Message-Id: <200809042058.m84KwOgN025336@omr16.networksolutionsemail.com> From: "MPHS" <MPHS@mineralpointhistory.org> Subject: Reply Re: Responses on cataloguing photos Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:58:16 -0500
One thing to keep in mind, what we've all been talking about is a way to
add information to photos to make it easier to find a particular image
of a specific subject. Of course, the original photos are still in
their archival boxes or albums in your building, so even if the database
itself is lost, the originals are still available.
No matter what organizing system you eventually decide to use, whoever
sets it up needs to take the time to write a short description of the
system they chose, how to use it, etc and then print and store this
short narrative with the photographs. If you decide to go with a web
based system, the narrative would include where to find the database on
the web.
One of the advantages of WHO is that they use the Wisconsin Historical
Society servers and let's all hope the WHS outlasts all of us by several
generations. Another advantage is that they provide your organization
with a backup copy of the images you post through them. I don't have
enough photos online yet to actually have the backup copy (although I'm
sure I could request one at any time) so I don't have first hand
knowledge of what this looks like, but it is an extra safety feature.
I just took a quick look at Photoshop Elements. I don't use this,
myself, but it looks like PE has a pretty good catalog function that
allows one to enter text and captions that "ride along" with the images.
This might be a reasonable solution. PE is readily available, it is
cheap (or free with most new cameras or scanners), it is designed for
amateur photographers, so should be easy to use, and it claims to have a
capacity for 10's of thousands of images. It is not web based -- it is
a program installed on your computer -- which has some advantages and
some disadvantages.
Other than the original Excel spreadsheet idea, all of the solutions
proposed are for digital images, which means that originals that
currently exist only as prints have to be scanned before being
catalogued.
I'm all in favor of scanning -- it diminishes the wear and tear on an
original and, once you get your catalog in place, it makes it easier to
find things. It is time consuming, though. It's worth putting some
thought into the process before starting so you can make best use of
your time, or your volunteers' time.
In the last two years I've scanned way more images than I want to count.
Briefly, here's what I think are the most important points for anyone
just getting started:
-- save the original scan as a TIF image (NOT a jpg)
-- scan everything in color (yes, even the black and white photos)
-- scan at the highest resolution possible
my baseline is 1200 dpi but if an original is very small, or if it
seems to have important details that might need to be seen up close,
I'll scan at 2400. High resolutions like these make the scanning time
longer and the file size larger. I store everything on external hard
drives (MyBook for example). You could probably get by with scanning at
800, or even 600 -- but since scanning probably takes a few years off
the life of an original, I'm more comfortable with scanning everything
at the higher resolutions so the originals don't have to be rescanned
later, if it turns out the lower resolution isn't adequate.
-- turn off all automatic settings on the scanner. You want an archival
image that looks as much like the original as possible. Enhancements
(increasing contrast, dust removal, sharpening, etc) can be done later,
if needed, with a photo editing program.
-- save the original scan as a "master" image, immediately make a copy
and save it as a "service" image. Keep all your "masters" on a separate
hard drive and never touch them unless something awful happens to your
"service" files and you need to use them as a backup. Use the "service"
images as your working images.
-- use the best scanner you can afford. The MPHS recently upgraded to
an Epson V750 Pro (about $700 on Amazon). I had been using a middle of
the road Canon which was decent, but the difference in quality with the
Epson is noticeable.
-- name the scanned files in some way that corresponds to the original
photograph. I've been working with a collection that was catalogued
years ago, so I just use those numbers. If your originals don't have
file numbers you'll have to come up with some system of naming or
numbering them -- which brings us full circle to the original question
of the best way to catalog these things!
Good luck!
Nancy Pfotenhauer Mineral Point Historical Society