I have a large number of old photos that I would like to scan and record some information about. It seems very tedious to scan a photo, import it into Word and then add some notes to it. Is there a better way? The photos are various sizes, B&W, color, etc. Also, do you have any tips for dealing with the photos themselves, such as how to remove them from old albums if they're stuck in with tape, etc.? Thanks.

"Jim" <phoneguy@removethisstuffhawkeyerec.com> wrote in news:fgln35$rbu$1@news.netins.net: > I have a large number of old photos that I would like to scan and > record some information about. It seems very tedious to scan a photo, > import it into Word and then add some notes to it. Is there a better > way? > All of the replies have GREAT suggestions! I just wanted to throw in that the jpg format (and I think maybe tif, but it's more obscure) allows embedding various bits of user info into the picture file itself, which is really nice. The only caution is that I've seen MANY photo software programs that tend to ignore this extra info and remove it, so be careful by never editing an original photo file unless you know the software is "lossless" for the image data as well as the EXIF/IPTC data (the comments, notes, camera info, etc.). Most software that allows you to embed your own comments/info is likely to preserve any existing data though. Btw, jpg quality is only as bad as the original amount of compression used, plus the compression used when saving after an edit and/or your tolerance for file size. There are a number of programs like IrfanView, ACDSee, etc. that add/edit this data, so the question becomes which one to use for ease of tagging, as well as displaying (and to whom). The FotoTagger looks very nice, but I've not used it before. Some info, & thought starters about EXIF/IPTC can be found here: http://jalbum.net/forum/thread.jspa?threadID=3185&tstart=0 > The photos are various sizes, B&W, color, etc. > > Also, do you have any tips for dealing with the photos themselves, > such as how to remove them from old albums if they're stuck in with > tape, etc.? > I don't know the best ways to avoid damage, but I do know that if you don't look at the back you're likely to miss some GREAT clues! Maybe an acceptable option in SOME cases (judgement call reqd.) would be a sharp X-Acto knife that NEVER touches the photo, and an operator that NEVER sharply bends the photo either?? > Thanks. > >

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:01:34 GMT, JD <jd4x4@<del.this>verizon.net> wrote: >"Jim" <phoneguy@removethisstuffhawkeyerec.com> wrote in >news:fgln35$rbu$1@news.netins.net: > >> I have a large number of old photos that I would like to scan and >> record some information about. It seems very tedious to scan a photo, >> import it into Word and then add some notes to it. Is there a better >> way? >> >All of the replies have GREAT suggestions! I just wanted to throw in that >the jpg format (and I think maybe tif, but it's more obscure) allows >embedding various bits of user info into the picture file itself, which is >really nice. The only caution is that I've seen MANY photo software >programs that tend to ignore this extra info and remove it, so be careful >by never editing an original photo file unless you know the software is >"lossless" for the image data as well as the EXIF/IPTC data (the comments, >notes, camera info, etc.). Most software that allows you to embed your own >comments/info is likely to preserve any existing data though. Btw, jpg >quality is only as bad as the original amount of compression used, plus the >compression used when saving after an edit and/or your tolerance for file >size. For archival purposes TIFF is better than JPEG, because JPEG is lossy. It's OK to copy JPEG files, but opening and resaving them loses data. -- Steve Hayes E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com (see web page if it doesn't work) Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/famhist1.htm http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/