Prev: Unicode Vs. Shift-JIS
Next: Perplexing PDF
From: John Varela on 17 Jun 2008 20:05
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:51:02 -0400, Ockham's Razor wrote
(in article <Mencken-1DD579.19510213062008(a)sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>):

> In article <0001HW.C478A09E002CDA18B01AD9AF(a)news.verizon.net>,
> John Varela <OLDlamps(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:09:36 -0400, Ockham's Razor wrote
>> (in article <Mencken-4D0003.08093613062008(a)sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>):
>>
>>> I had hoped that iPhoto would be able simply make directories of the
>>> photos
>>> and then I could re-arrange the photos, sort of modifying the directory.
>>
>> I have almost 9,000 pictures in iPhoto, of which several thousand are
>> scanned
>> negatives, prints, and slides. All 9,000 are sorted into Film Rolls,
>> generally one Film Roll per year, but some labeled as decades for older
>> photos that I can't date more closely, and one Film Roll for the whole 19th
>> Century. In addition, each picture is titled beginning YYYYMMDD plus, if
>> more than one on that date, a sequence number, followed by a description. I
>> did that so that when I export photos they will sort chronologically.
>>
>> I use Albums to rearrange pictures by topic, mostly trips. In addition, I
>> have a lot of keywords so that if I want to fetch photos of, say, one of
>> the
>> grandchildren, all I have to do is select his or her keyword. I've also
>> keyworded selected surnames, "pets", "cars", etc.
>>
>> Including all the scanning, it took me almost two years to get that done
>> but
>> the result meets every need I have.
>
> You were much more prescient than I. I envy you.

Prescient? You did notice that I said it took me almost two years to get
this done. (In parallel with this I was digitizing all my old LPs and
cassette tapes and similarly organizing them in iTunes. I have one side of
one cassette left undone.)

But what the hell I'm retired so what else have I got to do when the weather
is unsuitable for golf?

--
John Varela
Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email.

From: Mike on 17 Jun 2008 20:24
In article
<f56ccb2c-ac35-40f2-9468-2f6b0e66f716(a)79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote:

> FWIW, in your original post, when you said that you had 70MB worth of
> photos that you didn't want to store twice, did you really mean 70MB
> or did you intend to say 70GB? Needless to say, it makes for a slight
> difference in significance when being worried about disk space
> squandered in duplicate copies.

you are correct, GB.

--
Father of Blivit and a diversified multicultural postmodern
deconstructionist warlord.
From: John Varela on 17 Jun 2008 20:25
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:38:59 -0400, hh wrote
(in article
<f56ccb2c-ac35-40f2-9468-2f6b0e66f716(a)79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>):

> FWIW, there are some tools that can help with some of these tasks. For
> example, the "YYYYMMDD" filename format can be done by Adobe Bridge (probably

> other software tools too), pulling from the EXIF data (if applicable).

As you know, there is no exif data with scanned pictures. As for digital
photos, until I got a Mac two years ago this summer I was storing and
manipulating the digital photos under OS/2, so the exif data were lost.

Once I got the Mac, I started saving all new photos in iPhoto in the desired
format. The only problem with that was that I changed my mind about what was
the desired format once or twice in the process...

But now I've got them all done and multiply backed up and I've sent DVDs of
the pictures to the children and suitable subsets of the pictures to friends
and other relatives, so now I can die happy.

> Similarly, for scanned film, my personal sequencing number methodology had
been of the form "YYYYMMDD.A-B", where:
> A= film roll number for that day,
> and
> B= frame number on the roll in question.

I don't find it useful to keep track of physical film rolls, so I use iPhoto
"Film Rolls" like folders, one per year. I'm not familiar with the latest
version of iPhoto, but I suspect my "Film Rolls" are very like its "Events".

For really old photos scanned from 90-year-old albums, and for studio photos,
school pictures, the occasional photo received from a friend, and the like,
the physical film roll isn't a useful paradigm.

--
John Varela
Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email.

From: -hh on 18 Jun 2008 07:07
John Varela <OLDla...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
> - hh wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, there are some tools that can help with some of these tasks. For
> > example, the "YYYYMMDD" filename format can be done by Adobe Bridge (probably
> > other software tools too), pulling from the EXIF data (if applicable).
>
> As you know, there is no exif data with scanned pictures.

Understood; I have a pile of 19th Century tin that I'm going to have
to labor through myself.


> Once I got the Mac, I started saving all new photos in iPhoto in the desired
> format.  The only problem with that was that I changed my mind about what was
> the desired format once or twice in the process...

And these false starts-stops can make things a challenge to get
motivated to try 'yet again'.


> > Similarly, for scanned film, my personal sequencing number methodology had
> > been of the form "YYYYMMDD.A-B", where...
>
> I don't find it useful to keep track of physical film rolls, so I use iPhoto
> "Film Rolls" like folders, one per year.

I had personally found it useful enough to do, generally for
organizing vacations, as it facilitates easier cross-referencing to
determine location easier, such as against a travel diary, or in my
usual case, my scuba diving logbook (for my Underwater photography),
as "all coral reefs look the same".

> I'm not familiar with the latest
> version of iPhoto, but I suspect my "Film Rolls" are very like its "Events".

I think it is (or is close enough).


> For really old photos scanned from 90-year-old albums, and for studio photos,
> school pictures, the occasional photo received from a friend, and the like,
> the physical film roll isn't a useful paradigm.

Agreed. I currently have my stuff mostly organized by year, including
one that's simply labeled "old". When I get my home office & computer
system finally set back up and start to finally scan those old tin
photos, they'll probably be labeled "ancient" :-) In general, the
question of data management is a pragmatic one of "whatever works",
but with the nuance that the configuration should be able to grow in
any relevantly desired/needed direction without causing "do-over"
rework. Its easier said than done once one gets beyond the most
rudimentary of organizational structures.


-hh
From: John Varela on 18 Jun 2008 14:17
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:07:53 -0400, hh wrote
(in article
<99a5514a-0aaa-42dc-a747-e418e25684e5(a)8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):

>>> Similarly, for scanned film, my personal sequencing number methodology had
>>> been of the form "YYYYMMDD.A-B", where...
>>
>> I don't find it useful to keep track of physical film rolls, so I use iPhoto
>> "Film Rolls" like folders, one per year.
>
> I had personally found it useful enough to do, generally for organizing
> vacations, as it facilitates easier cross-referencing to determine location
> easier, such as against a travel diary,

I, too, cross-reference against a travel diary. I find that date plus
sequence number does the trick.

> or in my usual case, my scuba diving
> logbook (for my Underwater photography), as "all coral reefs look the same".

In my case, it's more accurate to state that "all baroque church interiors
look the same".

--
John Varela
Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email.

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Unicode Vs. Shift-JIS
Next: Perplexing PDF