Original negatives

[thecatspajamas]

Derek,
Thank you for the info. One minor correction though, the Billy Williams photo would have to have been taken by George Brace, not Burke, as Burke died about 9 years before that photo was taken in 1960. Not trying to take anything away from it though, as it is a wonderful image either way.

[Lordstan]

Here are some Lou negatives that I have.
Scanned them tonight using my new Epson v500. Unfortunately the negative scanner couldn't do the larger negatives in one shot. I wound up scanning each negative in 2 vertical sections and then used Photoshop to put the together. That is why the coloration and alignment aren't perfect. I figured it's enough to get the general idea of what they look like.
I also scanned the envelope they came in.

[repsher]

Wow Mark, you did a good job. That is why I love negatives. When you scan them in it looks like the image could have been taken yesterday.

[steve B]

My scanner will scan some negatives fairly well without a light. It has a setup for 35mm, but it's only for 35mm, and it's never worked. To the point of making the scanner not run when it's plugged in.

Instead I put my wifes lightbox from the sewing store upside down on top of whatever negatives I'm scanning. They're not cheap at around 35 dollars or more, but cheaper than a new scanner.

The stuff archival supply places sell for negatives is about as good as you'll find. Library of congress has a few pages of instructions for archival storage of nearly anything. They're a bit over the top in some cases, but it's what's currently know to work best. Even partially following the guidelines is better than nothing, although I've bought stuff that was stored horribly that was just fine. (And stuff with nearly archival storage that had problems)

Steve B

[thecatspajamas]

Mark,
Very nice images of Gehrig! Looks like your method of scanning in portions and then "stitching" together worked pretty well. That's something I never considered before just buying a new scanner, and might be a good alternative for many collectors who only have a few negatives they want to scan. Good suggestion!

It looks to me like the difference in brightness between the left and right halves could be from the scanner using different "auto-contrast" settings for each. I wonder if you might be able to eliminate the difference by either manually adjusting the contrast rather than letting the scanner software do it (keeping the same setting for each half)? Or else do the preview for the first half, allowing the software to auto-adjust, and then slide the negative over but don't do a preview for the second half (in effect, keeping the same settings for the second scan). Seems like that might help photoshop in aligning everything correctly when combining the two scans as well.

Of course, I could be way off base with the reason for the difference Either way, thanks for sharing those.

Steve,
Have you found that there are issues with the fluorescent light in the light box introducing a certain amount of "noise" into the scan? That was one of the home-grown methods I tried for larger negatives prior to buying the 4990, but never was sure if it was just my particular lightbox causing the interference, or something that was going to happen with any other one I tried. I also had some luck with backlighting smaller negatives (35mm and medium format) using a flashlight for the light source and using the smoothest paper I could find to diffuse it (laying negative on the glass, paper on top, then standing flashlight on top of both to scan). Even the smooth paper added some "texture" to the image though at those resolutions. I suppose I could have taken the opaque plastic cover out of my light box and used that instead, but was well on my way to abandoning the homemade set-up by that point.

[Lordstan]

Lance,
Excellent idea! I think you may very well be correct. I am using an autocorrect/enchancing setting and it could be changing it up for each side.
I will try your suggestion the next time I scan a large negative.

Thanks for the kind words as well.

Best,
Mark

[steve B]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Steve,
Have you found that there are issues with the fluorescent light in the light box introducing a certain amount of "noise" into the scan? That was one of the home-grown methods I tried for larger negatives prior to buying the 4990, but never was sure if it was just my particular lightbox causing the interference, or something that was going to happen with any other one I tried. I also had some luck with backlighting smaller negatives (35mm and medium format) using a flashlight for the light source and using the smoothest paper I could find to diffuse it (laying negative on the glass, paper on top, then standing flashlight on top of both to scan). Even the smooth paper added some "texture" to the image though at those resolutions. I suppose I could have taken the opaque plastic cover out of my light box and used that instead, but was well on my way to abandoning the homemade set-up by that point.

It probably did. I haven't used it in a long time, since the scanner does ok with just having the lid down. At the time I wasn't looking for really nice scans I could enlarge and print, just ones that would allow a bit of enlarging and viewing, or to list on Ebay. Stuff like reading the town on a train station that just wasn't legible. (It wasn't in the scan either, they got depth of focus right for the subject, but the background lost just enough detail) Now I use the 40x magnifier and desk lamp for that.

I've had a couple prints made from old negatives by a photo lab. The easiest is a contact print. I had a 4x5 negative of a bus and driver that came out great. The downside is that the print is only as big as the negative.

To do an enlargement the traditional way they need a carrier for that size film so it can be put in the enlarger. I wanted to get some prints from a 35mm movie film I have , but nobody had the right carrier. One was made for the most common enlarger, but it's expensive and nobody nearby bothered buying one since making stills from 35mm movie film wasn't something they ever got requests for. That might be different in NYC or LA. A good lab might have a carrier for 4x5 since it's a common format. They should all have one for 35mm still film. And since they do wedding photos and stuff like that they're usually very good at not losing negatives.

A good lab can do a lot of enhancement, there are filters to increase contrast, and a few other things. Cropping by masking the photo paper is common, and most can do effects like fade borders or oval image area, or two photos on the same sheet.

Steve B

[obcbeatle]

Originally Posted by steve B

It probably did. I haven't used it in a long time, since the scanner does ok with just having the lid down. At the time I wasn't looking for really nice scans I could enlarge and print, just ones that would allow a bit of enlarging and viewing, or to list on Ebay. Stuff like reading the town on a train station that just wasn't legible. (It wasn't in the scan either, they got depth of focus right for the subject, but the background lost just enough detail) Now I use the 40x magnifier and desk lamp for that.

I've had a couple prints made from old negatives by a photo lab. The easiest is a contact print. I had a 4x5 negative of a bus and driver that came out great. The downside is that the print is only as big as the negative.

To do an enlargement the traditional way they need a carrier for that size film so it can be put in the enlarger. I wanted to get some prints from a 35mm movie film I have , but nobody had the right carrier. One was made for the most common enlarger, but it's expensive and nobody nearby bothered buying one since making stills from 35mm movie film wasn't something they ever got requests for. That might be different in NYC or LA. A good lab might have a carrier for 4x5 since it's a common format. They should all have one for 35mm still film. And since they do wedding photos and stuff like that they're usually very good at not losing negatives.

A good lab can do a lot of enhancement, there are filters to increase contrast, and a few other things. Cropping by masking the photo paper is common, and most can do effects like fade borders or oval image area, or two photos on the same sheet.

Steve B

Thanks for the tips on DIY methods for creating lighting for scanning negatives, i.e. lightbox, flashlight... Interestingly ... I tried the flashlight method: negative on scanner glass with emulsion side down; white paper on top of negative and flashlight on top of paper, but all I get is a white circle after scanning. I guess the light is too bright or the paper is too thick. Also tried adding light above the negative while on the scanner bed (from different angles .. no paper) but again I still get just a white scan like it's too much light, i.e. no scanned image of the negative. Or maybe I'm just doing it wrong :-) Anyway ... I'm going to try to find a photo lab next week to just make a couple prints from these negatives. As an aside ... I can scan the negatives just by laying them on the scanner glass with the lid open and in normal room light, but the scan is a bit dark. Is there an OSX software tool that will flip the negative to positive and maybe allow some touching up? I may be able to get a copy of Photoshop. Just felt like trying this during the weekend, till I can get to a photo lab. Thanks in advance!

[obcbeatle]

Never mind on the OSX software tools. I installed Photoshop and see that I can use Image/Adjustments/Invert and Image/Adjustments/Levels and probably some more Image/Adjustments/~ to get rid of some of the weird colors. It looks like it would be best to do some of this stuff when scanning using the TWAIN or scanner drivers during the actual scan of the negative(s). However ... my scanning software doesn't have a "negative" or other option to use when scanning. I'm guessing the scanner drivers for the "negative scanners" that are out there DO have those options. Oh well. Thanks!

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by obcbeatle

Never mind on the OSX software tools. I installed Photoshop and see that I can use Image/Adjustments/Invert and Image/Adjustments/Levels and probably some more Image/Adjustments/~ to get rid of some of the weird colors. It looks like it would be best to do some of this stuff when scanning using the TWAIN or scanner drivers during the actual scan of the negative(s). However ... my scanning software doesn't have a "negative" or other option to use when scanning. I'm guessing the scanner drivers for the "negative scanners" that are out there DO have those options. Oh well. Thanks!

Jerry,
Are the negatives you are trying to scan color or b/w? Color negatives (the kind with that orange hue) can be tough to invert manually in Photoshop as its not just a straight simple inversion as it is with b/w. That was another thing I was very happy to allow the scanner software to do automatically for me.

As for the flashlight backlight option, it sounds like the light source is adding too much light so that it just blows out the image, kind of like staring into the sun. You might need to use thicker paper or a different flashlight to lessen the amount of light passing through. Although if you're getting passable results with just ambient light by leaving the scanner lid open, by all means, go with whatever works. I think you will have a hard time getting printable images that way, even after tweaking in Photoshop, but if you're just wanting to preview them on screen, that method may work fine for you.

[obcbeatle]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Jerry,
Are the negatives you are trying to scan color or b/w? Color negatives (the kind with that orange hue) can be tough to invert manually in Photoshop as its not just a straight simple inversion as it is with b/w. That was another thing I was very happy to allow the scanner software to do automatically for me.

As for the flashlight backlight option, it sounds like the light source is adding too much light so that it just blows out the image, kind of like staring into the sun. You might need to use thicker paper or a different flashlight to lessen the amount of light passing through. Although if you're getting passable results with just ambient light by leaving the scanner lid open, by all means, go with whatever works. I think you will have a hard time getting printable images that way, even after tweaking in Photoshop, but if you're just wanting to preview them on screen, that method may work fine for you.

Lance ... the only negative I've tried so far is black and white, although I do have one color negative. I've only tried this one of my three B/W's so far since I don't want to damage the other two while I test using my scanner. The B/W negative I'm using is a single 35mm negative probably cut from a strip, and I didn't pay a lot for it, so if I mess it up it won't be the end of the world. You are exactly right about the "too much light" problem. I finally put the scanner in my lap (it is a small scanner) and moved around under the room light and scanned and can see that as I move from different places around the room the scan gets darker and lighter. And if I put any light too close to the glass it just "blows out the image", as you say. I think today I will try to find a place in the room using the ambient room light above as the only light with the scanner lid open since that seems to do about the best, so far. But the three issues so far using this method are:

1) The scan is either too dark or too light (can't seem to find a happy medium ... yet).

2) Sometimes with the ambient light the brightness looks OK, but the scan has ripples in it (this is too bad because the amount of light appears to be pretty good). Maybe this scanner just is too wimpy for what I'm trying to do.

3) Often after I invert the image in Photoshop there is a very light green tint.

Primarily I'm just trying to get a decent enough scan so I can archive it to see the image for my own viewing pleasure. And ... I really wanted to post a couple of my negatives to the forum to show, but the scans have been pretty bad. I'll keep trying today. Also ... I'll be getting prints made from a photo lab since I doubt I'll ever be able to get a good enough scan from my scanner. As always, thanks for your input!

[thecatspajamas]

One other thing you might try that I didn't think to mention before is taking a piece of cardstock (index card, backing board, etc) and cutting a window in it just slightly smaller than the negative you are scanning, and use that to "frame" the negative before placing the light source over it. That way the only light coming through to the scanner is through the negative rather than the stronger light coming from around the negative to mess up your scan. Depending on your scanner software, it may automatically "adjust" the brightness and contrast of the scan to compensate for the additional light coming in, which won't help your scan.

That would be more for the flashlight method. Using ambient light, if you're getting a greenish tint to the image, you might try either scanning in b/w, or after you've scanned, converting the image to b/w in Photoshop. It's going to be tough to eliminate all color from your scan using ambient light I think. My guess would be that if you just did a scan, with nothing on the scanner and the scanner lid open, the image you get would also have a greenish tint.

[obcbeatle]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

One other thing you might try that I didn't think to mention before is taking a piece of cardstock (index card, backing board, etc) and cutting a window in it just slightly smaller than the negative you are scanning, and use that to "frame" the negative before placing the light source over it. That way the only light coming through to the scanner is through the negative rather than the stronger light coming from around the negative to mess up your scan. Depending on your scanner software, it may automatically "adjust" the brightness and contrast of the scan to compensate for the additional light coming in, which won't help your scan.

That would be more for the flashlight method. Using ambient light, if you're getting a greenish tint to the image, you might try either scanning in b/w, or after you've scanned, converting the image to b/w in Photoshop. It's going to be tough to eliminate all color from your scan using ambient light I think. My guess would be that if you just did a scan, with nothing on the scanner and the scanner lid open, the image you get would also have a greenish tint.

Thanks Lance. I'll try the index card/window tip hopefully today. I spent part of yesterday scanning using natural light (not direct sunlight) coming thru the window which worked best for scanning with the lid open. I did like you said, converted to B/W in Photoshop using Desaturate and that took away the green tint (thanks!). I also used Level (RGB) to try to darken a little (the scan seemed a little too bright, I think. Anyway ... the result is below. Not great, but a start :-) I'm going to a photo lab this week to ask about making a print of the other negatives I have. I may buy a scanner too eventually. I really like the negatives and if I continue to pursue them I really should invest in a good scanner anyway. Again thanks for all your help.

PS: In order to keep Willie Davis's LA on his cap from being backwards I had to scan with the emulsion side up. I thought better scanning results would be to scan with the emulsion side down on the glass? Am I missing something as far as keeping the photo negative the correct orientation, but being able to scan with the emulsion side down?

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by obcbeatle

PS: In order to keep Willie Davis's LA on his cap from being backwards I had to scan with the emulsion side up. I thought better scanning results would be to scan with the emulsion side down on the glass? Am I missing something as far as keeping the photo negative the correct orientation, but being able to scan with the emulsion side down?

Scan emulsion side down, and just flip it in Photoshop or whatever image editing program you use. Pretty much all of them should have something like "Flip Horizontal" which is what you would want to use.

FWIW, I wouldn't worry about emulsion up/down until you're using an actual negative scanner. I doubt you will be able to tell any difference when scanning with natural light since the image will be sub-par either way.

[obcbeatle]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Scan emulsion side down, and just flip it in Photoshop or whatever image editing program you use. Pretty much all of them should have something like "Flip Horizontal" which is what you would want to use.

FWIW, I wouldn't worry about emulsion up/down until you're using an actual negative scanner. I doubt you will be able to tell any difference when scanning with natural light since the image will be sub-par either way.

Thanks Lance ... that did the trick! For anyone else that might be interested in this and is not too familiar with Photoshop (like me) ... to flip the image, go to Image/Rotate Canvas/Flip Canvas Horizontal. This is of course different from inverting the negative image scan which is Image/Adjustments/Invert in Photoshop. Anyway ... that's what was confusing me ... and that is something that is not too hard to do :-)

[mybestbretts]

Ben, great find

[repsher]

Sorry it took me so long to post these but between vacation and work I haven't had much time to get to the scanner. These are the Herb Dixon full negs. There isn't much to see other than the HG,but at least I've figured out how to scan the whole neg and straighten out with Photoshop.

herbdixon(1200)0032.jpg

herbdixon(1200)33.jpg

[repsher]

Here is a Burke/Brace Dizzy Dean from 1938.

dizzydean(1200)30.jpg

Here is a Bob Lemon Burke/Brace from his rookie season 1946.

boblemon(1200)30.jpg

[repsher]

Here are a couple of Jocko Conlon shots. I believe these are Brace negatives:

jockoconlon(brace)(1200)33.jpg jockoconlon(brace)(1200)033.jpg

Al Simmons batting in 1934 w/Whitesox:

alsimmons(1934)(1200)33.jpg

Ty Cobb throwing out the first pitch somewhere on 8/13/34:

tycobb1934(1200)33.jpg

[repsher]

Here is one from 1936 of Johnny Mize, Bruce Ogrodowski and Joe Medwick. This was sold to me as a Burke/Brace negative but I now realize there aren't any catalog markings on the neg, so maybe not.
mizeduxkwick(1936)(1200)033.jpg

This is a glass neg I picked up a long time ago. It was just titled "Ty Cobb with Judge Murphin.". I'm not sure who the Judge is.

tycobbjudge(1200)0331.jpg

[thecatspajamas]

Ryan,
It is definitely a Burke image (see below for original stamped Burke print of the same image). For whatever reason, the inclusion of his usual file coding does not seem to be as consistent for the multi-player/group photos as it is for his individual player shots, though having handled far fewer of his negatives than prints, I could only guess as to why. He did maintain a separate "Group Photo" checklist, though the only version I have seen is the expanded one on the old bracephoto website which had Brace's later multi-player shots mixed in as well.

[repsher]

Thanks Lance. Awesome information and thanks for posting the photo. I guess I didn't get taken.

[Forever Young]

I added a couple Rookies to my collection

1) PRE-ROOKIE JACKIE while in CUBA spring training 1947
2) ROOKIE TED WILLIAMS by GEO. BURKE

[thecatspajamas]

Very nice pair, Ben. Sometimes you just gotta get that fix!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Very nice pair, Ben. Sometimes you just gotta get that fix!

I am an advanced addict. There is absolutely no hope for me.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

I am an advanced addict. There is absolutely no hope for me.

Yes, and we are all your enablers. At least you have discriminating taste. Kind of a "top shelf" crack head

[billyb]

Looks like someone trying to outbid Ben
Attachment 114246

The " I got outbid by Ben" ball team"
rumor is there are 10 minor league teams as well
Attachment 114247

Ben, calmly making phone call bid, or
when calling tech support during internet interruptions on a Sunday evening
Attachment 114248

Ben, we can only watch and admire.

Billyb

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by billyb

Looks like someone trying to outbid Ben
Attachment 112009

The " I got outbid by Ben" ball team"
rumor is there are 10 minor league teams as well
Attachment 112010

Ben, calmly making phone call bid, or
when calling tech support during internet interruptions on a Sunday evening
Attachment 112014

Ben, we can only watch and admire.

Billyb

. HAHA! Thanks Billy...I am not sure about all of this. What I am sure of is that you dp have me pegged in frame 3. For example: When eBay freezes on me when i want to bid last second (manually)...yeah... No one wants to be around me then

[billyb]

Ben,
So frame three was correct...lol
All in fun Ben, we do enjoy seeing your winning bids, keep them coming in.

Good luck

[kdixon]

Here is a Zach Wheat.

[billyb]

Kenny,
That is a keeper. What a great photo (negative).

[kdixon]

Thanks Bill.

[repsher]

Here is the latest little addition to my collection.
Ty Cobb 5x7 Glass negative. My quick research (based on uniform) would put it between 1918-1920?

[repsher]

Just picked up this 1949 Yankee team 5x7 negative.

[GKreindler]

Great pick-up, Ryan! The negative looks as clear as day.

Graig

[Kawika]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

Great pick-up, Ryan! The negative looks as clear as day.
Graig

That photo hits me like a ton of bricks. Used to go to a lot of Yankee games when I was a kid in the fifties in New York. A grandstand seat was a buck-fortynine and I would always sit in those same right field stands as low down as I could. The first five or six rows were box seats. Can still see Bauer or Maris up close with Mantle off to the right plain as day in my mind's eye. I would pay the Devil to go back for another afternoon in the Kreindlerian shadows of Section 29.

[sicollector1954]

Don't know why every time I post--things come out sideways....with that said here is my latest find now finished....1945 Rockford Peaches with a 45 program matted and framed.....was able to pin down the year based on one player who did not play only that year with Rockford....11 out of 13 have names with faces--2 I am at a loss but hopefully will figure out in the future.

[repsher]

Thanks Craig.

David - You certainly have great memories. Must have been a great time to be alive. My first games were in the mid 80's at The Vet. At least I did get to see Mike Schmidt play. I would have loved to see Mantle in person and at a place like Yankee stadium.

[Kawika]

Originally Posted by repsher

David - You certainly have great memories. Must have been a great time to be alive. My first games were in the mid 80's at The Vet. At least I did get to see Mike Schmidt play. I would have loved to see Mantle in person and at a place like Yankee stadium.

Ryan: Things were very different in those days, in baseball and in life in general. My wife and I are a couple of nattering old senior citizens now, just shaking our heads at all the changes. That right field grandstand is where my love of baseball got started. We lived in NYC and environs from 1953 to 1961. Saw a lot of games and have a headful of grand and precious memories. Mantle taking his cuts, Yogi chasing a foul pop-up, Ford throwing heat, Tony to Bobby to Moose for the double play, Ol' Casey slouching to the mound (nobody could slouch to the mound like Stengel, it was theatrical) to threaten to trade the pitcher to Kansas City. Waiting outside the clubhouse after the game to get as many autographs as I could on my scorecard from Yanks and visiting ALers. Never occurred to me to bring my Topps cards to the ballpark. Prescient I was not. When they tore down Yankee Stadium a few years ago a little bit of me died (although the reno in the '70's pretty much ruined the ballpark I knew).

Some home movie screen caps of me and some boyhood friends at an Orioles game on the occasion of my eighth birthday, April 20, 1958. We sat in the upper deck, third base side that day. Reserved seats. Big time!




Mantle at the plate

[HRBAKER]

David those shots are priceless.

[71buc]

Pardon my odd sense of humor but I saw these and found them funny. It appears that Wade took a day job in 1983 and was warming up for Margo Adams

http://www.ebay.com/itm/271296143823...84.m1436.l2649

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by 71buc

Pardon my odd sense of humor but I saw these and found them funny. It appears that Wade took a day job in 1983 and was warming up for Margo Adams

http://www.ebay.com/itm/271296143823...84.m1436.l2649

Awesome!