I recently wrote a generic article about organising photos and other media files at: http://parallax-viewpoint.blogspot.com/2015/12/organising-photographs.html. I mention it here because the suggested use of a "proxy" application (near the end of the article) might be an enhancement worth considering in FH. Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Beryl & Mike Tate via" <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2016 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [FHU] Storing digital data - was References > Hi Lesley, this is Mike. > > There is advice about organising Media images in the FHUG > Knowledge Base > > Organise Your Files: > http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:organise_your_files > > Also understand that Media images should be stored within your Project > folder, not elsewhere on your disk. > Otherwise, sooner or later, when you need to move from PC to PC it will be > a nightmare. > http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:v4:understanding_projects > > Do not spend too much effort on naming, tagging, cropping images as that > is best handled within FH Media records. > > DO experiment with the "Family Historian Sample Project" and "Ancestral > Sources" to gain an understanding of how Media is handled in > Individual, Family, Source, and Media records, and in Diagrams, and in > Reports. Only then can you make rational decisions of how to > handle your Media. > > Regards, Mike Tate > > -----Original Message----- > From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lesley > Baxendale > via > Sent: 03 January 2016 10:08 > To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [FHU] Storing digital data - was References > > Hi David, > > I'm trying to get all my scanned family photos into some sort of order and > I'm struggling to define what should go where. Could I > pick your experienced IT brain please? > > I don't have fancy photographic software, but I do have Paintshop and > Picassa. I'm not sure I like Picassa - it's a bit to > secretive about what it's doing. > > In your experience, is it better to keep all the photos with the filenames > they started with and just keep them in one place with > tags to indicate what they are, or should I be a bit more creative and try > and split them into categories/families/subject? The > original scans are in .tiff format, but I think .jpg is probably better to > attach to FH. > Should I keep these with the originals or separately? > > Currently, they are driving me nuts because they are spread around a bit > and I'm sure that's going to result in multiple > duplications long term. > > I also have a large collection of downloaded documents, which I think I > will put into directories indicating their purpose (BMD etc) > split down again into family branches where possible. > > What do you think? Any advice gratefully received. > > Lesley > > On 03/01/2016 09:33, D C Banks via wrote: >> Hello Adrian >> >> Mounts soapbox >> >> I have been in 'IT' for 35 years and anathema is the very word I have >> been looking for. I have spent countless hours convincing people NOT >> to hold the same data in more than one place. Whilst we are all using >> FH (and any other >> software) for family history we should accept the principles of the >> software system and how it handles data collection. After all, that's >> all family history is at it's lowest level, a database. This does not >> mean you have to abandon the foibles, sheer nonsense, duplication, >> untruths, misleading transcriptions etc etc. which all go to make >> genealogy 'fun'. >> >> Additionally, how many times do you see the term 'ibid' in a book - >> every occurrence of ibid = many Citations, one Source. >> >> Regarding GEDCOM, the Citation/Source conforms to the basic principles >> so on this point it is correct how they are handled. It is the users >> that are choosing to 'mishandle' by duplicating data. >> >> Dismounts soapbox >> >> Happy New Year to everyone, David >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Elizabeth Shown Mills does crop up regularly in these [FHU] Mailings and in the FHUG Forums. I admit not having read her book, but I recall others saying it does not relate the principals to GEDCOM structures. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] References Happy New Year, Folks. Many years ago, when I acquired my first version of Family Historian on CD from Calico Pie, the CD was accompanied by a free softback edition of a book by Elizabeth Shown Mills entitled "Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian", first published in 1997. For me, the book was the first to set out in a concise, clear and logical way, the fundamental principles of source analysis and citation *specifically designed for family historians*. It became my main reference for advice on how to cite my sources. Like Family Historian software, Elizabeth Shown Mills' ideas - and her published works - have gone through a number of refinements and updates over the years. The third edition of her most recent book on the subject was published in 2015 under the title "Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace", Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore, Maryland. It runs to 892 pages and is available in hardcover and in Kindle digital format. Quoting from the publisher's blurb: --------------- Evidence Explained, the third edition explains citation principles for both traditional and nontraditional sources; includes more than 1,000 citation models for virtually every source type; and shows readers where to go to find their sources and how to describe and evaluate them. It contains many new citation models, updates to websites, and descriptions and evaluations of numerous contemporary materials not included in earlier editions. --------------- While her book focuses primarily on the sources used by US researchers, it includes many detailed examples of citations of British and Canadian sources, too. Of particular value in my view is the coverage Shown Mills gives to the citation of various internet sources, which now form such an important part of our research. In the US and Canada, Elizabeth Shown Mills is almost universally recognised as the ultimate authority on matters relating to citing of sources in family history. Indeed, she rarely receives a mention on this and other UK-orientated mailing lists. We do not have an equivalent authority here in Britain, but I see no reason why we should not adopt the Shown Mills approach, even if, like me, you judge that on some matters it is a little too prescriptive or pedantic. Kind regards, John

Hi Lesley, this is Mike. There is advice about organising Media images in the FHUG > Knowledge Base > Organise Your Files: http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:organise_your_files Also understand that Media images should be stored within your Project folder, not elsewhere on your disk. Otherwise, sooner or later, when you need to move from PC to PC it will be a nightmare. http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:v4:understanding_projects Do not spend too much effort on naming, tagging, cropping images as that is best handled within FH Media records. DO experiment with the "Family Historian Sample Project" and "Ancestral Sources" to gain an understanding of how Media is handled in Individual, Family, Source, and Media records, and in Diagrams, and in Reports. Only then can you make rational decisions of how to handle your Media. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Lesley Baxendale via Sent: 03 January 2016 10:08 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Storing digital data - was References Hi David, I'm trying to get all my scanned family photos into some sort of order and I'm struggling to define what should go where. Could I pick your experienced IT brain please? I don't have fancy photographic software, but I do have Paintshop and Picassa. I'm not sure I like Picassa - it's a bit to secretive about what it's doing. In your experience, is it better to keep all the photos with the filenames they started with and just keep them in one place with tags to indicate what they are, or should I be a bit more creative and try and split them into categories/families/subject? The original scans are in .tiff format, but I think .jpg is probably better to attach to FH. Should I keep these with the originals or separately? Currently, they are driving me nuts because they are spread around a bit and I'm sure that's going to result in multiple duplications long term. I also have a large collection of downloaded documents, which I think I will put into directories indicating their purpose (BMD etc) split down again into family branches where possible. What do you think? Any advice gratefully received. Lesley On 03/01/2016 09:33, D C Banks via wrote: > Hello Adrian > > Mounts soapbox > > I have been in 'IT' for 35 years and anathema is the very word I have > been looking for. I have spent countless hours convincing people NOT > to hold the same data in more than one place. Whilst we are all using > FH (and any other > software) for family history we should accept the principles of the > software system and how it handles data collection. After all, that's > all family history is at it's lowest level, a database. This does not > mean you have to abandon the foibles, sheer nonsense, duplication, > untruths, misleading transcriptions etc etc. which all go to make genealogy 'fun'. > > Additionally, how many times do you see the term 'ibid' in a book - > every occurrence of ibid = many Citations, one Source. > > Regarding GEDCOM, the Citation/Source conforms to the basic principles > so on this point it is correct how they are handled. It is the users > that are choosing to 'mishandle' by duplicating data. > > Dismounts soapbox > > Happy New Year to everyone, David > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Happy New Year, Folks. Many years ago, when I acquired my first version of Family Historian on CD from Calico Pie, the CD was accompanied by a free softback edition of a book by Elizabeth Shown Mills entitled "Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian", first published in 1997. For me, the book was the first to set out in a concise, clear and logical way, the fundamental principles of source analysis and citation *specifically designed for family historians*. It became my main reference for advice on how to cite my sources. Like Family Historian software, Elizabeth Shown Mills' ideas - and her published works - have gone through a number of refinements and updates over the years. The third edition of her most recent book on the subject was published in 2015 under the title "Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace", Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore, Maryland. It runs to 892 pages and is available in hardcover and in Kindle digital format. Quoting from the publisher's blurb: --------------- Evidence Explained, the third edition explains citation principles for both traditional and nontraditional sources; includes more than 1,000 citation models for virtually every source type; and shows readers where to go to find their sources and how to describe and evaluate them. It contains many new citation models, updates to websites, and descriptions and evaluations of numerous contemporary materials not included in earlier editions. --------------- While her book focuses primarily on the sources used by US researchers, it includes many detailed examples of citations of British and Canadian sources, too. Of particular value in my view is the coverage Shown Mills gives to the citation of various internet sources, which now form such an important part of our research. In the US and Canada, Elizabeth Shown Mills is almost universally recognised as the ultimate authority on matters relating to citing of sources in family history. Indeed, she rarely receives a mention on this and other UK-orientated mailing lists. We do not have an equivalent authority here in Britain, but I see no reason why we should not adopt the Shown Mills approach, even if, like me, you judge that on some matters it is a little too prescriptive or pedantic. Kind regards, John ------------- John Ball Brecon, Powys Email: john@jlb2011.co.uk Website: www.jlb2011.co.uk Blog: johnofbrecon.com --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Adrian -- could you explain what you meant when you said "why *do* so many Americans record the microfilm number of a census when they've downloaded it from Ancestry?" ? If you mean NARA's microfilm number, it's crucial to have that information in case I need to go to a different vendor to look at their census images instead. Why might I do so? In the case study published by Elizabeth Shown Mills in her Quicklesson linked to below, in footnote 10 she explains how Ancestry has re-arranged the order of the microfilm images. https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/quicklesson-16-speculation-hypothesis-interpretation-proof A researcher might also want to look at someone else's images because of differences in image quality -- before Ancestry was given the contract to supply census images by ProQuest for their institutional service HeritageQuest, HQ had a different index and images from Ancestry, with strikingly different quality. Another reason is that with the microfilm number in hand, the researcher can go to NARA's website and find Reference Information Papers and other aids which describe the creation and organization of the microfilm. If by the "microfilm number" you meant Ancestry's in-house "image n of 1000" waypoint, users might record that as a quick way to get back to the image again, not realizing that it could change. Jan Murphy packrat74@gmail.com On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Adrian Bruce via < family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Trevor - I wholly agree that pointless transcription of details available > at the click of a button is a waste of time. I gave up transcribing > censuses long ago once I could download images - my exception to that being > that I transcribe the age and place of birth to go into the "citation" > against the *birth* so that I have the full sorry story of misdirection and > mistakes about someone's birth details available in one spot. > > Another for-instance - why *do* so many Americans record the microfilm > number of a census when they've downloaded it from Ancestry? (Actually - is > that because it's the only robust referencing system they have to define > which image they're looking at??? Don't know.) > > My concern would be that people don't go from one extreme, of recording > everything, to the other, of recording nothing. Clearly, your expanded > response above shows you have no intention of going to the nothing end. > > We will all do this thing one way or another and hopefully enjoy it. I > happen to like doing it one way, not least because of the challenge. > > I'm fond of saying that there are no rules in this game - but there are > inevitable consequences. And the point I'd like to get over to other > readers is one that I'm sure you understand - if someone doesn't actually > think a bit about where a source-document comes from, and record that > somewhere, either in a notebook or on the digital image, the inevitable > consequence is that when a clash of information occurs, they won't know > where to go or what to believe. > > Adrian > ​ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi David, I'm trying to get all my scanned family photos into some sort of order and I'm struggling to define what should go where. Could I pick your experienced IT brain please? I don't have fancy photographic software, but I do have Paintshop and Picassa. I'm not sure I like Picassa - it's a bit to secretive about what it's doing. In your experience, is it better to keep all the photos with the filenames they started with and just keep them in one place with tags to indicate what they are, or should I be a bit more creative and try and split them into categories/families/subject? The original scans are in .tiff format, but I think .jpg is probably better to attach to FH. Should I keep these with the originals or separately? Currently, they are driving me nuts because they are spread around a bit and I'm sure that's going to result in multiple duplications long term. I also have a large collection of downloaded documents, which I think I will put into directories indicating their purpose (BMD etc) split down again into family branches where possible. What do you think? Any advice gratefully received. Lesley On 03/01/2016 09:33, D C Banks via wrote: > Hello Adrian > > Mounts soapbox > > I have been in 'IT' for 35 years and anathema is the very word I have been > looking for. I have spent countless hours convincing people NOT to hold the > same data in more than one place. Whilst we are all using FH (and any other > software) for family history we should accept the principles of the software > system and how it handles data collection. After all, that's all family > history is at it's lowest level, a database. This does not mean you have to > abandon the foibles, sheer nonsense, duplication, untruths, misleading > transcriptions etc etc. which all go to make genealogy 'fun'. > > Additionally, how many times do you see the term 'ibid' in a book - every > occurrence of ibid = many Citations, one Source. > > Regarding GEDCOM, the Citation/Source conforms to the basic principles so on > this point it is correct how they are handled. It is the users that are > choosing to 'mishandle' by duplicating data. > > Dismounts soapbox > > Happy New Year to everyone, David >

I am “brand new” to the program, so my question has probably been answered somewhere, but I can’t find it! When I look at media, I can see a list of things that I imported, but I cannot see the actual pictures. They were all *.jpg, so I would think it would be no problem. All I can see are boxes with an “X” in the middle. When I try to open in editor/player it says “Unable to load object.” Could the import of media failed? Any suggestions? Barbara We must be what we want our children to become. ~ Brene Brown

Hello Adrian Mounts soapbox I have been in 'IT' for 35 years and anathema is the very word I have been looking for. I have spent countless hours convincing people NOT to hold the same data in more than one place. Whilst we are all using FH (and any other software) for family history we should accept the principles of the software system and how it handles data collection. After all, that's all family history is at it's lowest level, a database. This does not mean you have to abandon the foibles, sheer nonsense, duplication, untruths, misleading transcriptions etc etc. which all go to make genealogy 'fun'. Additionally, how many times do you see the term 'ibid' in a book - every occurrence of ibid = many Citations, one Source. Regarding GEDCOM, the Citation/Source conforms to the basic principles so on this point it is correct how they are handled. It is the users that are choosing to 'mishandle' by duplicating data. Dismounts soapbox Happy New Year to everyone, David -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce via Sent: 03 January 2016 08:31 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com; Paul Subject: Re: [FHU] References I can't agree with that diagnosis. Firstly books are cited every time with a different page number. They're just not cited in full. The deficiency in this aspect is FH's lack of a bibliography. Use of a bibliography in other software seems to lead to the concept of a Master Source, which may match the content of a Method 2 Source Record in FH. My problem with a Master Source is that any real world definition of it seems to also define Source. FH has to live with the data structure imposed to it by GEDCOM. In that structure, Method 2 results in considerable duplication of content between citations - anathema to those of us with IT experience because of the issues involved which alteration of the contents. The duplication gets worse if you record "proof" of identity relating to a source in the citation. In software like FTM or online Ancestry trees, I would agree that Method 2 is more usual. But they use a different data structure without citation content duplication, it seems. Incidentally, I'd also point out that books tend to be single subject, unlike a parish register, which is much closer to a multi part journal, where each part does have its own citation. In the end, it's up to the user but it's vital that they understand the implications of things like amending citations and storing proofs of identify in multiple places. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi John No I did not misunderstand at all. I was just making it clear to others that FreeBMD does not have all the BMD details and there are more details on local registry offices. For any marriages in Lincolnshire you can look up this site set up by Ann Cole of Lincs FHS http://mi.lincolnshiremarriages.org.uk/ Here you will get more details than you can get on FreeBMD Victor On 02/01/2016 10:00 PM, family-historian-users via wrote: > Hi Victor, > > You appear to have misunderstood my post, which was about image FORMATS, and not about the content of the BMD document images. > > John > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I can't agree with that diagnosis. Firstly books are cited every time with a different page number. They're just not cited in full. The deficiency in this aspect is FH's lack of a bibliography. Use of a bibliography in other software seems to lead to the concept of a Master Source, which may match the content of a Method 2 Source Record in FH. My problem with a Master Source is that any real world definition of it seems to also define Source. FH has to live with the data structure imposed to it by GEDCOM. In that structure, Method 2 results in considerable duplication of content between citations - anathema to those of us with IT experience because of the issues involved which alteration of the contents. The duplication gets worse if you record "proof" of identity relating to a source in the citation. In software like FTM or online Ancestry trees, I would agree that Method 2 is more usual. But they use a different data structure without citation content duplication, it seems. Incidentally, I'd also point out that books tend to be single subject, unlike a parish register, which is much closer to a multi part journal, where each part does have its own citation. In the end, it's up to the user but it's vital that they understand the implications of things like amending citations and storing proofs of identify in multiple places.

// Jeremy wrote: // Thanks to everyone who replied. I now have a better idea of Sources/Citations. I think I will probably use a mixture of Methods 1 and 2, I think that it would be easier to locate the info I might need that way - I accept that this will produce a multitude of Sources, rather than few sources with lots of // citations! On further experimentation, I definitely want a number of sources as I would want to just call up the image direct from the citation, not having to go through the 'all' tab. This is a classic case of tail wagging the dog: a slightly deficient interface hampering users doing it the "right way". A real shame someone invented the terms "Method 1" and "Method 2" the "wrong" way around. Relationally speaking, Method 1 is "non-normal". I won't justify that any more than to say if books followed this practice then the references would list every cited volume as many times as it was referred to (just with different page numbers for each). Paul

Hi Victor, You appear to have misunderstood my post, which was about image FORMATS, and not about the content of the BMD document images. John --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Hi Mike, I didn't include PNG in my reply as it's not a format offered by FreeBMD, which I was referencing. And, whilst PNG was designed, and is mostly used, as a lossless format, some PNG encoders can pre-process image data in a lossy manner (e.g. reducing the number of colours, or changing how transparency is handled) to further improve PNG compression. So it's not wholly accurate to say it can never lose detail; it depends on the encoder. See http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/formats/#png_compress for an example. Regards, John Pedantic? Moi? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

John FreeBMD does now have all the BMD details there are many that are missing. The local registry office is more complete. You will find many on UKBMD unfortunately not all areas of the country are included as some local registry offices wouldn't allow the details to be transcribed. UKBMD gives additional details which FreeBMD does not. For marriages it lists where the marriage took place (name of church or registry office for example) Personally I just copy the FreeBMD details and you can add 'add GRO source' to FH software. I use this all the time. Just download it from FHUG group Victor On 02/01/2016 10:58 AM, family-historian-users via wrote: > David, > > "... I can't remember which site it was ..." > > Possibly one of the websites you're thinking of is FreeBMD, where images of the original documents that have been transcribed can be > downloaded in a variety of formats (GIF, JPEG, TIFF, PDF, "original"). The website suggests that the image is held in one format > ("original") and converted on the fly if you download it in another. > > Contrary to what the FreeBMD site says in it's "Which format to use" advice, TIFF image files are very large, because they're > uncompressed (and therefore never lose any information/resolution/definition). Contrast that with JPEG (or PNG), which are > compressed formats, so the files are smaller but you may lose some detail (resolution). If you edit and save a JPEG more than once, > you will successively lose detail (resolution) each time. > > John > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Yes, many people use a mixture of Method 1 and Method 2. 1. PDF are best reserved for multi-page documents. 2. FYI: Windows Snipping Tool is available for all Windows versions since XP. Just put 'Snipping Tool' into the Windows Search box. For more details Google Search 'Windows Snipping Tool'. It not only snips any region, but lets you annotate the image. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] References Thanks to everyone who replied. I now have a better idea of Sources/Citations. I think I will probably use a mixture of Methods 1 and 2, I think that it would be easier to locate the info I might need that way - I accept that this will produce a multitude of Sources, rather than few sources with lots of citations! On further experimentation, I definitely want a number of sources as I would want to just call up the image direct from the citation, not having to go through the 'all' tab. A couple of points arising from your responses: 1. I will use .pdf a lot less, I can now see the advantages of using images instead. 2. I have been using a programme called "my print screen" for years and find it very useful. It takes over the print screen button on the keyboard and you can outline the area of the screen you want to save/print instead of copying the whole screen. It is a free download. Thanks for all your support, Jeremy truffle@cix.co.uk

John, you haven't quite finished the alternatives. PNG usually gives the best of both worlds. It is a compressed format, as you say, and often little different in size from a JPEG. BUT PNG format does NOT lose detail when edited. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] References David, "... I can't remember which site it was ..." Possibly one of the websites you're thinking of is FreeBMD, where images of the original documents that have been transcribed can be downloaded in a variety of formats (GIF, JPEG, TIFF, PDF, "original"). The website suggests that the image is held in one format ("original") and converted on the fly if you download it in another. Contrary to what the FreeBMD site says in it's "Which format to use" advice, TIFF image files are very large, because they're uncompressed (and therefore never lose any information/resolution/definition). Contrast that with JPEG (or PNG), which are compressed formats, so the files are smaller but you may lose some detail (resolution). If you edit and save a JPEG more than once, you will successively lose detail (resolution) each time. John

Thanks to everyone who replied. I now have a better idea of Sources/Citations. I think I will probably use a mixture of Methods 1 and 2, I think that it would be easier to locate the info I might need that way - I accept that this will produce a multitude of Sources, rather than few sources with lots of citations! On further experimentation, I definitely want a number of sources as I would want to just call up the image direct from the citation, not having to go through the 'all' tab. A couple of points arising from your responses: 1. I will use .pdf a lot less, I can now see the advantages of using images instead. 2. I have been using a programme called "my print screen" for years and find it very useful. It takes over the print screen button on the keyboard and you can outline the area of the screen you want to save/print instead of copying the whole screen. It is a free download. Thanks for all your support, Jeremy truffle@cix.co.uk In article <000b01d144d2$d7c64050$8752c0f0$@com>, dcbanks@btopenworld.com (D C Banks) wrote: > *From:* D C Banks <dcbanks@btopenworld.com> > *To:* truffle@cix.co.uk, family-historian-users@rootsweb.com > *Date:* Fri, 1 Jan 2016 20:27:31 -0000 > > Hi all, another thing I have noticed, and I'm sorry but I can't > remember > which site it was, is that you sometimes get a .tif or .png > document - the > .tif are TWENTY times the size of the .jpeg. It seems some sites > (FMP) do > different things - if you Right-click and 'Save the images as...' > (you get a > .PNG) or 'Download' the image (you get a jpeg) or 'Copy the image' > - never > found out where or what it does! > > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of > Jeremy via > Sent: 01 January 2016 12:53 > To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com > Subject: RE: [FHU] References > > I used to show, say, 'Find my Past - Parish Records' as the source > for > entries. Now I am finding that I can get the actual detail of the > marriage as a .pdf which I could attach to the citation. However, I > would > need each citation to be a separate entry in order to attach an > image to > it. My question is that would mean about 3000 individual entries in > my > case. Is this normal/average? or excessive? > > Jeremy > truffle@cix.co.uk > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > >

David, "... I can't remember which site it was ..." Possibly one of the websites you're thinking of is FreeBMD, where images of the original documents that have been transcribed can be downloaded in a variety of formats (GIF, JPEG, TIFF, PDF, "original"). The website suggests that the image is held in one format ("original") and converted on the fly if you download it in another. Contrary to what the FreeBMD site says in it's "Which format to use" advice, TIFF image files are very large, because they're uncompressed (and therefore never lose any information/resolution/definition). Contrast that with JPEG (or PNG), which are compressed formats, so the files are smaller but you may lose some detail (resolution). If you edit and save a JPEG more than once, you will successively lose detail (resolution) each time. John --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Yes, that is a workable method, but sounds more tedious than using 'Ancestral Sources' that with one set of data entry automatically creates all the necessary multiple Citations with full details, and satisfies the needs of Queries, Reports, Websites, Plugins, etc. It does not solve the problem of easily finding all members of say one large Census household. Whereas, a single Source per household allows "View > Record Links" and Plugins to list the household members. Beware using FH V6 'Head of Household' Witnesses, because that renders useless the "Publish > Miscellaneous > Individual Census Report" and the "Lookup Missing Census Facts" Plugin. Happy New Year, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] References - method 2 tweaks A variation on "Method 2" is to just hold the full transcript (such as for a census) against the head of household's Census Fact source citation - in the "Text From Source". The image can be attached to the Census fact. For other members of the household indicate in their Census Fact note who the head of household is. (In v6 you could set up a Head of Household witness instead.) Add the source (e.g. 1881 E&W Census) without adornment - this allow quick checking for people with "missing census" records. All facts derived from a census record (YoB, PoB, Occupation etc - for all members of the household) can be "sourced" (again without adornment) to the relevant census. Conflicts (such as different years of birth on different censuses) can be recorded by putting the particular values in the Text from Source field and then sorting the sources for the date of birth so that the one you most believe is at the top). A variation on this is for sources like obituaries - which often contain lots of information. The Source may be "Worcestershire Chronicle", Entry Date "21 Sep 1878" Where within Source "page 8 column 1 & 2", and that citation is attached to the Obituary Fact - with the text of the obituary in the "Text from Source" field. Derived information (date and cause of death, employment, honours, marriages, etc.) is added with appropriate facts but the source is given as "Obituary (Cross-reference)". If the obituary gives facts for someone else, you add the name of the person being "obitted" in the Where within Source field. Likewise if you have recorded details of someone's baptism from parish records, you add their date of birth with the source "Baptism (Cross-reference)". This works fine for me - but then I am not making huge use of Reports - where you might become a little unstuck due to having to trace back one or two steps. David

Yes, each Records Window tab is functionally similar to the All tab in each Property Box type. I do not favour adding Source document images to a Marriage Event because they can get mixed up with wedding photos in Reports. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] References Hi Mike .....ditto the Individual Records screen? Or add it directly to the Marriage FACT. David -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] References David, on a point of detail, since we are discussing a Marriage fact, which is a Family fact, the Citation is in the Family record. This can be reached via the All tab of the Individual Property Box, but only after opening the 'Spouse family' link to the Family record, and then the Marriage fact Citation. Happy New Year, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] References Hi Jeremy You could have one Source called 'Find my Past etc' and just add a Citation as required for the unique marriage Fact. Then you can add the Image/pdf to the Citation via the Individual Records screen. I have only 50 Source records but about 25,000 Citations in a file with 5000 Individuals and 1300 marriages. So, no, it is not excessive - I Cite everything! David