date/time on photo (Page 2): I continue to be baffled why people simply cannot accept that batchphoto does exactly what they are asking and move on. Here is the answer to the question:...

Hip Coyote

BigDaddy wrote:

It would be extremely tedious to manually add the ... (show quote)

I continue to be baffled why people simply cannot accept that batchphoto does exactly what they are asking and move on. Here is the answer to the question: Batch-Freaking-Photo! It adds the date, data time, what ever you want, automatically, where ever you want on the photo or a batch (hence its name) of photos in what ever font you want, in what ever color you want.

Everyone repeat after me, "Batchphoto."

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Hip Coyote wrote:

I continue to be baffled why people simply cannot accept that batchphoto does exactly what they are asking and move on. Here is the answer to the question: Batch-Freaking-Photo! It adds the date, data time, what ever you want, automatically, where ever you want on the photo or a batch (hence its name) of photo on what ever font you want, in what ever color you want.

Everyone repeat after me, "Batchphoto."

Batchphoto seems like a viable option, but it costs money. Other options (that I listed) may also work and cost nothing.

Not sure why you addressed this to me, I agreed your solution would do what he wants, just it's not free. There are often multiple solutions to a problem. I posted a link to two possible solutions, both free, that should also do exactly what he wants. Also my link references MANY links to solutions for this exact issue, so it appears your solution is just one of many.

I use ACDSee for photo cataloging. It has a TON of batch processing available, and it has options to add metadata including various date and time to your images, anywhere you want and any fonts you want, and in batches. In my opinion this is his absolute best option because it is unsurpassed in photo cataloging software. Does photo editing including layers. Does batch processing of everything imaginable. I can include any or all metadata, including various dates, filename, everything in batch processing. I'm certain it makes Batchphoto look insignificant. Thing is, ACDSee costs money, but not all that much more than Batchphoto. Everyone repeat after me "ACDSee"...(but wait for a big sale)

k2edm Loc: FN32AD

Old Coot wrote:

I think that most digital cameras have that option built in.

sri only 3 dig do, none are canon

Hip Coyote

BigDaddy wrote:

Batchphoto seems like a viable option, but it cost... (show quote)

I was agreeing with you. Or supporting your argument. Or so I thought...didn't come off well. I guess I should have not done the quote reply...you and I are on the same page. What baffles me, as well, is that folks who pay thousands upon thousands of bucks for camera gear try to get by with free software. I think the cost of the software is de minimus compared to almost every other aspect of this hobby.

So, sorry if I seemed to bite back...I am in total agreement .

Cheers

Hip Coyote

Old Coot wrote:

I think that most digital cameras have that option built in.

They do not.

augieg27 Loc: Central California

k2edm wrote:

looking thru about 8-10 k photos over the last 60+ years I am ready to give in. Does anyone manufacture a digitalcamera that will put the date ON the photo? or software which will batch process adding the date later from saved data?? It should not take a rocket scientist to write software to add any of the Xsif data to the field of a jpg.. thanks..Ed

Most cameras have a choice in the menu to put the date on the photo or not.

k2edm Loc: FN32AD

no only 3 digitalcameras do

Hereford Loc: Palm Coast, FL

The problem I see with most automated appended dates is that they are glaringly obnoxious in size to the point of ruining the photo. See hip Coyote's picture above to see what I mean.

I don't have an answer for batch processing, but I use the PS type tool to append dates to pictures as I process them, if I feel that is important for that photo. I have processed over 5,000 photos for my genealogy family tree project. I add names and dates using PS type tool. Most photos are 5 x 7 and I use font size 8 or 9. For 8 x 10 size I use font size 12. I find those dates are small enough to not defile the photo, and I only use black or white font lettering (depending on background color) placed mostly in a corner of the photo.

Hereford Loc: Palm Coast, FL

Here is an example.

(Download)

Hip Coyote

Hereford wrote:

The problem I see with most automated appended dat... (show quote)

One can make the date as big or as small as one wants, where one wants, how one wants It can have a block background, it can have a shadow, it can be any color of the rainbow. It can be size 12 font or size 6 or size 46. I chose 12 on a very quick example.

I need a drink and it’s only 11 where I’m at

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Hereford wrote:

The problem I see with most automated appended dat... (show quote)

I have the same concern. Automation does not care about artistic quality. If it is really necessary to append the date as text to any given photo, it should be placed in a white space or border (unless the photo in question is not for artistic purposes, but only for documentation or some similar purpose).

And I believe that although documentation is important for many photos, appending a date is not necessary for most photos. The date is in the EXIF data (unless, of course, the photo is in the form of a print). For digital photos, the date could be included in the file name. That would preserve any artistic qualities in the image itself, while still making the date easily available to an interested party.

k2edm Loc: FN32AD

what started this off is most of my old photos on the computer came from scanned slides & I was looking thru them and realised how often I wanted to know how old my children were when this slide was taken. I went from there to "fixing the problem" in the future, not realising that at my age, there really is no future. I tried some of the above mentioned software before throwing in the towel. Was an interesting adventure though, thanks everyone.. Ed

augieg27 Loc: Central California

k2edm wrote:

no only 3 digitalcameras do

I have had several cameras and all of them have/had that option.
I don't use it because I don't like that on my pictures.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

It's always a problem trying to get dates from slides or prints.

Sometimes slides have a date printed on the cardboard holder, but it's the processing date. At least it tells you that the picture was taken before that.

The best thing to do is to write on the back of the print or the cardboard holder of the slide. Best done at the time you get the prints/slides from the processor, but it can be done any time.

k2edm Loc: FN32AD

DirtFarmer wrote:

It's always a problem trying to get dates from slides or prints.

Sometimes slides have a date printed on the cardboard holder, but it's the processing date. At least it tells you that the picture was taken before that.

The best thing to do is to write on the back of the print or the cardboard holder of the slide. Best done at the time you get the prints/slides from the processor, but it can be done any time.

WHAT ARE SLIDES??????