Re: Imprinted Date on Pictures

ASAAR wrote: 
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 03:11:40 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

But it's up to YOU to know when to avoid
adding the date/time.  Maybe it's done garishly by Kodak cameras,
but it can be done very subtly, where even *you* might not object
too much. :)
IF you really want the date on the picture, I suggest adding whitespace at the bottom, and putting the date on there. I find a date ON the image to be very unaesthetic. My brother-in-law sent some image files with the date on the image, in bright orange, yet, and that was from a Sony prosumer level camera... really UGLY. Fortunately, I was able to get rid of the dates with PSE3.
If the date were smaller, and in the very bottom right or left of the picture, and in a color that doesn't 'jump out' at me, I might not object so much, but the ones I have seen are about the size of Pica type, and at least 1/2 inch from the bottom, and usually in red, yellow, or orange. REALLY UGLY! 

  That was exactly my point.  You can get the date (and without the
time if you wish) just as you describe, very, very close to the
bottom in a very, very small font, and the color, while yellowish is
quite subdued.  It would be even nicer if this, and additional
information could be printed on the reverse side of the photo, but
that may not be possible due to dye or ink transfer from the back of
one print to the front of another.  It's not for no reason that the
backs of most photo papers are so difficult to print on.

  Most people seem to prefer borderless prints, so adding whitespace
just to contain the printed date probably wouldn't be much cared for
by most people.  As photo albums using gummed corners to hold the
photos are much less popular than they were decades ago, there's
less of a reason to create pictures with white borders.  The
addition of equal sized borders would also change the 4:6 aspect
ratio, but probably not by enough for anyone to care very much
unless the white borders were very large.

Through the 50's and 60's, my family always used 'Fox Photo' for prints because they printed the date on the back of the pictures. Too bad no one seems to think of this any more. Or if they do, I haven't seen it on any commercial prints lately. Of course, having given up film entirely, this isn't a major concern any more around here.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Imprinted Date on Pictures
    ... Maybe it's done garishly by Kodak cameras, ... > at the bottom, and putting the date on there. ... backs of most photo papers are so difficult to print on. ... less of a reason to create pictures with white borders. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Thats not the handlebar creaking
    ... In your first photo, the stem shows what appears to be corrosion ... Looks like there's oxidation/dirt on the bottom of the break near the ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: ANTM cycle 8, week 4
    ... Good photo once again, but it would have been much, much ... surrounding her chin just made the bottom half of her face look very weak. ... Her make-over was the best in the bunch. ... Baby Tyra is sent home. ...
    (rec.arts.tv)
  • Re: Help is needed Phaistos Disk
    ... the "undammaged inverted V" has ben PAINT IN BLUE in the last photo ... For the color-photo at the bottom left, ... RELIEF, showing that it is part of an UNDAMMAGED area. ... John Doe ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: current/modern email netiquette
    ... For my normal email, I do tend to use plain text, snip and then post after ... This makes it easier to go to the bottom, go up a bit, read down ... colleague at work and there was a 2 second pause whilst a little photo ... Breaking out-of-office-email ettiquette is useful. ...
    (comp.mail.misc)