama in New York City. One of these should cost less than $500. Mine was near top of the line 5 years ago at $350 and it still works great.

Below are two scans. The first is a slide using the consumer scanner. This image is the end of the race before the famous Tommy Smith / John Carlos protest at the 1968 Olympics. The second one is a silde using the pro scanner (I took this photo in Australia).

Lance is correct in his recollection. I scanned a few larger Lou Gehrig negative I have on a scanner which is made to only do smaller negatives. I did this by scanning the negatives in 2 parts vertically. I then aligned and pasted them together in photoshop.
Here is the thread it was discussed in. My posts on this specific issue, including the resulting images, start at post 52.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=166260
Hopes that help
Mark

Scott - great items. All I can add is that your Hooks Dauss is not Hooks Dauss.

Well, it seems you're correct! The envelopes are all labeled so I thought they were correct. How about this one?

http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/z...ps34bc13ea.jpg

Here are some others. I have the names - but not at the moment

http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/z...ps50618c56.jpg

http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/z...pse8e17af9.jpg

http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/z...ps39366a8c.jpg

http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/z...ps5a76aa04.jpg

http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/z...ps8a2cd0eb.jpg

http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/z...psa358a83f.jpg

Walter Johnson:
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/z...ps8ffa3a11.jpg

http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/z...ps0175876b.jpg

Those are great images. Thanks for sharing.

Scott,
Great photos, that looks like Dauss in a couple more shots above.

Very nice! Boggles my mind that these were just going to be thrown out. Just goes to show the "utilitarian" mindset with regard to photos of many publications that persists even today.

Michael, when you say "photographic scanner" what model specifically are you speaking of? It sounds very much like the Epson 4990 that I currently use (though I'm considering picking up a V700 as I just learned that it has about a 50% higher top-end scanning resolution). I'm just wondering if you've found another comparable model that I am not aware of.

The first (and I believe the 7th photo) you just posted are Dauss.