From Newsgroup: soc.genealogy.britain

(To newcomers: this was originally in the Windows newsgroups, discussing picture-modifying softwares.)

On 2025/9/4 12:53:10, Java Jive wrote:

[snip]

I have a particular need just now, related to my long-standing Family History project. I've scanned the photos of an extended family of
cousins, one branch of which owns a hotel in Scotland, whereat there

[I do love words like "whereat" and its relatives! Much more commonly
used in German.]

have been many family celebrations, etc. I want to put the scans on webpages so that the various members of the various branches of the
family can tell me the names of those in the photos that they can
remember. This means putting up scans on with superimposed numbers so
that people can email me referring to people easily ...
19 = Me
... and so on. In all there are getting on for 100 faces unknown to me.

I've been using PaintShopPro to do this manually, but the problem is

_Any_ of the suggested alternatives could do this manually - at least I
assume they can; I certainly would have no problem adding numbers to
each face in IrfanView. (If I anticipated _changing_ the added text -
such as removing or adding a symbol, to show which people had been
identified - I might first put a blank rectangle, then the text [number]
on top of that. [Might make the number more legible anyway even if I
didn't intend to change it.])

that, when re-arranging the web-pages to make a more logical
progression, the numbers superimposed on the photos are still in the

(How many photos are we talking about?)

order that originally I processed the photos, so the resulting
arrangement is illogical and confusing. What I really need is a way of automating this, like selecting text in a word-processor and clicking a button to turn it into an ordered list.

Hmm. You mean you'd ideally like to _change_ the numbers appearing in
the pictures? Not only would that be difficult (you'd certainly need a _layered_ image manipulator, which IrfanView/Faststone isn't), but a way
of linking the texts to an external list/database/whatever, which I
don't know if _any_ picture software can do; but also, surely it'd be
prone to confusion: if some of your relatives have taken copies of the
images - either printed them, or taken their own electronic copies -
surely it would be highly confusing if, on your latest version of the
website, the numbers associated with individual faces in individual
photos _were different_.

Maybe I'm not quite understanding what you want to do.>

It's a big ask I know, but does anyone have any suggestions as to how to
do this?

If it was me: I'd give two versions of the images, one as originally
scanned, and one with text on it. Ideally (on the annotated ones,
obviously), I'd put the actual names where known, and a number
otherwise; if, as I would imagine is the case, there isn't room to put
the names, I'd put the numbers, with an added symbol - say an asterisk -
to indicate either which ones have been identified, or which ones
haven't (I'd say the latter is preferable). Or, you could use different coloured numbers - say, green for ones that have been identified and red
for ones that haven't (that would also allow, say, yellow for ones in
between - say someone has _suggested_ who the person is but isn't sure).
With (until all on each picture _have_ been identified) a line of text somewhere saying what was what, such as "* - still unidentified" or
"numbers in [red] still to be identified" (obviously using red rather
than square brackets).
If there isn't room for the actual names, I'd stick with the numbers you started with - however illogical - to avoid confusion; if a time arises
when all _have_ been identified (or you decide no more are going to be),
you _could_ then renumber. But you'd need to do a mass emailing to all concerned - and, probably, add some warning text to the website (each
page if several), saying that you'd renumbered on date X. (Arguably, if
you _do_ renumber, use numbers like 35-2 meaning second child of person
35, if there's room, rather than just plain numbers.)

Did you start the numbers at 1 for each picture, or (say) number from
1-15 on the first picture, 16-24 on the second, and so on? I hope the
latter, but if the former, you'll have to do something like adding
letters - A1 to A10 for people in the first picture, B1 on for the
second, and so on.

I would also produce two lists on a webpage: one in number order, with
names beside them where they have been identified -

1. Fred arbuthnot
2. John smith 1800-1856
3. John Smith 1820-1870
4. Jim Crow
5. MAYBE Sheila X?

and another in name order (probably using surname, forename). (And maybe
a third in birth-date order.)


Sorry if I've wandered! Also, I've added a genealogy 'group; it occurs
to me that you may not be in UK, but I thought I should only use one I
actually take, and the fact that the venue is in Scotland I thought
justified that.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"On the whole, I'm in favour of the state getting out of people's lives,
but I would not have a problem with voting being made compulsory. But if
you did that, you'd have to have a box for 'None of the above'."
Jeremy Paxman, quoted in RT 2015/5/2-8
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2