Original negatives

[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.

[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.

[steve B]

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

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

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

Steve B

[thecatspajamas]

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

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

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

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

[Lordstan]

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

Thanks for the kind words as well.

Best,
Mark

[steve B]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

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

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

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

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

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

Steve B

[obcbeatle]

Originally Posted by steve B

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

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

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

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

Steve B

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

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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!