XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-10, alt.comp.os.windows-11   
   From: G6JPG@255soft.uk   
      
   (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   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)