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.

[Runscott]

Ben, I'm fairly sure you just picked up the original negative to your Type I photograph - great score!

Your print was made by straightening out the negative like this:

[GKreindler]

Great pick-up on the Ruth, Ben. Any idea whether the dark clouds behind Ruth appear on the negative? I would assume it was one of Burke's tricks to augment Ruth's silhouette. Very cool.

Mike, I LOVE that shot of Minnie. It would also make a killer painting!

I bought this one a few years ago for a steal. Well, sort of.



Since it has the unfortunate crack basically running through Ruth's face, I don't think anyone even wanted to touch it. But, I figured that in order to do a painting of it, all I would have to do is reconstruct his face using any of the 1000s of photographs of the great man. Granted, it doesn't 'fix' the original, but I guess that wasn't a huge concern for me.

So, I ended up only paying $100, which may seem like a lot for something so damaged, but I definitely thought it was worth the money in order to make a cool painting of a moment that few have ever seen before.

Graig

[drc]

Photographers use and have used both negatives and transparencies to make photographic prints. Transparencies are the same as negatives but the image is positive (normal). Many photographers make slides (transparencies in cardboard holders) to both keep on record and make photographic prints. Transparencies and slides can be easy to date due to format/text/design on the film and/or slide holder.

Just because I have them at hand, these are two of my favorite negatives (made positive to show). They're Karl Lagerfeld photos of Danish model Helena Christensen, shot for his fashion catalog. Lagerfeld shot all of the photos for his catalogs.

[Runscott]

Ben, I've straightened and superimposed part of the inverse of the negative over the print.

They are the same.

[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.

[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 Runscott

Ben, I've straightened and superimposed part of the inverse of the negative over the print.

They are the same.

Scott... now this is funny as just before I posted it I thought to myself(could this be the same image just turned?). I was in a hurry and too lazy to ck at the time. Thank you very much for pointing this out! Pretty cool I have both now.

[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.

[mybestbretts]

Great find Ben!

[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

[jerseygary]

Wow, that Dixon is great! I hope some others surface. It can be pretty accurately dated to 1936, the only year he played with the Grays - though the jersey style matches the type I have in photos from 1937. Since the Negro Leagues East-West All-Star Game was held every year in Chicago, perhaps Burke took the opportunity to go to Comiskey Park and take pictures. (Dixon only played in the '33 game so this isn't from an East-West Game.)

[Lordstan]

Very nice stuff Guys.
Love the batboy, Lance.

Here is my newest Negative courtesy of Henry Yee.

[repsher]

Thanks guys.
Lance - I will try and get the full negs scanned, the next time I'm scanning. The scanner I have (Epson 4990) I rescued from being trashed at work. Unfortunately I don't have and of the negative file holders with it. So I place the neg directly on the glass and to get it straight I line it up on the right side. I will try and get the full negs the just might not be so straight.

The information in your P.S. is awesome. Seems like I learn something new every time you post.

[repsher]

Awesome Lou negative Mark. I also like the guy on the left with the fountain pen looking to get his ball signed.

[Lordstan]

Thanks Ryan.
There were a couple similar in Henry's last grouping, but this is the one I really wanted. I always found these pics of players with children so endearing.

I have a question for the group. When scanning a negative, is it better to scan with the shiny side up or down and why?

Thanks all,
Mark

[steve B]

Shiny side up, The dull side is usually the actual emulsion with the image, shiny side is just the plastic. (Not necessarily true for ALL types of film, but for most.)

That way you don't get distortion from the plastic itself. Not usually a big problem, but the thickness can change things a tiny bit. It matters more for making contact prints than scanning.

Steve B

[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 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.

[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.

[CobbvLajoie1910]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

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.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Lance. I may have to re-think a couple of things re: storage. Good stuff.

[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.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by obcbeatle

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.

Glad to be giving you guys some (hopefully correct) insight. As far as the negative holders for the 4990, I know they made ones for 35 mm (multiple strips), slides, and medium format negatives. And the one I bought also came with an 8x10 template that was basically just a thin border (since the scanner bed is not much bigger than 8x10) and seemed very flimsy. There might have been one more size in there between medium format and 8x10 as well. I'll have to dig them out to confirm. Having the correct guides for the scanner allows some degree of automation in that it has presets so that, if you're using the slide scanner for instance, you just designate which of the pre-positioned slides you want to scan, and it knows what area to scan without you having to box it in. The down side is, if for some reason you WANT to capture all the way to the edge of the negative (not just the image area), that will fall outside the preset scan area. I guess that might not be a big deal, depending on what you were using the scans for, but I opted for the manual method rather than using the templates.

As for having prints made, I will have to defer to others' experiences in having labs do traditional prints. I would suggest going through an actual photo lab (i.e. not WalMart, Walgreens, etc) who will know what you're talking about. The prints that I have had made, I did the scan myself, cropped it to the size I wanted, cleaned up the image as necessary in photoshop, and sent the digital file for printing (in my case, to clarkcolor.com, though there are any number of outfits that will do similar work). If you save the image as a jpeg, just be sure to save it at the highest "quality" (assuming your image editing allows some choice in that matter) which should be comparable to a .tiff file. Purists are welcome to argue the accuracy of that statement, but again, with my lay eye, I can't tell the difference. Some programs that do not allow a choice on the jpeg "quality" definitely are not saving at the highest possible setting, so in that case, I suppose you should use .tiff (or a different imaging program).

If you're having the lab do the scanning, I have no idea which method of producing a print they would "prefer" or what the cost difference might be. I would suspect the traditional darkroom method would be more expensive than scanning and producing a digital print, simply because the traditional method is probably not the norm in most shops these days, but I don't have any hard experience to back that statement.

And let me just say, I don't mean to be monopolizing this thread. Certainly anyone else jump in and share their own experience and/or shoot down anything I've said. I've got thick skin, and would welcome any opportunity to learn from my mistakes and improve my methods. I hope it doesn't sound like I have any formal training in photography (because I don't). I have had most of these same questions myself at one time or another, and either found an answer on some photography website that I could never find again, or just used trial and error to figure out what worked for me as I went along.

[h2oya311]

I just scanned my recent Burke/Brace negative pick-ups. I love the clarity of the photos!!

Here are a few scans of HOFers while they were minor leaguers...Rizzuto, B. Williams, Reese (x2), and Brock (35mm):

[GKreindler]

GREAT shots, Derek. I fell in love with the Rizzuto the moment I saw it.

Graig

[Scott Garner]

I agree with Craig, these images are really terrific!! Congrats!

[h2oya311]

Thanks guys...they fit nicely wih my collection, so figured I "had to have them". Wasn't sure what I was getting into w/ negatives, but they were too cool to pass up.

[obcbeatle]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Glad to be giving you guys some (hopefully correct) insight. As far as the negative holders for the 4990, I know they made ones for 35 mm (multiple strips), slides, and medium format negatives. And the one I bought also came with an 8x10 template that was basically just a thin border (since the scanner bed is not much bigger than 8x10) and seemed very flimsy. There might have been one more size in there between medium format and 8x10 as well. I'll have to dig them out to confirm. Having the correct guides for the scanner allows some degree of automation in that it has presets so that, if you're using the slide scanner for instance, you just designate which of the pre-positioned slides you want to scan, and it knows what area to scan without you having to box it in. The down side is, if for some reason you WANT to capture all the way to the edge of the negative (not just the image area), that will fall outside the preset scan area. I guess that might not be a big deal, depending on what you were using the scans for, but I opted for the manual method rather than using the templates.

As for having prints made, I will have to defer to others' experiences in having labs do traditional prints. I would suggest going through an actual photo lab (i.e. not WalMart, Walgreens, etc) who will know what you're talking about. The prints that I have had made, I did the scan myself, cropped it to the size I wanted, cleaned up the image as necessary in photoshop, and sent the digital file for printing (in my case, to clarkcolor.com, though there are any number of outfits that will do similar work). If you save the image as a jpeg, just be sure to save it at the highest "quality" (assuming your image editing allows some choice in that matter) which should be comparable to a .tiff file. Purists are welcome to argue the accuracy of that statement, but again, with my lay eye, I can't tell the difference. Some programs that do not allow a choice on the jpeg "quality" definitely are not saving at the highest possible setting, so in that case, I suppose you should use .tiff (or a different imaging program).

If you're having the lab do the scanning, I have no idea which method of producing a print they would "prefer" or what the cost difference might be. I would suspect the traditional darkroom method would be more expensive than scanning and producing a digital print, simply because the traditional method is probably not the norm in most shops these days, but I don't have any hard experience to back that statement.

And let me just say, I don't mean to be monopolizing this thread. Certainly anyone else jump in and share their own experience and/or shoot down anything I've said. I've got thick skin, and would welcome any opportunity to learn from my mistakes and improve my methods. I hope it doesn't sound like I have any formal training in photography (because I don't). I have had most of these same questions myself at one time or another, and either found an answer on some photography website that I could never find again, or just used trial and error to figure out what worked for me as I went along.

Lance ... thanks again for all your feedback. It's always appreciated! You have definitely cleared up some of my confusion :-) This has been a great thread!

Derek ... those are some great early shots of Rizzuto, Pee Wee, Williams and Brock. I wish I could find negatives like those! I particularly like the Brock with his cool uniform. Thanks for sharing!

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by h2oya311

I just scanned my recent Burke/Brace negative pick-ups. I love the clarity of the photos!!

Here are a few scans of HOFers while they were minor leaguers...Rizzuto, B. Williams, Reese (x2), and Brock (35mm):

Derek, very nice! I must admit to being a bit envious, as those are right in two of my current keenest areas of interest: George Burke and nice minor league images. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, can you tell me what sizes these are and if there is any coding around the margins (I can see Rizzuto's 4032 AA3, and the 1st Reese looks like 3923 AA4, but want to be sure before recording them in my notes and see if there is anything not visible in the scans).

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Derek, very nice! I must admit to being a bit envious, as those are right in two of my current keenest areas of interest: George Burke and nice minor league images. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, can you tell me what sizes these are and if there is any coding around the margins (I can see Rizzuto's 4032 AA3, and the 1st Reese looks like 3923 AA4, but want to be sure before recording them in my notes and see if there is anything not visible in the scans).

Thanks for the kind words...I'll let you know if they ever become available. From what I can tell, (1) the Brock is a 35mm (Brace) negative and does not have any markings and is about 1"x1", (2) the Billy Williams (Burke) photo negative has no markings, (3) both Reese (Burke) photo negatives have 3923-AA4 at top, and (4) the Rizzuto (Burke) negative has 4032-AA3 on it. All of the Burke negatives are around 4"x5".

I hope this helps. Thanks again for all the insight on this post.