This is your periodic reminder to digitize and identify photos.
Be as precise as you can, but don’t “fuss” over every minute detail–include as much as you know and move on. This 1950-era photo was take in Chicago, Illinois, at a wedding.
If I ever get time, I can go back and include the exact place (which I don’t know) and the date–which I have. But sometimes it’s better to get down what you know for certain and move on to identify as many as you can. This amount of detail is certainly better than the alternative.
4 Responses
Thanks for the suggestion, as I would probably get bogged down in getting the details. As I was reading, I thought — I’d forget that more info was needed, so I’d have create a log which could be cumbersome if you have lots of pictures. But adding a tag to the picture, using a key word such as ‘need xxxx ‘ or ‘add xxxx’, might make it easier to find the pictures later.
I have a question about the citation. When you say “original in collection of” and “in possession of” does that mean that there are 2 pictures, one in each place? or one picture of which you obtained FROM the original collection?
I really appreciate these tips.
Thanks for your comment. It can be difficult to not get bogged down in the details sometimes.
The original was in a collection of materials that belonged to John and Dorothy Ufkes (my grandparents) and is now in my possession.
I know some people who keep collections of materials they get from different people separate–especially if they are different sides of the family. That can be helpful for those “possessors” of collections to give them to relatives, particularly if the “possessors” don’t have children as a relative of one family may not one everything.
Since I am mostly computer illiterate, how is it that you can “attach” this info to photos? A particular program or what?
I use Paint that comes with Windows. There are other programs that can be used as well, Ifranview is another one that many people use.