Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Datestamps on Photos... Love 'em or Hate 'em?

This is topic Datestamps on Photos... Love 'em or Hate 'em? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002712

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-23-2003, 12:53 AM:

Looking through the recent ShoWest pictures (yes, I know ShoWest was over 6 months ago), I noticed that many pics had a large yellow datestamp on them in the lower right corner. I know many film cameras optically superimpose the date on the negative, but I guess digital cameras are doing it as well now.

My question: WHAT'S THE POINT? I mean the files themselves will have a creation date on them, but why have it on the picture itself as well? To me it is distracting and ruins the photo. Just like network logos in the bottom right corner of your TV screen. And it's there forever unless you Photoshop it away. Makes the pictures look amateur. Pictures done wrong! TV done wrong! Aaaahhhh!!!!!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-23-2003, 01:24 AM:

Hate 'em. Absolutely hate 'em. [Mad]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-23-2003, 01:28 AM:

Date stamps should NEVER be included on photos of any kind. Digital cameras and any cheap film camera should never have the ability to include such garbage. If someone feels the need for showing the damned date on an image, they need to write it on the back of a print or printed paper printout of a digital photo. Never on the image itself.

Likewise, video cameras should not ever be allowed to stamp time and date on the video image. Whoever came up with that one is a moron that needs to be beaten about the head and chest with hammers.

Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 11-23-2003, 01:36 AM:

To super-imposed dates, times & logos I say: [fu]

aggravation-cha-cha-cha! [fu]

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 11-23-2003, 01:58 AM:

I'll be the person to say "I like them". They have their purpose for a specfic photo or event... but NOT every single photo you take.

I've got a Canon EOS Rebel 2000 that we bought specifically when we found out we were having our first son. We only use the "good camera" for things like birthdays, births, family events, etc. This summer we used the "good camera" to record the progress of the construction of our theatre. (I know.. I still haven't sent the pictures in for the Picture Warehouse)

We have found ourselves embattled in a lawsuit with the general contractor who was "by contract" to have our concessions/projection building completed by the 20th of August,2003 so we would be able to open on Friday night August 22nd. We went down and took photos EVERY day during construction process, and EVERY single photo has a date stamp in the bottom right-hand corner. Our photos dated 8-20-03 clearly show that there were no windows or window frames in the building, no ceiling grid or ceiling tiles, no water, sewer or electrical service to the building, no cabinets or counter tops, no plumbing fixtures set, no electrical outlets, light fixtures, (the list goes on for 4 pages)..etc., and the dated photos have ended up being the only saving grace of "our word" against his. Not only did the building not get finished on time, but not having the building completed on-time, it costs us a full weeks and weekends worth of income.

Date stamps do have their purpose... just not on every single photo.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-23-2003, 01:59 AM:

Date stamps can be Photoshopped into a picture.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 11-23-2003, 09:10 AM:

Some photo finishing places will print the date you had the pictures developed on the backs of the prints. This isn't too useful unless you take one day's worth of shots and have them develooped that day, but it gives you an idea of when you took the picture.

Date stamps on the image? NO! Only when they are needed as in Barry's situation, but there should be an option to turn them on or off on the camera and NOT have them on EVERY picture you take.

As for video cameras, same thing. Sometimes you need it, most times you don't. The video cameras I hate are the ones that find it necessary not only to display, but to RECORD ON THE ACTUAL TAPE the amount of battery you have left, what light setting you chose, where in the tape it is (S-----E) etc... WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE WANT THIS [bs]

RECORDED ONTO THEIR TAPE?!?! [Mad]

There. I'm calm now. [Smile]

=TMP=

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-23-2003, 11:01 AM:

One of the dumber photographic things to come out of the 1970's was the borderless print. As if we really covet the few millimeters of extra image area. (That and the "silk finish." Who needs extra granularity? Give me glossy any day.) Back when prints normally had a little border so they could be easily handled without touching the image it was normal to print the month and year of processing in that area. Not as accurate as an actual date stamp but a good general reference and no intrusion to the picture itself.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 11-23-2003, 12:29 PM:

I have had two cameras that will date stamp an image. One was film and was was digital. In both cases the feature could be turned off.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-23-2003, 01:56 PM:

There is (was?) an optional back for the Nikon F4 that could print date and exposure information _between_ frames rather than superimposing the information on the picture. Seemed like a good idea to me, and I'm surprised that it didn't become more popular with more manufacturers. It's useless for mounted slides, obviously, but would be great for Barry's (and others') purposes.

With digital, I would think that there should be a standard format for metadata (date, time, exposure info, GPS coordinates, etc.) that could be stored either as part of the image file or in a separate file, rather than having to superimpose it on the picture.

Don't APS cameras have some way to record metadata to the magnetic layer on the film so that labs can then print this information on the back of the print?

Steve--I agree that borderless prints suck. With 35mm, I usually get either slides or contact sheets from the lab and then have the best shots printed full-frame (borders, no cropping) on 8x10" paper. A semi-pro or pro lab should be able to do this easily, even for machine prints. I've only had a couple of prints made from 4x5 negatives, but I've had those printed with narrow borders as well.

I'm not a fan of "matte" or "pearl" finish prints, but most fine art photographers seem to love them, for some reason.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 11-25-2003, 11:27 AM:

Many digital cameras have the ability to write EXIF data into the JPG files they create. This EXIF data contains loads of information about the date, time, exposure, flash, settings, and even the photographer's name if they put that into their camera.

Photoshop and Photoshop Album are able to read this EXIF data so that you can make use of it if you wish. It's especially handy in Photoshop Album, since the photos are organized by the date and time they were taken automatically. (This is a great program by the way)

APS cameras have the ability to encode the date and time of the photo, so that the processor can add it to the back (or front) of the photo. I have found that this practice varies greatly by processor. Some print the date the photo was taken, others print the date the photo was processed. We avoid those that do the latter, as it takes us months to go through film now that we have a good digital camera.

Many places around here have gone to printing the date on the front of our APS prints, which I don't understand at all. We didn't ask for it, and now we have to make sure to request that they don't do it. Too much hassle for me, I'll stick with my digital and print my own as needed, thanks.

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 11-25-2003, 12:13 PM:

I like the option to be there, as long as it can be turned off. I sometimes used timestamps in pictures with friends/family...stuff that was just for fun. Any landscape photos and the such, it would just annoy the piss out of me if they were there.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-25-2003, 09:58 PM:

I deliberately leave the date stamp on when I'm taking hundreds of photos at a conference, so I can better remember the sequence of events by just looking at the image. Although I've usually been good in labeling prints I've taken, I have hundreds of unlabeled family photos from years ago that I would really have appreciated a date in the image to at least place the year, if not the event.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-25-2003, 10:00 PM:

Ah the true birth of CAP code... [Wink]

Steve

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-26-2003, 08:49 AM:

Some actually suggested doing CAP Code with visible numbers in the image! [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-26-2003, 09:30 AM:

quote:
John Pytlak wrote:
Some actually suggested doing CAP Code with visible numbers in the image!

Here is a beta test image of what John speaks of:

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-26-2003, 12:26 PM:

What the hell kind of aspect ratio is that Joe? 1.47? I mean really ... who the hell projects anything near 1.47? What? Oh. Nevermind.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-26-2003, 04:01 PM:

Horizontal VistaVision with a little slop off the sides to hide the splices.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 11-26-2003, 04:22 PM:

I'm with Brad on this one. Especially if you want to frame it without cropping it.

Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 11-26-2003, 04:23 PM:

I have a data back for my Cannon EOS and I use it only when I am trying to date a particular thing. For Example as an avid model railroader trying to model a particular railroad in a particular time era, it is nice to have photo's with teh dates on them so you know at what point during the life of let's say a Locomotive it looked or had certain features on it.