TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-04 > 1017838637


From: "Michael O'Brien" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] naming/captioning photos
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 07:57:17 -0500
In-Reply-To: <3CA956EA.9987D455@jump.net>


> > I struggled with the issue of how to catalog and caption
> photos very early
> > in my family research. I tried using file names to hold the caption
> > (incompatible with CD file systems),
>
> I don't quite understand what you're saying.

CD file systems can handle only 64 characters in the file name. ISO 9660
format supports 8, 30, or 64 character file names, depending upon the level.
Joliet supports 64 character file names. I had attempted to use the file
name of the images to store the caption, which was fine, provided captions
did not include special characters or exceed 6 characters.

> > text files (pain to maintain), etc.
>
> Again, I don't understand this.
> How would you put a photo in a text file (unless you use
> base64 encoding or some type of encoding)?

I tried putting the image information in a .txt file for each image. For
example, image file=P0000123.jpg, caption file=P0000123.txt. This worked
fine, except that I had no ability to do keyword searches without some very
slow and unwieldy scripting.

> >I came across a program called ThumbsPlus. It uses an MS Access
> > database to record information about all your photos - caption,
> > keywords, user-defined fields, etc.

<SNIP>
> Is makes a great deal of sense to use Thumbs... or some other
> type of album software to "look" at your photos or to keep
> track of them, but I would not recommend using it to format
> and store your photos. Any album software will have a limited
> lifespan. It won't even be as long as microfilm. ;-)

I think I see where your confusion is:
- Thumbs+ does not format and store my photos - its a UI on an Access
database that catalogs my images
- Thumbs+ uses Access...arguably the most popular database for Windows users
- If Thumbs+ disappears tomorrow I still have the information in the Access
DB...all I've lost is the UI.

> Imagine how thrilled your great niece will be, 25 years from
> now, when she finds your old "files" and the note you left --
> "Dear Jane: I've spent years compiling these photos and
> captions for you. I've formatted them with this fancy
> program. I'm sure you'll be thrilled to see all the images
> of your ancestors." And of course, the thrill Jane was
> beginning to feel, at reading your note, turns to huge
> disappointment when she realizes she can't recover anything
> from your non-standard photo storing method. ;-) She'll
> probably be able to send it off to some company who sells
> conversion services, but it will cost her a mint. ;-)

Ditto if you stored them on CD-R, CD-RW, magnetic tape, etc. I've seen
information that CD-R/RW's last as little as 5 years. DLT tapes last up to
30 years in a climate-controlled environment. Point being: no electronic
media will reliably store your data for periods as long as 25 years without
the risk of data loss. You need to periodically make new copies of archived
data and keep a printed copy of your records.

> Oh, sure, if you use a program like that, you can export
> a JPEG image, when the vendor decides to sunset the software,
> but then if one has to export the photo, in order to "save"
> it, why bother storing it in the album software's database,
> anyway? ;-)

Agreed. Thumbs+ does not store the images in the database - it's simply a
catalog. I believe we're both on the same page, but your assumption that
all image catalog systems store the images themselves in the database is
incorrect (and this would be a bad thing if they did).

> I much prefer to do the work ONCE. If my standard files
> fall out of favor with the general public, I will be able
> to write a short, quickie script to migrate the image
> files to the newly popular format.

And this differs from the use of an Access database...how? This is why I
went to an image cataloging system in the first place...and I have saved
literally hundreds of hours producing a web site with over 1000 images
neatly placed in photo albums for each individual - all automatically (via
scripts).

> My opinion on this photo/caption topic should not be
> miscontrued to imply I'm "anti-database". I am not.
> A true relational or OO DBMS is a wonderful thing, as
> long as it is used in the proper environment.

How is a database used to catalog images with searchable keywords, captions,
dates, etc. not a "proper environment"? To me this is a perfect application
of a database.

Ideally, though, I would like to be able to write the caption to the header
on each image file. That way the image file itself contains a record of the
contents of the image and can stand alone (without the database).

Mike
>
> Just my 2 cents.
> :-)
> acp
<SNIP>
>
> --
>
> :-)
> acp
> ******** "Too many stupid people. Too few comets." *********
> **********************************************************************
> * A. Collene Pearce * * www.jump.net/~collene *
> **********************************************************************
> *
>
>
> ==== TMG Mailing List ====
> .
>
>

This thread: