Re: file numbering systems

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2013-06-21 19:31, Jan Faul wrote:
> 
> On Jun 21, 2013, at 3:35 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> 
>> On 2013-06-21 12:53, Tina Manley wrote:
>>> All of my film, including negatives, is cut and mounted into Gepe slide
>>> mounts.  The mounts hold it flat and make it much easier to scan and to
>>> file by subject and country.
>>
>> Yes, if you're going to cut film down, you pretty much have to go all
>> the way into slide mounts or some such.  Way too much trouble and money
>> for me (and in a smaller collection, too; but a rather less valuable one).
> 
> 
> 	I’ve been using my date-backwards system since 1970 and I have a bit more than half a million exposures listed this way. In addition to the number, unlike you folks who don’t care about where anything is, I care. My number gets a country code (DK for Denmark etc), if it’s a battlefields it gets  a four letter NPS locator and if it’s a portrait it goes into a different section completely.

Different kinds of collections, primarily for different purposes,
probably do best with filing and indexing systems chosen to suit those
purposes.

I *do* also index by where something is; I just don't file by it (I can
physically file, or name computer files, by only one primary key;
however, I can have indexes on a lot of things all pointing to the same
images).

> 	Mercifully, I have yet to transition to digital as it would be a terrific loss in quality. A RAW file from a 5D does not compare with a 300MB scan from a Creo.  Sorry, but the 5D is still too contrasty and not a large enough file to make a print 54x182”.

Since it's your choice I wouldn't quite call it "mercifully".  More
like, you haven't been particularly tempted to transition to digital
because it doesn't look like it would work well enough for what you do.

(Given how drum scanners work, I could easily enough create a 300MB file
from a 35mm tri-x negative.  A 5D file would look MUCH better and print
MUCH larger.  Starting from slower, higher-res, less grainy film stock
in larger sizes makes scanning to such sizes much more reasonable.)

-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info






[Index of Archives] [Share Photos] [Epson Inkjet] [Scanner List] [Gimp Users] [Gimp for Windows]

  Powered by Linux