Original negatives

[Forever Young]

I have been underbidder on several original negatives in the past. I figured I would pick one up from the Burke/Brace liquidation. Below is my first; original Ruth BURKE/BRACE Portrait negative.
Anyone else collect these? I would love to add an original glass negative but they can get up there in price.

It seems like there are a lot of dupe acetate negatives out there. Anyone consider themselves an expert on original negatives here?

[thecatspajamas]

Hey Ben,
Nice pick-up! I've got a few Burke negatives that I picked up a year (or two?) ago when a number of them were being sold through eBay seller "sfxarchive", though none as "high profile" as yours. I'm still not 100% sure where that hoard originated (as in, from a private collection, or an early testing the waters from the main Burke/Brace archive, or perhaps even from the negatives that made their way into the hands of Jim Rowe). I'm also still not sure how to deal with them. All will be re-sold eventually, but I'm leaning towards having a modern print made from each to better show the quality and pairing that with the original negative. Someday. When I get around to it.

As for copy negatives, I'm sure it varies from one photographer to the next, but I have a strong suspicion that Burke just took multiple shots if he needed multiple negatives rather than making copy negatives. I say this because there have been a number of instances where I spotted a negative that I recognized the player/pose as one of the ones commonly found, but upon close comparison, there were subtle differences. Definitely the same session, but not the exact same one used elsewhere. This also happens pretty regularly when comparing the shots used for photo postcards ordered from Burke/Brace vs. those used for Goudey and Play Ball card issues that used almost the same shot.

I wouldn't consider myself an expert though, and this is all based on observation rather than direct questioning of anyone with first-hand knowledge (which at this point, I suppose would be Mary Brace (George's daughter), or perhaps whoever it is with John Rogers' group who is handling the archive).

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Hey Ben,
Nice pick-up! I've got a few Burke negatives that I picked up a year (or two?) ago when a number of them were being sold through eBay seller "sfxarchive", though none as "high profile" as yours. I'm still not 100% sure where that hoard originated (as in, from a private collection, or an early testing the waters from the main Burke/Brace archive, or perhaps even from the negatives that made their way into the hands of Jim Rowe). I'm also still not sure how to deal with them. All will be re-sold eventually, but I'm leaning towards having a modern print made from each to better show the quality and pairing that with the original negative. Someday. When I get around to it.

As for copy negatives, I'm sure it varies from one photographer to the next, but I have a strong suspicion that Burke just took multiple shots if he needed multiple negatives rather than making copy negatives. I say this because there have been a number of instances where I spotted a negative that I recognized the player/pose as one of the ones commonly found, but upon close comparison, there were subtle differences. Definitely the same session, but not the exact same one used elsewhere. This also happens pretty regularly when comparing the shots used for photo postcards ordered from Burke/Brace vs. those used for Goudey and Play Ball card issues that used almost the same shot.

I wouldn't consider myself an expert though, and this is all based on observation rather than direct questioning of anyone with first-hand knowledge (which at this point, I suppose would be Mary Brace (George's daughter), or perhaps whoever it is with John Rogers' group who is handling the archive).

Lance, no doubt that is the case with Burke. I also own an original TYPE 1 photo that is very similar to the negative I just purchased below.
I was hoping, however, that there was science to determine original negatives from dupes created later. There are a lot of suspect "original acetate negatives" that cycle through ebay that I doubt are original. I think many are made later from a photo. I am guessing acetate didn't change as much as paper did(determine age of photos). It would be tough to determine even if it did. There are indicators on the Burke negs so I am assuming your right in that it varies from photographer to photographer. I would love to see your examples.

[thecatspajamas]

I am sure there are nuances with the film material itself, as with the watermark on the back of many photo papers, that could give an approximate date that the film itself was produced. I vaguely recall trying to research it when the ones I was looking at first started popping up, getting very confused by the scant information I was finding, and then just buying a couple to see for myself what they were. Once I was satisfied that they were original and not later copy negatives, I wound up buying quite a few more (probably 200+). Of course, with the number of negatives now flowing forth from the liquidation, that's just a drop in the bucket of what's out there.

If nobody else jumps in with real knowledge of the subject, I'll see if I can find (or recreate) the research I did at the time. And either way, I will try to scan some of the negatives I have after tomorrow night's eBay listings are up and running.

[71buc]

Ben,
I was watching that Ruth as well. It certainly found a nice home. Great pick up. I have purchased a few negatives. Nothing as significant as that Ruth. I obtained a Brace neg of Sam Hairston and a few news paper negatives.

I had always wondered what a modern lab could do with them. A couple of weeks ago I took them to a local photo lab and asked that they be printed in a dark room rather than digitally. It was expensive but worth the time and efffort. Did your Ruth come in an glassine envelope? My Brace neg came that way. The news photos all came in a small manilla paper sleve with a slip of notes that were to appear on the slug.

[kdixon]

Zach.

[Frozen in Time]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

I have been underbidder on several original negatives in the past. I figured I would pick one up from the Burke/Brace liquidation. Below is my first; original Ruth BURKE/BRACE Portrait negative.
Anyone else collect these? I would love to add an original glass negative but they can get up there in price.

It seems like there are a lot of dupe acetate negatives out there. Anyone consider themselves an expert on original negatives here?

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Lordstan]

Steve,
Thank you very much.
Now I have to rescan some negatives.
Mark

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[thecatspajamas]

It depends on what kind of scanner you're using as well. Some, like the Epson 4990 that Ryan mentioned (same as I have) actually scan from both sides (which is why the lid is so heavy and has to be countersprung). Most of the desktop scanners that handle up to medium format negatives only scan from one side though, with a backlight in the lid, so I would agree that you would want emulsion side down, shiny side up in those cases. It's been a while since I've scanned negatives, so I can't recall which side I lay up. Probably whichever one makes a scan that I don't have to flip in photoshop to view correctly.

Ryan, on your comment about not having the templates for the various sizes of negatives to align them properly, I personally find it much easier to just lay the larger 4"x5" and 5"x7" negatives on the glass and align them by eyeballing it, then doing any fine correction necessary in photoshop. I just leave about an inch between the edge of the negative and the outside edge of the scanner bed, and can usually get pretty close. Sometimes I might use the template/carriage for 35mm film, but that's more because they tend to curl more. Even at that, I'm often too impatient, and will just straighten in photoshop (since I can do that quicker than I can fumble around with the scanning template).

I do know that it's a very good idea to wear gloves while working with the negatives though, as fingerprints on the emulsion surface are nigh-impossible to remove (I imagine a professional would have ways to do it, but from my amateur perspective, better to just be careful on the front end).

Also I might note that, while it seems like it would be common sense to protect the emulsion surface foremost since that is where the image resides, I have on at least 2 occasions purchased negatives that arrived with sticky notes stuck directly to the emulsion surface. Don't do that. In each case it appeared to have been done recently enough that the image was not affected, but I cringed when I pulled them out of their envelope.

Just a few notes from personal experience. Not meant to be professional advice

[thecatspajamas]

And Mark, I can't remember if I said before, but I REALLY like that shot of Gehrig with the little girl. I don't know if you are aware, but it appears in Brace's book "The Game That Was" along with the other Gehrig with kids shots that Henry had in his last auction (I had forgotten, but was looking up the Charlie Root quote when I stumbled across them again).

I'm a big softie for the shots with kids in them. Hanging over the dugout roof, running enthusiastically on the field, posing shyly with their heroes. Love 'em.

[obcbeatle]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

It depends on what kind of scanner you're using as well. Some, like the Epson 4990 that Ryan mentioned (same as I have) actually scan from both sides (which is why the lid is so heavy and has to be countersprung). Most of the desktop scanners that handle up to medium format negatives only scan from one side though, with a backlight in the lid, so I would agree that you would want emulsion side down, shiny side up in those cases. It's been a while since I've scanned negatives, so I can't recall which side I lay up. Probably whichever one makes a scan that I don't have to flip in photoshop to view correctly.

Ryan, on your comment about not having the templates for the various sizes of negatives to align them properly, I personally find it much easier to just lay the larger 4"x5" and 5"x7" negatives on the glass and align them by eyeballing it, then doing any fine correction necessary in photoshop. I just leave about an inch between the edge of the negative and the outside edge of the scanner bed, and can usually get pretty close. Sometimes I might use the template/carriage for 35mm film, but that's more because they tend to curl more. Even at that, I'm often too impatient, and will just straighten in photoshop (since I can do that quicker than I can fumble around with the scanning template).

I do know that it's a very good idea to wear gloves while working with the negatives though, as fingerprints on the emulsion surface are nigh-impossible to remove (I imagine a professional would have ways to do it, but from my amateur perspective, better to just be careful on the front end).

Also I might note that, while it seems like it would be common sense to protect the emulsion surface foremost since that is where the image resides, I have on at least 2 occasions purchased negatives that arrived with sticky notes stuck directly to the emulsion surface. Don't do that. In each case it appeared to have been done recently enough that the image was not affected, but I cringed when I pulled them out of their envelope.

Just a few notes from personal experience. Not meant to be professional advice

Great thread! On the topic of scanning negatives ... I don't have a scanner that supports scanning negatives. It's just a cheap CanonScan LIDE 35 with no carriage for the negatives and no light in the lid. So ... is it safe to put a negative on the scanner bed just to see if I can scan a negative? I assume it might damage the emulsion side of the negative? I'm dying to scan a couple negatives I bought awhile back. If not I'll just go to a pro photo lab and have them scan and print a photo as I originally intended. Also ... if anyone wants to chime in on a good inexpensive scanner for negatives I'd appreciate the tip. I doubt one exists. Most of the scanners I've looked at are out of my price range at the moment. Thanks!

[CobbvLajoie1910]

Lance -- thank you for all of your insight. This has been a great thread.

Question. How do you store your negatives? I have several I've moved into rigid top-loaders for display/easy access reasons. Though, I'm concerned that, over time, the plastic may affect the image.

Would this be problematic, or am I on the right track?

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by CobbvLajoie1910

Lance -- thank you for all of your insight. This has been a great thread.

Question. How do you store your negatives? I have several I've moved into rigid top-loaders for display/easy access reasons. Though, I'm concerned that, over time, the plastic may affect the image.

Would this be problematic, or am I on the right track?

My honest answer would have to be "I don't know." I can tell you what I have done, but I'm not to the point yet where I can observe long term effects and tell first-hand whether the storage should have been done differently.

For most of the negatives that I have, I place the negative in glassine envelopes and then place the envelope in a toploader for rigidity. The glassine envelopes I purchased are specifically for archival storage of negatives, so I figure that part is safe, though them being in toploaders does add quite a bit of thickness meaning they take up more space. Then I store the toploaded negs in a box somewhere dark. For some small negatives and slides, I have also been known to place them in a standard card soft sleeve, slip that into a standard card toploader, and store them right along with the regular baseball cards.

That's just what I do though. I have purchased a many negatives from the 1930's to 1960's or so that were simply stored in a manila envelope, sometimes several to an envelope, with identification information written on the outside, and presumably filed in a file cabinet somewhere for decades. Whether this had any effect on the negative or its image quality I don't know, but if so, it was not something my lay eye could discern.

My understanding is that exposure to light and high temperatures (both to be avoided) should be of more concern than what medium the negative is stored in. I would caution when using toploaders that you should probably slip the negative into a sleeve of some sort before sliding it into the toploader to avoid creating any scratches in the image. Otherwise, just avoid high heat storage areas, and keep them in the dark.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by obcbeatle

Great thread! On the topic of scanning negatives ... I don't have a scanner that supports scanning negatives. It's just a cheap CanonScan LIDE 35 with no carriage for the negatives and no light in the lid. So ... is it safe to put a negative on the scanner bed just to see if I can scan a negative? I assume it might damage the emulsion side of the negative? I'm dying to scan a couple negatives I bought awhile back. If not I'll just go to a pro photo lab and have them scan and print a photo as I originally intended. Also ... if anyone wants to chime in on a good inexpensive scanner for negatives I'd appreciate the tip. I doubt one exists. Most of the scanners I've looked at are out of my price range at the moment. Thanks!

Putting a negative on the bed of your scanner wouldn't be any different than putting it directly on the bed of a scanner intended for negatives. Just be sure that the bed (glass) is clean and dry, and try not to slide the negative around too much. Basically, you're just trying not to scratch up the emulsion surface, which would do permanent damage to the image.

I can tell you right now though, if you don't have a backlight, you won't get good results. There has to be a good bit of light passing through the film for the scanner to properly capture the image (otherwise it will turn out very dark, and may not be viewable at all). You can try rigging up your own backlight, which I did at first, with mixed results. The key with doing your own backlight is to have some sort of opaque white material that will diffuse the light source but also be "textureless" so that it doesn't mess with the image you're actually trying to scan. Most desktop scanners with backlights in the lid basically just have a series of small lights (LED I assume, though I've never disassembled one to see) with a piece of opaque white plastic over them. You can use a piece of white paper instead of the plastic, to some degree, but even that will translate texture to the image at the high resolutions that you will be scanning the negatives.

As for recommendations, it depends somewhat on what size of negatives you are planning on scanning. Many of the less expensive desktop scanners will do 35mm, standard slides, and negatives up to 2" wide. If you're needing to go larger, the number of available models start dropping. For myself, I was needing to do anywhere from 35mm up to 8"x10", which limited my choices to the Epson 4990 or the Epson V700. I can't remember now if Epson was the only manufacturer with scanners that would handle 8x10 negs, or if I limited my scope to Epson because of my satisfaction with the Epson 3490 that is still my workhorse scanner (just not for negatives, though it will technically do up to 2"x2" negs). I don't think either is being manufactured any more, but you can keep an eye on eBay for one, usually in the $300-400 range, perhaps a little less if you don't need the film guides.

Whatever route you go, if buying a new (or new to you) scanner, I think it would be prudent to be sure the scanning element is CCD based (which allows some "depth" to whatever is being scanned, rather than it having to be directly against the glass). I'm not even sure if there are non-CCD negative scanners, but I think that would be a necessity if you are using any of the film carriages that hold the film in place since in those cases there is actually a slight separation between the film and the scanner's glass.

[obcbeatle]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Putting a negative on the bed of your scanner wouldn't be any different than putting it directly on the bed of a scanner intended for negatives. Just be sure that the bed (glass) is clean and dry, and try not to slide the negative around too much. Basically, you're just trying not to scratch up the emulsion surface, which would do permanent damage to the image.

I can tell you right now though, if you don't have a backlight, you won't get good results. There has to be a good bit of light passing through the film for the scanner to properly capture the image (otherwise it will turn out very dark, and may not be viewable at all). You can try rigging up your own backlight, which I did at first, with mixed results. The key with doing your own backlight is to have some sort of opaque white material that will diffuse the light source but also be "textureless" so that it doesn't mess with the image you're actually trying to scan. Most desktop scanners with backlights in the lid basically just have a series of small lights (LED I assume, though I've never disassembled one to see) with a piece of opaque white plastic over them. You can use a piece of white paper instead of the plastic, to some degree, but even that will translate texture to the image at the high resolutions that you will be scanning the negatives.

As for recommendations, it depends somewhat on what size of negatives you are planning on scanning. Many of the less expensive desktop scanners will do 35mm, standard slides, and negatives up to 2" wide. If you're needing to go larger, the number of available models start dropping. For myself, I was needing to do anywhere from 35mm up to 8"x10", which limited my choices to the Epson 4990 or the Epson V700. I can't remember now if Epson was the only manufacturer with scanners that would handle 8x10 negs, or if I limited my scope to Epson because of my satisfaction with the Epson 3490 that is still my workhorse scanner (just not for negatives, though it will technically do up to 2"x2" negs). I don't think either is being manufactured any more, but you can keep an eye on eBay for one, usually in the $300-400 range, perhaps a little less if you don't need the film guides.

Whatever route you go, if buying a new (or new to you) scanner, I think it would be prudent to be sure the scanning element is CCD based (which allows some "depth" to whatever is being scanned, rather than it having to be directly against the glass). I'm not even sure if there are non-CCD negative scanners, but I think that would be a necessity if you are using any of the film carriages that hold the film in place since in those cases there is actually a slight separation between the film and the scanner's glass.

Thanks for the informative reply Lance. I think I will need to have something like a Epson 4990 since I will have multiple size negatives. I'll have to check what size negative holders were made for the Epson 4990's first though ... and save some more $ :-) As an aside ... I was planning to go to a photo lab for a few prints from a couple of the negatives I have. I assumed they would scan and then make a print. But I saw earlier in this thread that someone had the lab use a dark room for their prints. Not being real familiar with the printing processes these days I was wondering if I should ask the lab to use their darkroom to make the print? Or maybe they will anyway if they scan/digitize my negatives first? Also ... once you've scanned an image with your Epson 4990, do you then take the negative image (tiff?) to the lab for modern prints? If so ... I assume it's less expensive since they don't have to do the scanning? Sorry for my ignorance. Thanks again for the feedback.