The primary purpose of indexing photos is to be able to find them again. This can be achieved with minimal effort using a software application such as Photoshop Elements. Each photo can be tagged with keywords and date; and selected instances of faces can be identified such that the application is then able to pick out all photos in which that face appears.

However, just relying on a software application has the following disadvantages and shortcomings:

• You’re locked into the software and the need to upgrade it when old versions go out of support and when you upgrade your computer/operating system to a version which doesn’t support the version of the software that you currently possess.
• If a photo is moved out of the application for whatever reason, there is only the information in the file name and file properties to identify the photo and its contents.
• Any additional information you wish to hold about a set of photos has to be shoehorned into any available aspects of the software application and digital file properties of each photo, despite them not being designed for that purpose.
• There is usually insufficient support for the process of organising and digitising a large set of old photos.

To overcome the problems outlined above, I have taken the following approach:

1. Create an index list in Excel in which a set of photos  (for example a roll of 35mm photos) is allocated a sequential serial number. Serial numbers are included on each package containing negatives and/or photos.
2. Each photo within a set is given its own unique number, for example, if set Number 72 is “Holiday in Crete, 1982” then the first photo in the set would be 72-1, the second 72-2 etc.. These unique numbers are written on the rear of the physical photo, and in the file name of the digitised version together with a short description of the photo’s contents, for example, “72-1 – View from the villa in Crete, Aug1982”
3. For each entry in the Excel index, an unlimited selection of information can be recorded about the set in question. I currently record the following:
   • Set number
   • Title
   • Type (can include 110, 120, 126, 127, 127, 35mm, APS, Digital, Digital Movie, Disc Film, Ektachrome Slides, No Negs, Polaroid, Slides, Super 8 Movie, VHS Video)
   • Length (for videos) (hours, minutes, seconds)
   • Number of photos in the set (for still photos)
   • Number on media (any control numbers on the negatives etc.)
   • Year on Media (any year info contained on the negatives)
   • Month on media (any month info contained on the negatives)
   • Day on media (any day info contained on the negatives)
   • Start year (the year in which the first shot  in the set was taken)
   • Status (can include Created digitally, Digitised by shop, Not yet digitised, Scanned by X, To be developed)
   • File type (can include TIF, JPG)
   • Hue (can include B&W, Colour)
   • In PC (Yes, Not yet, No) i.e. specifies whether a digital version is stored in the PC)
   • In Album (Not yet, Yes, Some, Most, No) i.e. specifies if the photos in the set are included in the physical album
   • Album 1 (the name of the first physical album the photos have been included in)
   • Album 2 (should the set have been split across two albums, or should particular photos have been included in more than one album, then this entry will specify the name of the second physical album)
   • Photographer
   • Comments
4. Once indexing and digitisation have been completed, the physical photos (numbered on the back) can be included in a physical album, and negatives (in numbered packages) can be put away for safe keeping.
5. For the digital collection, a folder is created for each set with the folder title containing the set number, a short version of the title and the year, for example, “072 – Holiday in Crete, 1982”. The individual digitised photo/movie files are placed within the appropriate folders.

The rigour engendered  by such an indexing approach provides a solid basis on which to start organising a collection of photos – particularly collections containing many types of photos amassed over the years. Once the photos and movies have been indexed, labelled and digitised, they can be stored and managed in a wide variety of ways – including importing them into specialist applications. The challenge after that is to index new photos/movies regularly enough so as not to build up an overwhelming backlog.

After completing the previous Post on “Why do people keep photos”, I emailed the philosopher Robert Hopkins of the University of Sheffield, and asked him if he could point me in the direction of someone who is knowledgeable on the subject of why people keep photos.  He very kindly sent me the following reply:

“I don’t know of any philosopher who has addressed this specific question. However, one might use some of the views in the philosophy of photography to try to answer it. As you perhaps know, Kendall Walton, in a famous paper called ‘Transparent Pictures’, argues that to see someone in a photo of them is literally to see that person. So photographs are aids to vision: like spectacles, mirrors, microscopes and night vision goggles, they allow us to see things through them. The special feature of photographs, in this regard, is that they allow us to see things that lie in the past. Walton thinks that, while ordinary folk wouldn’t necessarily put things that way, they are sensitive to this fact about photographs. We treat photos differently from other pictures, and we do so because they put us in some specially intimate relation with the objects in them. His account explains what that intimacy amounts to: it is seeing the thing. If he’s right about all this, the answer to your question comes readily enough. People keep photographs because they want to be able to see scenes, and the people and objects in them, even when those people and things are long gone, or far away, or no longer in the state they once were.”

The paper that Rob refers to is accessible at this address: http://komm.bme.hu/wp-content/uploads/group-documents/76/1315656188-Walton_Transparent_Pictures.pdf

It was published in December 1984 in the journal Critical Enquiry and is 30 pages or so of detailed discussion illustrated by example photos and pictures. At the time of writing it, Kendall Walton was Professor of Philosophy at the University of Michigan.

A quick analysis of the four pieces I had found on the net to do with ‘Why do people keep photos'[Why-do-people-keep-photos-v1.1-13Jul2012] seems to indicate the following:

The main reasons that people keep photos is a) as a reminder of the past, and b) to share their experiences with others. There are many aspects to the first reason including:

• To experience a moment again and the feelings you had at that moment.
• To remind you of someone you really liked – or perhaps hated.
• To escape from the present to the past because it is somehow more enjoyable than the present.
• To augment a vague memory and see how it really was.

People also keep other artefacts such as theatre tickets and programmes, but a photo provides a richer memory experience. The saying ‘A picture is worth a thousand words’ is appropriate for a variety of reasons including:

• Photos tell us about the person photographed, and how they looked, what they did and liked or disliked, and maybe even how they were feeling or what they were thinking.
• Photos tell us about history, trends and how things have changed or stayed the same.
• Photos also tell us about the interests , preferences and lives of the people taking the photos.

Photos also have a special value over and above keepsakes or even paintings – they are ‘factive’. That is, we know that, provided things are working properly and have been done right, what’s in a photo actually existed or occurred. Of course, most people are aware that photos can give a false impression or can be doctored, but under normal circumstances photos show things the way they were.

Keeping photos is not normally classified as Hoarding – though a couple of the characteristics of hoarders might apply – no confidence in one’s memory and a fear of forgetting important memories. So, it is likely that someone with hoarding tendencies would probably want to keep photos – but just because someone keeps photos doesn’t make them a hoarder.

Interestingly, I found little mention of specific family reasons for keeping photos – either to see what one’s ancestors were like or to pass photos down to future generations. There was mention that photos tell us about our history and can serve as a linkage of one generation to another but no discussion of why those things are important. My guess is that it is just a natural human trait to be interested in where you came from and what your ancestors were like; and that any desire to hand photos down to the next generation simply reflects the value that individuals place on having such information about their ancestors themselves.