Original negatives

[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.

[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.

[thecatspajamas]

Derek,
Thank you for the info. One minor correction though, the Billy Williams photo would have to have been taken by George Brace, not Burke, as Burke died about 9 years before that photo was taken in 1960. Not trying to take anything away from it though, as it is a wonderful image either way.

[Lordstan]

Here are some Lou negatives that I have.
Scanned them tonight using my new Epson v500. Unfortunately the negative scanner couldn't do the larger negatives in one shot. I wound up scanning each negative in 2 vertical sections and then used Photoshop to put the together. That is why the coloration and alignment aren't perfect. I figured it's enough to get the general idea of what they look like.
I also scanned the envelope they came in.

[repsher]

Wow Mark, you did a good job. That is why I love negatives. When you scan them in it looks like the image could have been taken yesterday.

[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!