Discussion:
OT: Cataloging Photographs
Add Reply
Nick Odell
2018-10-28 19:40:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
So. I've read the 49 page European Union document about cataloging
images in museums and galleries and don't think I want to want to go
that far, but I'd like to make sense of the shambles of photographs
without negatives, negatives without prints, digital picture files and
everything in between which I have ranging from about 1914 to the
present day. And more importantly I'd like to make sure other people
will be able to make sense of them too.

If you have already done something like this, I'd love to hear about
your experiences - good or bad. For instance would it be easier to
create separate systems for identifying negatives, prints or digital and
cross reference each when required than to make one system to encompass
the whole shebang? Were there any aspects you thought important at the
start which turned out to be irrelevant or things you only realised
ought to be important once you were half way through?

Any comments gratefully received!

Thanks!

Nick
Fenny
2018-10-28 22:02:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 19:40:52 +0000, Nick Odell
Post by Nick Odell
So. I've read the 49 page European Union document about cataloging
images in museums and galleries and don't think I want to want to go
that far, but I'd like to make sense of the shambles of photographs
without negatives, negatives without prints, digital picture files and
everything in between which I have ranging from about 1914 to the
present day. And more importantly I'd like to make sure other people
will be able to make sense of them too.
If you have already done something like this, I'd love to hear about
your experiences - good or bad. For instance would it be easier to
create separate systems for identifying negatives, prints or digital and
cross reference each when required than to make one system to encompass
the whole shebang? Were there any aspects you thought important at the
start which turned out to be irrelevant or things you only realised
ought to be important once you were half way through?
Any comments gratefully received!
No comments other than "Good luck with that!" and let us know how you
get on.

At least Pa catalogued his negatives up to the mid 70s, but it's the
thought of scanning all the various odd sized prints, negatives and
transparancies that is preventing me from actually getting on with
scanning all the various odd sized prints, negatives and
transparencies.
--
Fenny
Nick Odell
2018-10-28 22:47:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fenny
On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 19:40:52 +0000, Nick Odell
Post by Nick Odell
So. I've read the 49 page European Union document about cataloging
images in museums and galleries and don't think I want to want to go
that far, but I'd like to make sense of the shambles of photographs
without negatives, negatives without prints, digital picture files and
everything in between which I have ranging from about 1914 to the
present day. And more importantly I'd like to make sure other people
will be able to make sense of them too.
If you have already done something like this, I'd love to hear about
your experiences - good or bad. For instance would it be easier to
create separate systems for identifying negatives, prints or digital and
cross reference each when required than to make one system to encompass
the whole shebang? Were there any aspects you thought important at the
start which turned out to be irrelevant or things you only realised
ought to be important once you were half way through?
Any comments gratefully received!
No comments other than "Good luck with that!" and let us know how you
get on.
At least Pa catalogued his negatives up to the mid 70s, but it's the
thought of scanning all the various odd sized prints, negatives and
transparancies that is preventing me from actually getting on with
scanning all the various odd sized prints, negatives and
transparencies.
I'll get back to you in a few years then. Apart from a couple of
cardboard boxes and a biscuit tin of my own stuff there's a tin trunk
with goodness knows how much material - much of which will have to
separated[1] before it can be scanned.

Nick
[1]From what I've read, putting them in a bath of cold water for
somewhere between several hours and several days should do the trick.
Then dry them much as one might normally dry negatives and prints.
BrritSki
2018-10-29 08:43:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fenny
On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 19:40:52 +0000, Nick Odell
Post by Nick Odell
So. I've read the 49 page European Union document about cataloging
images in museums and galleries and don't think I want to want to go
that far, but I'd like to make sense of the shambles of photographs
without negatives, negatives without prints, digital picture files and
everything in between which I have ranging from about 1914 to the
present day. And more importantly I'd like to make sure other people
will be able to make sense of them too.
If you have already done something like this, I'd love to hear about
your experiences - good or bad. For instance would it be easier to
create separate systems for identifying negatives, prints or digital and
cross reference each when required than to make one system to encompass
the whole shebang? Were there any aspects you thought important at the
start which turned out to be irrelevant or things you only realised
ought to be important once you were half way through?
Any comments gratefully received!
No comments other than "Good luck with that!" and let us know how you
get on.
<LANGUID WAVE>

Ooops, sorry for caps.

I have gone through my slides, but I was lucky that they were all in
slide trays, so one winter I did a couple of trays per day, running them
through the projector and picking out the ones I wanted to scan and then
doing them before I put the tray away.
Each jpg was labelled with the slide tray letter/number id and then an
additional number. I didn't try to add any more metadata about content,
but if I'd had Photini back then I might have done.
<https://photini.readthedocs.io/en/2018.8.0/other/introduction.html>
thanks again Jim Easterbrook.

I have a folder in my PIX folder labelled SLIDES and I split them up
into about 6 sub folders with around 180 pics in each. That makes it
fairly easy to find anything that I know is there.

In the move back to the UK I discovered all of Mum and Dad's slides and
pictures, so I might do something similar with those, but they're not in
trays and I no longer have the really good scanner that was really good
quality and did 4 slides at a time. No idea what condition they're in
either.

I have a ton of negatives, but not indexed at all and it's just too big
a job to view/pre-scan them to decide which are worth a full scan. Maybe
if I win the lottery I'll send them all to a digitising shop...

Good luck again !
Nick Odell
2018-10-29 10:58:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by Fenny
On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 19:40:52 +0000, Nick Odell
Post by Nick Odell
So. I've read the 49 page European Union document about cataloging
images in museums and galleries and don't think I want to want to go
that far, but I'd like to make sense of the shambles of photographs
without negatives, negatives without prints, digital picture files and
everything in between which I have ranging from about 1914 to the
present day. And more importantly I'd like to make sure other people
will be able to make sense of them too.
If you have already done something like this, I'd love to hear about
your experiences - good or bad. For instance would it be easier to
create separate systems for identifying negatives, prints or digital and
cross reference each when required than to make one system to encompass
the whole shebang? Were there any aspects you thought important at the
start which turned out to be irrelevant or things you only realised
ought to be important once you were half way through?
Any comments gratefully received!
No comments other than "Good luck with that!" and let us know how you
get on.
<LANGUID WAVE>
Ooops, sorry for caps.
I have gone through my slides, but I was lucky that they were all in
slide trays, so one winter I did a couple of trays per day, running them
through the projector and picking out the ones I wanted to scan and then
doing them before I put the tray away.
Each jpg was labelled with the slide tray letter/number id and then an
additional number. I didn't try to add any more metadata about content,
but if I'd had Photini back then I might have done.
<https://photini.readthedocs.io/en/2018.8.0/other/introduction.html>
thanks again Jim Easterbrook.
I have a folder in my PIX folder labelled SLIDES and I split them up
into about 6 sub folders with around 180 pics in each. That makes it
fairly easy to find anything that I know is there.
In the move back to the UK I discovered all of Mum and Dad's slides and
pictures, so I might do something similar with those, but they're not in
trays and I no longer have the really good scanner that was really good
quality and did 4 slides at a time. No idea what condition they're in
either.
I have a ton of negatives, but not indexed at all and it's just too big
a job to view/pre-scan them to decide which are worth a full scan. Maybe
if I win the lottery I'll send them all to a digitising shop...
Good luck again !
Thanks for that. And apols to Jim E. for forgetting about Photini which
I've now bookmarked. I've got one of the flatbed scanners specifically
adapted for negatives and which theoretically can do 19600dpi (though it
looks as if it would take about four days of scanning time and sixteen
gigabytes of hard drive space per image if I did that) and I was
thinking that, provided I could easily locate the negatives again via a
good indexing system it would be quicker to fast scan them all to, say,
postcard size, view them and come back again to the more interesting ones.

Am I over-complicating things? Typical of me if I am.

Nick
Jim Easterbrook
2018-10-29 11:35:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
Post by BrritSki
Each jpg was labelled with the slide tray letter/number id and then an
additional number. I didn't try to add any more metadata about content,
but if I'd had Photini back then I might have done.
If you're ever moved to add metadata in future you can easily load them
into Photini or any other metadata editor.
Post by Nick Odell
Post by BrritSki
<https://photini.readthedocs.io/en/2018.8.0/other/introduction.html>
thanks again Jim Easterbrook.
https://photini.readthedocs.io/en/latest/other/introduction.html is a non-
version-specific link.
Post by Nick Odell
Thanks for that. And apols to Jim E. for forgetting about Photini which
I've now bookmarked.
Other metadata editors are also available.
--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0
BrritSki
2018-10-29 12:59:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
Thanks for that. And apols to Jim E. for forgetting about Photini which
I've now bookmarked. I've got one of the flatbed scanners specifically
adapted for negatives and which theoretically can do 19600dpi (though it
looks as if it would take about four days of scanning time and sixteen
gigabytes of hard drive space per image if I did that) and I was
thinking that, provided I could easily locate the negatives again via a
good indexing system it would be quicker to fast scan them all to, say,
postcard size, view them and come back again to the more interesting ones.
Am I over-complicating things? Typical of me if I am.
No, that's exactly what I would do if I had a scanner that would easily
read multiple negatives at once. Start with a quick and dirty scan of
everything and then go back and do hi-res scans of the interesting ones.

Only think I would change I think would be to do enough quick scans to
identify a set of hi-res ones that I could do in a day rather than all
of them to start off with, but you'd still need to carefully identify
them so you could find them again...
Chris McMillan
2018-10-29 19:25:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Fenny
On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 19:40:52 +0000, Nick Odell
Post by Nick Odell
So. I've read the 49 page European Union document about cataloging
images in museums and galleries and don't think I want to want to go
that far, but I'd like to make sense of the shambles of photographs
without negatives, negatives without prints, digital picture files and
everything in between which I have ranging from about 1914 to the
present day. And more importantly I'd like to make sure other people
will be able to make sense of them too.
If you have already done something like this, I'd love to hear about
your experiences - good or bad. For instance would it be easier to
create separate systems for identifying negatives, prints or digital and
cross reference each when required than to make one system to encompass
the whole shebang? Were there any aspects you thought important at the
start which turned out to be irrelevant or things you only realised
ought to be important once you were half way through?
Any comments gratefully received!
No comments other than "Good luck with that!" and let us know how you
get on.
At least Pa catalogued his negatives up to the mid 70s, but it's the
thought of scanning all the various odd sized prints, negatives and
transparancies that is preventing me from actually getting on with
scanning all the various odd sized prints, negatives and
transparencies.
I’m bringing home my dad’s slides tomorrow, but I only want family photos,
and I want one photo of any holiday he had on Skye to make into a big
photo. He was, by character, very precise. As a career all railway bar two
years, he worked either in finance and later within the railway planning
field. I found what I thought would be his slide catalogue books. All his
slides have dates and numbers. But, no. The books are adjuncts to the
photos. Dates of holiday, mileage driven daily, and place names. Which
of them drove. Weather conditions, and where they stayed! Nerd
personified!! And only holidays are catalogued!

I may be gone some time!

Sincerely Chris

Loading...