Original negatives

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

Ben,

Nice item!!! Although I am confident with the analysis of various types of prints, I am largely in the dark with regard to negatives. Perhaps you can help.

For example. I am not sure what criteria are used to define a dupe acetate negative. Are these copy negatives of original negatives? How are they made and are the prints made from a dupe negative less sharp than those made from the original negative? If so, would not a print from any negative in question be one way to determine if the negative is an original or a copy?

Thanks.

Craig

A few more thoughts until later this evening: Duplicate negatives will always have some loss of detail vs. the original negative or print they were made from. The amount of loss depends on the setup and skill of the photographer producing the dupe. Probably the most common method of producing a duplicate negative is to literally photograph a print of the desired image (i.e. "take a picture of a picture"). Before the advent of scanners, photocopiers, or even the wire photo process, this would have been about the only way of "copying" a print or printed image.

The site below lists some other methods of duplicating negatives. My guess as to the next-most-common method would be what they call "contact duplication".

http://www.nedcc.org/resources/leafl...lNegatives.php

As for how to judge whether a particular negative is an original or duplicate, I find that it's usually a judgement call based on the contrast/clarity of the image (and as you say, is more easily judged by viewing a print from the negative rather than the negative itself). Some are easier to judge than others. In the same way that a poorly focused Type 1 original photo can resemble a Type 3 wire photo judging by the image itself, a poor quality original negative could look like a copy negative. The rarer case would be for a duplicate negative to look good enough to be an original, but I have seen some darn good dupes. In those cases, you might have to compare the dupe to the original to make the determination, but most times, you won't have both in hand at the same time. Otherwise, you can make some judgements by the materials (as in, a turn-of-the-century original wouldn't be on acetate safety film, and certainly not on a modern 35mm film). I think you will find a lot of the judgement calls in comparing negatives to be parallel to those you make in comparing the prints made from them.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

A few more thoughts until later this evening: Duplicate negatives will always have some loss of detail vs. the original negative or print they were made from. The amount of loss depends on the setup and skill of the photographer producing the dupe. Probably the most common method of producing a duplicate negative is to literally photograph a print of the desired image (i.e. "take a picture of a picture"). Before the advent of scanners, photocopiers, or even the wire photo process, this would have been about the only way of "copying" a print or printed image.

The site below lists some other methods of duplicating negatives. My guess as to the next-most-common method would be what they call "contact duplication".

http://www.nedcc.org/resources/leafl...lNegatives.php

As for how to judge whether a particular negative is an original or duplicate, I find that it's usually a judgement call based on the contrast/clarity of the image (and as you say, is more easily judged by viewing a print from the negative rather than the negative itself). Some are easier to judge than others. In the same way that a poorly focused Type 1 original photo can resemble a Type 3 wire photo judging by the image itself, a poor quality original negative could look like a copy negative. The rarer case would be for a duplicate negative to look good enough to be an original, but I have seen some darn good dupes. In those cases, you might have to compare the dupe to the original to make the determination, but most times, you won't have both in hand at the same time. Otherwise, you can make some judgements by the materials (as in, a turn-of-the-century original wouldn't be on acetate safety film, and certainly not on a modern 35mm film). I think you will find a lot of the judgement calls in comparing negatives to be parallel to those you make in comparing the prints made from them.

Thanks Lance - that all makes sense. I wonder if Kodak would have a history of the film types, sizes and markings for, say the 1920's to 50's?

[billyb]

deleted

[thecatspajamas]

Okay, so as it turns out, I was not remembering correctly about the research I had done before (which was on dating Polaroid prints, not original negatives). So I'll have to look more into that tomorrow. For now, I'm starting through scanning my negatives, which is taking a while as I'm scanning them very high-res (AMAZING amount of detail when you zoom in on the results). First few are:

Stan Hack, Lou Stringer, Hank Leiber & Billy Myers - 1941 Chicago Cubs


Herman Franks, Mickey Owen, Don Padgett & Sam Narron - 1939 St. Louis Cardinals


Larry Gilbert Sr. & Larry Gilbert Jr. - 1938 New Orleans Pelicans


Arky Vaughan - 1942 or 1943 Brooklyn Dodgers


I also located a few glass plate negatives that I've never attempted to scan before, so I'll give those a shot tomorrow as well.

[thecatspajamas]

This one is a glass plate negative shot at a "sandlot" game, supposedly circa 1910. Not hugely valuable, but a fun image I thought

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

Thanks Lance - that all makes sense. I wonder if Kodak would have a history of the film types, sizes and markings for, say the 1920's to 50's?

Lance has is right. Telling original from dupes can be tough if the person doing the work was good. But each generation looses a bit of clarity and usually contrast too.

I learned a lot from my friend who collects 16mm movies.

There were a lot of different film stocks, Kodak made many different types as did many other companies.

Fortunately Kodak used datecodes on most of their film. And Fuji used datecodes too. This list mentions Kodak movie film specifically, but I've seen the codes on other types of negatives.

If the film has turned color- Redfor positives and some negatives for B+W done on color stock-I think green? for negatives ) it's usually from between the early 50's and 1981-2. Not all film with good color is older or newer. Kodachrome if it fades does it so little it won't be an issue in our lifetimes. And The kodacolor replacements labeled SP or LPP for movie film are much better-SP turns slighly brownish while LPP fades very little (Like only a very small bit of color density after 20+ years) I'm not sure which still filmstocks those match since the same emulsion might be used under different names.
http://www.film-center.com/dates.html

The plastic of the film changed a few times
Nitrate----*Can be a bit scary since it can self ignite and is hard to extinguish because it's also self oxidizing. I keep the little bit I own on the fridge. This was pretty much on its way out by the early 20's

CelluloseAcetate. Older safety film
Cellulosediacetate - A bit newer
Cellulose triacetate - Up to current.

All those are prone to breaking down and giving off acetic acid. They won't do it for sure, but once they start it's time to have a good dupe made as they'll eventually shrink and become brittle. I don't recall the approximate dates of when they changed. It's really tough to tell them apart. I've never found a reliable way short of scientific tests I don't have access to. They may burn, but if so only like a small candle.

Mylar/Estar ---Modernish to now. Not sure exactly when it began, maybe 70's. A bit thinner, It doesn't burn, doesn't melt until something like 800F and is hard to tear or break.

A much more detailed look here, again primarily for movie film, but a bit of it crosses over. Also some detailed info on non-US datecoding and production which can be very different. (Technicolor- dye printing onto B+W- ended in the US in 75 with the last feature film being Godfather II. Italy ran until 1980 and in the UK till 78 when it was sold to china ad used till the early 90's. It's been brought back for a few special projects)
http://www.brianpritchard.com/Date%20Codes.htm



Steve B

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by steve B

Lance has is right. Telling original from dupes can be tough if the person doing the work was good. But each generation looses a bit of clarity and usually contrast too.

I learned a lot from my friend who collects 16mm movies.

There were a lot of different film stocks, Kodak made many different types as did many other companies.

Fortunately Kodak used datecodes on most of their film. And Fuji used datecodes too. This list mentions Kodak movie film specifically, but I've seen the codes on other types of negatives.

If the film has turned color- Redfor positives and some negatives for B+W done on color stock-I think green? for negatives ) it's usually from between the early 50's and 1981-2. Not all film with good color is older or newer. Kodachrome if it fades does it so little it won't be an issue in our lifetimes. And The kodacolor replacements labeled SP or LPP for movie film are much better-SP turns slighly brownish while LPP fades very little (Like only a very small bit of color density after 20+ years) I'm not sure which still filmstocks those match since the same emulsion might be used under different names.
http://www.film-center.com/dates.html

The plastic of the film changed a few times
Nitrate----*Can be a bit scary since it can self ignite and is hard to extinguish because it's also self oxidizing. I keep the little bit I own on the fridge. This was pretty much on its way out by the early 20's

CelluloseAcetate. Older safety film
Cellulosediacetate - A bit newer
Cellulose triacetate - Up to current.

All those are prone to breaking down and giving off acetic acid. They won't do it for sure, but once they start it's time to have a good dupe made as they'll eventually shrink and become brittle. I don't recall the approximate dates of when they changed. It's really tough to tell them apart. I've never found a reliable way short of scientific tests I don't have access to. They may burn, but if so only like a small candle.

Mylar/Estar ---Modernish to now. Not sure exactly when it began, maybe 70's. A bit thinner, It doesn't burn, doesn't melt until something like 800F and is hard to tear or break.

A much more detailed look here, again primarily for movie film, but a bit of it crosses over. Also some detailed info on non-US datecoding and production which can be very different. (Technicolor- dye printing onto B+W- ended in the US in 75 with the last feature film being Godfather II. Italy ran until 1980 and in the UK till 78 when it was sold to china ad used till the early 90's. It's been brought back for a few special projects)
http://www.brianpritchard.com/Date%20Codes.htm



Steve B

GREAT info.. thanks Steve and Lance! Lance, that sandlot negative is sweet.
DRC..those negatives of legs are sweeter.

[Lordstan]

I own a couple. Here is one of my favorites.
I don't have any info as to the history or dating.

]

[thecatspajamas]

One more Burke, of the White Sox batboy. The strange swirly pattern in the background is actually a result of those areas being intentionally scratched on the original negative (scratch = light passing through = black area on the positive print). It seems a bit crude in its execution, but was apparently done to give some sort of definition to an otherwise indistinct background? (Makes it look like the place is on fire to me!) I've seen similar "alterations" on a number of Burke photos, usually with this same or similar background.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by steve B

Lance has is right. Telling original from dupes can be tough if the person doing the work was good. But each generation looses a bit of clarity and usually contrast too.

I learned a lot from my friend who collects 16mm movies.

There were a lot of different film stocks, Kodak made many different types as did many other companies.

Fortunately Kodak used datecodes on most of their film. And Fuji used datecodes too. This list mentions Kodak movie film specifically, but I've seen the codes on other types of negatives.

If the film has turned color- Redfor positives and some negatives for B+W done on color stock-I think green? for negatives ) it's usually from between the early 50's and 1981-2. Not all film with good color is older or newer. Kodachrome if it fades does it so little it won't be an issue in our lifetimes. And The kodacolor replacements labeled SP or LPP for movie film are much better-SP turns slighly brownish while LPP fades very little (Like only a very small bit of color density after 20+ years) I'm not sure which still filmstocks those match since the same emulsion might be used under different names.
http://www.film-center.com/dates.html

The plastic of the film changed a few times
Nitrate----*Can be a bit scary since it can self ignite and is hard to extinguish because it's also self oxidizing. I keep the little bit I own on the fridge. This was pretty much on its way out by the early 20's

CelluloseAcetate. Older safety film
Cellulosediacetate - A bit newer
Cellulose triacetate - Up to current.

All those are prone to breaking down and giving off acetic acid. They won't do it for sure, but once they start it's time to have a good dupe made as they'll eventually shrink and become brittle. I don't recall the approximate dates of when they changed. It's really tough to tell them apart. I've never found a reliable way short of scientific tests I don't have access to. They may burn, but if so only like a small candle.

Mylar/Estar ---Modernish to now. Not sure exactly when it began, maybe 70's. A bit thinner, It doesn't burn, doesn't melt until something like 800F and is hard to tear or break.

A much more detailed look here, again primarily for movie film, but a bit of it crosses over. Also some detailed info on non-US datecoding and production which can be very different. (Technicolor- dye printing onto B+W- ended in the US in 75 with the last feature film being Godfather II. Italy ran until 1980 and in the UK till 78 when it was sold to china ad used till the early 90's. It's been brought back for a few special projects)
http://www.brianpritchard.com/Date%20Codes.htm



Steve B

Steve,
Not sure if you're still looking at this thread, but do you know what a negative that is "breaking down and giving off acetic acid" looks like? I came across one as I was going through these that has a bright blue residue or staining on it, mostly around the edges (stands out as it is a b/w negative), and am just wondering if this is what you are talking about. It's scanned now, so the image won't be lost if it is starting to break down, but just curious. The negative is a "Safety Film" material with the shot being from 1941, so just over 70 years old.

Also, as an example of a GOOD copy negative, I found this one of Stan Hack that was re-shot by Burke from what appears to be a positive print (you can see the clips holding the original in place at the corners of the shot). In this case, I would guess that he shot the original himself as well, since it definitely looks like his studio work. There is a great deal of detail in the duplicate though, and if he had cropped his shot closer, it would have been difficult if not impossible to tell it from the original without having them side-by-side.

[steve B]

Unfortunately I do.......

The breakdown happens to pretty much all acetate film stock to some degree. An old piece of 35mm film that feels a bit brittle or less flexible than a newer piece has degraded slightly. Ones that have curled and won't flatten without a struggle have gone a bit farther. I have a few pieces that have shrunk to the point where scanning them would be a real problem. I'll eventually try to get them into a screwdown and see if they'll scan that way. If I run across one I'll get a pic. (No baseball, or anything important, just mildly interesting old photos)

Film that's been kept in a sealed container will give off an odor of vinegar. You don't see that often in negatives, but it's very common for movie film. Wether it gets that bad or not and just why isn't well understood. My friend who collects film believes it has a lot to do with the original processing, and/or certain cleaning processes that were used. There's one process that when he sees the name on the can he sets it aside because nearly every print they cleaned has gone bad. Metal cans seem to be worse than plastic cans as well. My guess is that they seal better.

Once the film offgasses acetic acid in a sealed space the whole thing feeds on itself.


The bright blue on a B+W negative is odd. I don't think it's from the film degrading. Any chance it's actually a B=W copy negative on color stock? I've seen stuff like that. Including a black and white movie faded to red.

I have a few odd bits of safety film, one of my favorites is a short commercially made 8mm movie that's on plastic that's a nice purple color. And it reacts to UV with a strong blue glow. It was made during WWII and I suspect it's something made to use while blacked out, maybe with a UV reactive screen. I've never seen any description of anything like it though, and my film collecting friend has only seen a couple of them in maybe 20 years.

Steve B

[repsher]

Hi Guys, I really enjoyed this thread. I've been collecting negatives for a few years but I just recently got my hands on a scanner that can scan them in. I will post some of the more significant ones as I get a chance to scan them in.

These 2 are George Burke negs of Herbert "Rap" Dixon from the Homestead Grays. I think they are significant not only because Dixon was a terrific player (he hit 3 hr's in Yankee stadium in a doubleheader) but also because I've never seen a Burke photo of a Negro league player before.
I'm sure they do exist and I hope someone can point that out, but I still think these negs are rare.

herbdixon(300)001.jpg


herbdixon(300)002.jpg

[thecatspajamas]

VERY nice, Ryan! I can't recall ever seeing another original George Burke negro league shot, either in print or negative form. Makes me wonder if this is one of those instances where he took the photos, but we've never seen them simply because nobody ever thought to request prints of those particular shots My understanding is that there are many many shots in the Burke/Brace archive that have never been seen since they were originally shot for that very reason, and not just of ball players either: "ciggy girls" and flappers, ushers and firemen, dancers and vaudeville performers, and anything else that life in Chicago had to offer. It makes me wonder what other gems are hidden among those thousands upon thousands of negatives that Burke and Brace accumulated, and I am quite envious of John Rogers for being the one to acquire the archive.

But back to the negative: is that an "N6" or "H6" at the top of the negative? (presumably N would be for Negro League, not sure what H would be for) Nevermind, I figured out that it's "HG" as in "Homestead Grays." Are there any other markings around the periphery, such as a number by itself (player code)? That might give a clue as to whether there are other players that he shot (seems like there should be some from the Chicago teams somewhere?) I would love to see scans of the full negatives, including borders, if you are able to do so with your scanner.

P.S. It's also worth noting that your negative pair displays the classic George Burke practice of 1 serious pose + 1 smiling pose (except for Charlie Root, whose response when asked to smile was, "This is a serious game. Don't ever ask me to smile.")

[71buc]

Originally Posted by repsher

Hi Guys, I really enjoyed this thread. I've been collecting negatives for a few years but I just recently got my hands on a scanner that can scan them in. I will post some of the more significant ones as I get a chance to scan them in.

These 2 are George Burke negs of Herbert "Rap" Dixon from the Homestead Grays. I think they are significant not only because Dixon was a terrific player (he hit 3 hr's in Yankee stadium in a doubleheader) but also because I've never seen a Burke photo of a Negro league player before.
I'm sure they do exist and I hope someone can point that out, but I still think these negs are rare.

Ryan those are incredible