Original negatives- underrated? Show yours

[mikejanesphotography]

The Digital Archive Group that purchased what was left over, 225,000 negatives, said they own the rights to all images now, including the ones Rogers sold off without permission as he scanned them and they have the digital copies. They're giving them away to all the teams to fill out their archives. So guess the collection is still together technically speaking.

[thecatspajamas]

So how is it that DAG have the digital copies of the negatives that Rogers scanned and sold off prior to them purchasing the remainder of the archive?

[Keith_Loving]

TDAG: http://www.digitalarchivegroup.com/

Here is their recent blog where they seek baseball club owners to contact them http://www.digitalarchivegroup.com/t...ge-collection/

[mikejanesphotography]

They answered my questions on their Facebook page...


"The Digital Archive Group So, my company now holds rights to all physical and digital rights to the entire collection, regardless of what Rogers sold. The court case is officially closed."

"The Digital Archive Group Yes. He scanned the ones that were sold off and I have that digital copy."

If had known about an auctions pretty sure a bunch of people here would have been involved, wonder why it went under the radar so much?

Also thought the same thing about Mary Brace, she should have been given them back, however she was awarded over $800,000 in missed payments. Though, in the original deal she was supposed to get digital copies of everything, doesn't look like that happened but not entirely sure on that since they do not mention that. Also says the teams will get them exclusively, which think is a mistake - the Hall of Fame should have them, Mary should have them, and if it were in my possession there'd be a site dedicated to them!

Hate seeing archives disappear, and unfortunately it seems this one will - though it won't be broken up, the average person will never see these scans unless team releases them. Wish a writer would dig deeper on all this...

[Keith_Loving]

I am hoping the scanned images could be made available for purchase through a site like gettyimages. Seems like many Conlon is available on gettyimages. I've bought a dozen scans myself from gettyimages and would buy more if this archive was made available. Here is hope in a few years time, this archive and metadata can be searched and scans can be bought.

[mikejanesphotography]

Originally Posted by Keith_Loving

I am hoping the scanned images could be made available for purchase through a site like gettyimages. Seems like many Conlon is available on gettyimages. I've bought a dozen scans myself from gettyimages and would buy more if this archive was made available. Here is hope in a few years time, this archive and metadata can be searched and scans can be bought.

I am not thrilled reading that they want to have the ball club to contact them for exclusivity of their photos. I'd say that would be a mistake. As they should make that scans available for purchase by the general public as well. I plan on e-mailing them again next week to see if I can get any information on a certain player that interests me.

I posted that as well, saying if had known would have bought and made the money back via licensing as Getty does. It's just odd that teams would be the only ones getting them, if they went to the Hall of Fame you could purchase copies and help out the HOF at the same time, teams though depends on if they have a good system in place or not, many not so sure they do.

[Keith_Loving]

Kelch Returning Brace Collection To Teams

(this was a one-on-one interview we had with Kelch on Thursday afternoon. This all original content for these pages.)

Jeffrey Kelch, CEO of Digital Archive Group, the group that purchased the remants of the massive George Brace collection in a January court-ordered auction, is finally going public with the details of that purchase. And what he had to say was remarkable.

Kelch, contacted this week, isn’t ready to spill all the details, but the headline is that the Brace collection was actually purchased intact. The auction, conducted in the aftermath of the collapse of the Rogers digital images empire, drew only $46,500 as the winning bid -- a modest amount dwarfed by the $1.8 million that the Conlon Collection (also a Rogers acquisition) had drawn the previous August.

“We have been trying to acquire the collection from Mary Brace for the last three or four years,” Kelch said. “But her asking price was a steady $2 million. She finally got someone to meet her price – even though she would only wind up getting about half that. What she didn’t get were the rights.”

Meanwhile, as authorities were closing in on Rogers, he was busily selling the elite players out of the Brace file – Robinson, Mantle, Ruth (with four different teams as a player and coach), Gehrig – seemingly stripping the massive collection of much of its value. But Rogers was no fool. He did not sell the rights, and the numerous court claims on his estate prevented them from reverting to Mary Brace, despite an agreement with Rogers.

“Rogers was all about selling as much as he could as quickly as he could to make a quick buck, and as a result a lot of the best players were gone. But they missed a lot of stuff,” Kelch said. “And the one thing Rogers did – everything he sold, he copied digitally.”

The January auction, conducted by the executor of the Rogers estate, was held to pay off claims with whatever the remaining negatives would bring. But the digital copies were also part of the lot that Kelch’s group won – a gold mine that was still there.

“We had digital copies of everything,” he explained. “Some 250,000 images, with all rights.”

But the wrinkle is that, for all the years that Kelch pursued the collection, he has had a specific destination in mind.

“I have no interest in holding onto these images,” he said. “I bought them with the idea of returning them to the original organizations – images and rights. We intend to return the entire collection back to the teams.”

One thing Kelch did almost immediately was to assure Mary Brace that the collection would not be sold piecemeal, and has kept his word in the months since.

Kelch’s Illinois-based group went about the painstaking process of organizing the collection, even as Digital Archive entered into negotiations with every major league organization separately for their own unique treasure trove. But he wisely did not merely put the Brace photos out in a vacuum.

“We want to work with the clubs to allow them to have a better understanding of the players in the photos, who they were,” Kelch said. “Like Wimpy Quinn; he pitched in five games for the Cubs, went off to World War II, never to play again. He's there.”

An admitted diehard Cubs fan, Kelch said that his beloved Cubbies were one of “seven or eight” clubs which which Digital Archive had come to terms with over the Brace images. The process is ongoing.

“We’re not in a hurry,” he said. “We’re not giving them away. There were a lot of costs involved in production and organization. But we are not selling them to individual collectors.”

For the time being, Kelch is happy to gradually return the Brace Collection to the teams. After all, their cooperation and access allowed Brace and his camera to have a unique place in the history of the sport in the 20th century. A longer term goal for Kelch is to find other such collections from Brace’s contemporaries in order to return them to the teams in order to protect their own history.

“We haven’t even talked about what we’d do if a team does not want its images,” Kelch said. “There’s always the Hall of Fame.”

SOURCE

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by Keith_Loving

I am hoping the scanned images could be made available for purchase through a site like gettyimages. Seems like many Conlon is available on gettyimages. I've bought a dozen scans myself from gettyimages and would buy more if this archive was made available. Here is hope in a few years time, this archive and metadata can be searched and scans can be bought.

Problem is, Getty is selling the digital image files for $500+ and they are intended for editorial use only. If someone were to sell prints of the images (legally) they would not only need rights to the images but also rights to the team logos. That's how they get ya.

[mikejanesphotography]

Originally Posted by TCMA

Problem is, Getty is selling the digital image files for $500+ and they are intended for editorial use only. If someone were to sell prints of the images (legally) they would not only need rights to the images but also rights to the team logos. That's how they get ya.

Legally a stand alone print is editorial, it's been challenged and courts have been very clear that selling a print is not commercial. If it wasn't imagine all the lawsuits against photographers and newspapers. There's photographers who sell their work today (Walter Iooss, meager starting price of $2,000 for an 11x14). Leagues of course look at it as a commercial product and require licensing, and if you don't want to cooperate they have the power to shut you down....though literally thousands, if not millions, of photos are for sale on eBay, most stolen.

Topps got sued by Buzz Aldrin and a lower court ruled it was a historic event so they did not need permission from him, it fell under editorial because of its significance. It unfortunately got settled before the appeal happened, as many wanted to see if higher courts would also rule the same.

[mikejanesphotography]

...other question is now that the Conlon Collection was sold, does Getty still have the rights to sell them? They're still listed under the Rogers Photo Archive, if someone else owns the rights now does Getty still have the right to sell them?

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by mikejanesphotography

Legally a stand alone print is editorial, it's been challenged and courts have been very clear that selling a print is not commercial.

Please provide a source for this info. Even if that is the case, anyone selling prints online wouldn't be selling standalone prints. They'd be producing many multiples and offering them as made-to-order items. If it got big enough the leagues could take action for copyright and trademark infringement.

Trust me, I'd love to see it happen but I think there are many legal hurdles that need to be considered.

Originally Posted by mikejanesphotography

Leagues of course look at it as a commercial product and require licensing, and if you don't want to cooperate they have the power to shut you down....though literally thousands, if not millions, of photos are for sale on eBay, most stolen.

Correct. Which is why everyone involved in this lawsuit is royally screwed. Several eBay stores were obtaining images through this guy:

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/f...te-fb-forums)/

http://press.gettyimages.com/stateme...r-a-kowalczuk/








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Keith_Loving]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

More original conlon images outside of neg collection? Yes.. nany more

Interesting, I wonder what happened to the other negatives for the other Conlon images. Surely, the other Conlon negatives must exist somewhere as well?

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by Keith_Loving

Interesting, I wonder what happened to the other negatives for the other Conlon images. Surely, the other Conlon negatives must exist somewhere as well?

There are lots of original photos and several negs in the archive I work with. We have everything separated alphabetically though, so it'd be a lot of work to figure out exactly what's there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GKreindler]

Conlon destroyed a ton of negatives himself, supposedly because of the amount of space they took up. But there are definitely a lot of original photos that have survived and made their way to various auctions, even as far back as the Christie's Baseball Magazine auctions 20 years ago.

Andrew, granted I wasn't there for super long, but when I perused Photofile's archives almost ten years ago, I didn't remember seeing any Conlons. Admittedly, I was only looking for specific players though, and it was what seems like forever ago. Regardless, they do have a ton of really nice and expensive stuff.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

Conlon destroyed a ton of negatives himself, supposedly because of the amount of space they took up. But there are definitely a lot of original photos that have survived and made their way to various auctions, even as far back as the Christie's Baseball Magazine auctions 20 years ago.

Andrew, granted I wasn't there for super long, but when I perused Photofile's archives almost ten years ago, I didn't remember seeing any Conlons. Admittedly, I was only looking for specific players though, and it was what seems like forever ago. Regardless, they do have a ton of really nice and expensive stuff.

Graig, I think it's great you got to take a look at the archive. End up pulling anything? Lots and lots of great stuff in there. Most if not all of the archive was accumulated by my father and was his resource for creating TCMA cards in the 70's and 80's.

There are four Conlon glass negs that I'm aware of but likely more. Will post some pics later this evening .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TCMA]

So here is a Judge Landis, followed by a Zack Wheat with the Brooklyn Robins in 1919. Based on the handwriting I'm guessing this is a Conlon but could use some opinions on that. Either way, 1919 makes Wheat the oldest glass plate negative I've come across in our archive so far:

[mikejanesphotography]

I will say it probably could be challenged and would be a very interesting case to follow because a lot of legal definitions that have stood for awhile could get redefined. However, since it's a first amendment issue and always viewed pretty liberally and wide reaching, I honestly do not think a league would ever go far with the case because it could not work out in their favor, and that could open up Pandoras Box so to speak (of course it already exists kind of). I know of two photographers who challenged two different leagues, no suit, just banned.

Anyways, the case remember most you can look at is probably IPA (Illinois Press Association) vs. IHSA (Illinois High School Association). It got "settled" by the IPA getting everything they wanted, the court said the IHSA could not stop them from selling prints because it's constitutionally protected and they also could not limit access (this of course we know is different in major sporting events, they can deny anyone they want, which is a good thing!).

The leagues do not care about copyright issues, that's the photographers and agencies responsibility to worry about (unless the photo is league owned). Players Association worries about likeness, leagues worry about trademark. There's literally thousands of sellers illegally selling stolen photos on eBay, the leagues do not care one bit because it's copyright infringement, not trademark.

Alan could get a good amount of jail time, there's more on that list as well as he wasn't the only one doing it, just seems to be the stupidest one who posted it everywhere and didn't do a good job being sly about it. Two print labs that were doing most the printing of stolen pics had to turn over their order history to the feds. I hope they stick it to him and the others hard, some of the boards he was using deleted the photo sections thus destroying evidence, could get interesting.

Doesn't have much to do with negatives though, if you own the rights to an old negative and selling prints nobody is going to sue over it. If you don't own the rights then whoever does might and could come after you, and if it's an orphaned work it's illegal to even scan it. Fun world we live in.

[GKreindler]

Andrew, those definitely look like Conlons to me! What's interesting is that you don't see a whole lot of shots of his from Ebbets Field - the majority are from Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds (And Hilltop Park in the earlier days). Even the ones from Washington Park are few and far between, with the exception of those batting practice photos when Pittsburgh was in town.

Also, your dad had some excellent taste - there's a lot of iconic images in there. I remember getting one image of Mickey Mantle from 1957, but I think that was it. Chuck was super nice to grant access to the place, and the project we did together was fun, though I wish more came from it - I can't believe how long ago it was!!

[horzverti]

The Wheat is definitely a Conlon. No doubt. A beauty! Thanks for sharing.

I would say that the Landis is most likely not a Conlon. From what I have seen, Charlie was fairly consistent with his player/team identification and other markings on the top edge of his negatives. Much like you see on the Wheat. Then again, there is a chance that he just didn't mark the Landis neg.

Is the Landis the same size as the Wheat? The Wheat should be 4 x 5.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

lWhat's interesting is that you don't see a whole lot of shots of his from Ebbets Field - the majority are from Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds (And Hilltop Park in the earlier days).

Interesting. I do know we've got two other Dodgers that he shot: Paul Richards and Max Carey but those are from the 30's. Will have to do some more digging when I'm back in the office this week.

Also, your dad had some excellent taste - there's a lot of iconic images in there.

Thanks, Graig and I absolutely agree - great stuff. If you take a look online at the old TCMA cards (and they produced a LOT of different sets back in the day), many of those images are still in the archive either as original photos or negatives. Some are offered on Photo Files website, others are tucked away forever most likely.

Still, I'm always coming across images I never knew existed and my jaw hits the floor.

In my mind, the MOST iconic image is this Lou Gehrig that is part of our glass plate negative collection originating from The New York Sun. My father bought this collection containing hundreds of glass plate negs from an antique shop in CT in 1969:








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by horzverti

The Wheat is definitely a Conlon. No doubt. A beauty! Thanks for sharing.



I would say that the Landis is most likely not a Conlon. From what I have seen, Charlie was fairly consistent with his player/team identification and other markings on the top edge of his negatives. Much like you see on the Wheat. Then again, there is a chance that he just didn't mark the Landis neg.



Is the Landis the same size as the Wheat? The Wheat should be 4 x 5.

I believe they are both 4x5. Very possible Landis is not a Conlon but I'll have to look more closely sometime this week. Would definitely like to confirm either way.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Keith_Loving]

Originally Posted by TCMA

Interesting. I do know we've got two other Dodgers that he shot: Paul Richards and Max Carey but those are from the 30's. Will have to do some more digging when I'm back in the office this week.






Thanks, Graig and I absolutely agree - great stuff. If you take a look online at the old TCMA cards (and they produced a LOT of different sets back in the day), many of those images are still in the archive either as original photos or negatives. Some are offered on Photo Files website, others are tucked away forever most likely.

Still, I'm always coming across images I never knew existed and my jaw hits the floor.

In my mind, the MOST iconic image is this Lou Gehrig that is part of our glass plate negative collection originating from The New York Sun. My father bought this collection containing hundreds of glass plate negs from an antique shop in CT in 1969:








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Could you PM me the link to the Photo Files website? I am curious to check it out.

Thank you

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by horzverti

The Wheat is definitely a Conlon. No doubt. A beauty! Thanks for sharing.

I would say that the Landis is most likely not a Conlon. From what I have seen, Charlie was fairly consistent with his player/team identification and other markings on the top edge of his negatives. Much like you see on the Wheat. Then again, there is a chance that he just didn't mark the Landis neg.

Is the Landis the same size as the Wheat? The Wheat should be 4 x 5.

Check this out. I just found the Landis image attributed to Conlon in this auction listing. Doesn't confirm it 100% for me but it's something:

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...ph-collection/

[horzverti]

Originally Posted by TCMA

Check this out. I just found the Landis image attributed to Conlon in this auction listing. Doesn't confirm it 100% for me but it's something:

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...ph-collection/

Andrew,
The auction description read that all of the photos included in the lot show either Conlon writing or stamps on their backs. I would say that is a slam dunk. I was wrong in my previous post. It looks like it is a Conlon. I believe the REA auction pre-dated the Rogers shenanigans. So that makes the accurate Conlon designation even more concrete.
Nice detective work.
Your archive looks great. Please post more great images when you can.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by horzverti

Andrew,
The auction description read that all of the photos included in the lot show either Conlon writing or stamps on their backs. I would say that is a slam dunk.

I just came across the original neg and that's definitely Conlon's handwriting. It's officially official .

[TCMA]

Also found this Conlon neg of Del Bissonette of the Dodgers/Robins. Didn't want to remove it from the sleeve but there was a contact print along with it:

[horzverti]

Wow, that is great! Have you gone through your entire archive? Is there a chance
you may find more Conlon original negs or photos?

Originally Posted by TCMA

I just came across the original neg and that's definitely Conlon's handwriting. It's officially official .

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by horzverti

Wow, that is great! Have you gone through your entire archive? Is there a chance
you may find more Conlon original negs or photos?

Going through the entire archive I'm sure would take weeks if not months . Definitely more Conlon's to be found. I also went ahead and posted a few prints in the Conlon photos thread.

[Forever Young]

High end, single Gehrig on GLASS is very tough for some reason. 1927-30

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

High end, single Gehrig on GLASS is very tough for some reason. 1927-30

We’ve got a few. The one I posted previously, plus the one used to create the TCMA postcard below. I believe we have the glass neg used to create the shot below that but would have to confirm:






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by TCMA

We’ve got a few. The one I posted previously, plus the one used to create the TCMA postcard below. I believe we have the glass neg used to create the shot below that but would have to confirm:






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very nice. So they are all Glass vs acetate?

[TCMA]

Correct. Those are glass but we have several acetate as well. Will try and get a few shots posted when I’m back in the archive on Mon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by TCMA

Correct. Those are glass but we have several acetate as well. Will try and get a few shots posted when I’m back in the archive on Mon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This one is Nice. Would love to see

[TCMA]

Yep, great shot. I’m 90% positive that’s glass but I’ll confirm and if so will post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Forever Young]

Ruth

[Forever Young]

Notebook

[Exhibitman]

I have the glass plate neg of this Stan Ketchel image. Probably from the Dana Studio in SF.

I have no idea why I bought it or what to do with it. So it sits in a drawer.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I have no idea why I bought it or what to do with it. So it sits in a drawer.

This could describe half of what I own

[mikejanesphotography]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

This could describe half of what I own

Ditto!

Literally have a drawer next to me right now full of glass plate negatives (and 200,000 other types behind me).

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by TCMA

Yep, great shot. I’m 90% positive that’s glass but I’ll confirm and if so will post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, it’s glass. A little distortion here as I’ve got it in a plastic sleeve sitting on a stand:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Runscott]

I have some large glass slides of Willie Hoppe. Has anyone figured out a good way of getting positive images from these? These two images came from the original auction, but I don't have images of the other three slides.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I have some large glass slides of Willie Hoppe. Has anyone figured out a good way of getting positive images from these? These two images came from the original auction, but I don't have images of the other three slides.

Yes. Take a shot of the neg with your phone, then use an app like Photoshop Express to invert the colors. That’s what I do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Has anyone figured out a good way of getting positive images from these?

Depends on whether you're just wanting the images to show off, or use them for reprinting or other purposes that would require a better quality / hi-res image. If just showing off here, the method Andrew offered, or placing the negative on a light box and photographing. Placing a light source over the negative on a flatbed scanner could work as well, though the results were mixed the few times I've tried that (hard to get even backlighting across larger negatives).

Otherwise, there are a handful of flatbed scanner models that will handle larger negatives, though most are out of production (I believe Epson's V800 model, a slight update from the V700, may be the only mid-level flatbed scanner still in production that is capable of handling larger-than-35mm negatives and transparencies?) Depending on how many you have to scan, investing in specific hardware for the task may or may not be worth it.

[Jobu]

Here is a whopper of a post on the few that I have:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=247848

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Depends on whether you're just wanting the images to show off, or use them for reprinting or other purposes that would require a better quality / hi-res image. If just showing off here, the method Andrew offered, or placing the negative on a light box and photographing. Placing a light source over the negative on a flatbed scanner could work as well, though the results were mixed the few times I've tried that (hard to get even backlighting across larger negatives).

Otherwise, there are a handful of flatbed scanner models that will handle larger negatives, though most are out of production (I believe Epson's V800 model, a slight update from the V700, may be the only mid-level flatbed scanner still in production that is capable of handling larger-than-35mm negatives and transparencies?) Depending on how many you have to scan, investing in specific hardware for the task may or may not be worth it.

I would like to create high-quality prints and frame them for my man-cave. I hate to spend $700 on a scanner when I already have two scanners, but it sounds like this is the only solution.

Is there anyone here who is capable and would be willing to create hi-res scans of glass-plate negatives, in exchange for some service I could offer? (like the deal in 'the Godfather')

[Michael B]

Scott,

There are not too many flatbed scanners being made anymore designed for film. I have an old Microtek pro film scanner which can do flatbed scans up to 8x10 negatives, including glass. I would suggest calling B&H Photo in NYC as they may be able to find this type for under $400.00. Most of the popular scanners now are set up to scan 35mm negs, transparencies (slides) and medium format of regular film but not glass. I was at a photo expo in NYC last month where I saw a scanner that will handle glass, but it was $1800.00.

You could also pick up a copy of Shutterbug magazine and look at the ads in the back for lab services. You may find one that can do glass. I know of one in Belmont, MA that could probably handle them, but you may be able to find one closer to home.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Michael B

Scott,

There are not too many flatbed scanners being made anymore designed for film. I have an old Microtek pro film scanner which can do flatbed scans up to 8x10 negatives, including glass. I would suggest calling B&H Photo in NYC as they may be able to find this type for under $400.00. Most of the popular scanners now are set up to scan 35mm negs, transparencies (slides) and medium format of regular film but not glass. I was at a photo expo in NYC last month where I saw a scanner that will handle glass, but it was $1800.00.

You could also pick up a copy of Shutterbug magazine and look at the ads in the back for lab services. You may find one that can do glass. I know of one in Belmont, MA that could probably handle them, but you may be able to find one closer to home.

Thanks. I have a great scanner (Canon 9000F) that does everything BUT large format glass negatives, so I understand what you are saying. I thought for sure I could make the Canon work, but anyone who has ever gone through this will understand the frustration and the impossibility of the task.

I do not collect glass negatives or negatives of any type. I purchased these five because I collect billiard memorabilia, especially if it is related to Willie Hoppe. I had never seen these particular images (nor has anyone else), so I sprung for them at auction about five years ago, and still do not know what the other three look like quality-wise. They were taken in a natural pool room environment (as opposed to professional staged shots or publicity photos), so they are especially appealing to me. I figured I could get some huge prints of the better ones for my pool room, but gave up and put them on ebay.

Now I will remove them and resume the project.

[Michael B]

Scott,

I just dropped a note to a pro-lab I use for developing. I will let you know what they say.

[Michael B]

Scott,

I am posting this just in case there are others that may wish to use their services. They are a great company that does high quality work. Their specialty is taking digital files and printing them on silver halide fiber paper aka real photo paper with chemicals. Their website is fairly self explanatory, but they are always available to answer questions.

Hello Michael,

We are able to make prints from glass plate negatives. The largest size we can scan at the studio being 11x17. This being said we are very willing to do both the scanning and print of the images at whichever size your friend sees fit. Let us know if you have any other inquiries or questions.


Looking forward to working with you,

Hannah



Digital Silver Imaging

9 Brighton Street

Belmont MA 02478

info@digitalsilverimaging.com

617-489-0035

www.digitalsilverimaging.com

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I would like to create high-quality prints and frame them for my man-cave. I hate to spend $700 on a scanner when I already have two scanners, but it sounds like this is the only solution.

Is there anyone here who is capable and would be willing to create hi-res scans of glass-plate negatives, in exchange for some service I could offer? (like the deal in 'the Godfather')

I went to a local photo studio - the kind that does high school graduation photos. I was told that they can scan 4 x 5 negatives and turn them into high quality prints - exactly the same quality as if they had the original negative. You should be able to find someone local. I just had too many to go that route. I had an old canon scanner that worked great, but I can't get the damn thing to work right anymore.

And, if you can find someone who has a darkroom in their basement, most of the old enlargers came with a 4 x 5 negative holder. Many high schools still use film cameras in their classes and still use enlargers. You might actually contact a local high school. The only issue is you won't be able to clean up the image using photoshop, so any scratches, etc. will appear on the print.

A third, and maybe best, option is a place that does fine art printing - a place where a professional photographer would go to have large prints made. There are still photographers who shoot 4 x 5.