LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Yes, some were. I have a stack of b&w prints in front of me (I have to scan them when I remember) that I took years ago and were printed by Kodak. All they have on them is 1969 on the lower border. I have many others, taken by my father, with no date stamp of any kind. For some photos a date stamp ruins the image, but for personal, family, historical, etc, photos a date stamp is a nice thing to have, especially when prints are involved.

BudsOwl Loc: Upstate NY and New England

This is a great idea. I think I might try it the next time we have a class reunion. 65th college coming up this fall.
Bud

Hip Coyote

Dirtfarmer, can you provide more details on how you do this? I am in the same situation and would like to replicate what you are doing with group photos. What algorithm, etc?

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

Contrary to what some have said here, the D7000 WILL add a date/time stamp - when you print the photo. See pages 184 and 187 of the users' manual that came with your camera. The camera uses a built-in piece of software called PictBridge - and this task, of course, is accomplished by a direct-to-printer USB connection. You turn the D7000 off, then connect it to the printer with a USB cable and then turn the D7000 back on. You should see a PictBridge welcome screen. Use the circular toggle right side of the LCD screen to select your picture. Press the "OK" button - in the middle of the toggle. You'll then see printing options, including date/time stamp - as in, date and time the image was recorded. There are also options for printing multiple images at a time Although the Nikon D7000 manual does not reference this, most printer drivers will allow printing to a pdf, which might allow you to save these images to your desktop, laptop, tablet or phone w/o actually making a paper copy. BTW, if you've lost or misplaced your manual, you can download one from the Nikon website.

Meives Loc: FORT LAUDERDALE

It is very anoying to ruin a picture with dates. All digital cameras have the data in the exif file. Date, time, ISO, f-stop, shutter speed, and lens setting. No need to destroy pictures. David

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

You failed to read the OP's explanation, didn't you?? He runs a repair shop of some kind and has need of date/time stamps for proof of work or some such.

James Slick Loc: Pittsburgh,PA

Yep! many people might REQUIRE dates on photos (and a print provides no EXIF data).

Contractors,
Insurance adjusters,

Many photos are records or "notes" and not "art".

I helped a friend in a building restoration project, and all of the photos had the dates printed on the face of the prints so the process could be followed in a physical photo album.

I guess people think no one prints anymore........

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Couldn't agree more. Putting the date on the original, wherever it may reside. is a VERY bad idea.

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

You are STILL not paying attention. In some cases - insurance adjusters, repair shops and so on - the date/time stamp MUST be on the print so as to prove you're not trying to, say, screw an insurance company into paying for damage that occurred a long time ago, or trying to show a poor guy a picture of some whole other body's repaired transmission w/o actually performing the repair.

It is NOT a matter of creating an artistic image. It IS a matter of providing verifiable documentation of something.

Now you're gonna say - "Why not just show the person needing proof the exif data. Hm. Could be done, I suppose - IF you've a staff trained to get a card out of a camera and into a computer and then open the software that'll allow viewing the exif data.

There are some auto insurance companies that will accept a photograph as proof of damage - IF the date and time of image capture can be ascertained, meaning the blasted date and time MUST be on a print or jpeg/tiff/pdf.

Now then, think about this little fact. In the case of the OP's Nikon D7000, using the built-in PictBridge software, when the camera is connected via usb cable to a printer, the software adds a date/time stamp to the friggin' PRINT. It does NOT alter the original image.

Clear enough now?

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Well let's see... you've told me that I'm STILL not paying attention, and about special cases in which a date stamp is needed. The need for that kind if I.D. is obvious, but is should be equally obvious that I was referring to the general very high percentage of images that do not require it.

You bring up the PictBridge exception. Can you think of any other arcane examples to bolster your comments? (I have heard that if you send the raw image to a remote lab in the mountains of Kazakhstan, it has the same results as PictBridge.) Consider this: if a bad actor decided to create a bogus date stamp on a FRIGGIN print, I'm sure Photoshop would do that quite nicely.

Next time, engage your brain before you insult another member, saying that they're not paying attention; first because it's rude, and second because you have no way of telling how much they were or weren't paying attention.

There's a well-known idiom that says, "people can disagree without being disagreeable." Try taking that one to heart, and get a clue. >Alan

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

The point I was trying to make was, simply, that your comment has no application to the OP's query. What you've stated about not date-stamping is a legitimate point. That the "general very high percentage of images that do not require it" are just not reverent to this thread.

That said, I pointed out that PictBridge and other, similar applications do NOT affect the original image, and you see that as "arcane?"

Frankly, your insistence of making statements that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread means that either you AREN'T paying attention, or else you don't care a whit for the purpose of this thread, which has been carefully laid out. Furthermore, your statement has already been made, in similar form, by another UHH'er, and the OP explained his need further, after which the other fellow graciously accepted his point.

Maybe you missed that. Maybe if you really did carefully follow the thread and had refrained from making statements that are irreverent to the thread, and, frankly, doing so in a rude manner, you might have avoided all these needless insults to myself and to folks from my area in general.

Now, I could add a nifty insult here, but, pal, you ain't worth it. You're either having a bad day and are venting at our expense, or else you're a troll, and therefore not worth further communication. So I'll just say, "bless your Yankee heart," and good night.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

You must be correct.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Excellent point. Why would anyone want a date/time stamp on a perfectly good photo?

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Another poster pointed out (rather impolitely) that some situations require a date stamp on the original, because they could be shot for legal, insurance, or similar reasons. However, in all other cases, you are 100% right. >Alan

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Yes, but that information, for a digital photo, will be embedded in the file, wouldn't it? My question is why it would be necessary to be visible on the actual photo.