Write on back of pictures?

[Jim65]

I recently bought a nice lot of snapshots, I identified most of the players, would it be ok to write the players name on back or is that defacing them?

[Steve D]

I personally have no problem at all with writing on the back of photos, especially if it identifies the player/s in the picture. In fact, I wish more people would identify the people in pictures they take.

Steve

[icollectDCsports]

For snapshots, I personally wouldn't have a problem with it, but I would not use a ballpoint or other pen that could indent the back and cause raised areas on the surface of the photo.

[GoCubsGo32]

For someone who's a snapshot collector..I would leave it if it's vintage. If it's more modern, I'd used a pencil. Just no sharpies!

[Mark70Z]

I personally wouldn’t write on them, but agree with Gary that if you do document the players name write in pencil.

[MVSNYC]

Or maybe apply a small acid-free sticker to the back, with the info on that?

[D. Bergin]

These aren't cards. I don't think there should be any problem writing the names on the back in pencil.

Future collectors will likely appreciate it, if they ever make it back into the hobby again.

[drcy]

I think neat pencil identifiers on back is fine.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by drcy

I think neat pencil identifiers on back is fine.

Agreed

[roarfrom34]

I've written the names on small 'post it' notes and have affixed those to the back

[thecatspajamas]

I would lean more toward writing the id lightly in pencil over affixing any kind of label or post-it to the back. Graphite is stable over the long-term and consistent with what has been used historically. While the label or post-it is probably okay on most cases, the long-term effect is less-sure. If in pencil, I have a hard time believing anyone could distinguish between modern pencil and vintage (unless they happen to recognize your handwriting).

You might also consider just putting them in sleeves or toploaders and putting the label on that rather than the photo itself.

[Snapolit1]

Yeah, why? Put a removable label on the back and scribble on that.

[ramram]

Might want to add a date that you made the identification. It can also be a problem if somebody is identified incorrectly.

Rob M

[frankbmd]

If more folks wrote names in pencil, we wouldn't need ears.

[Runscott]

I like the idea of a removable sticker. When I re-seal a dag or ambrotype I describe what I find (hallmarks, etc) on the sealing tape, along with my name and the date sealed. Anything more than that gets written on a piece of paper and placed behind the sealed image. It would be good to have something similar for prints as they can get separated from documentation.

[Michael B]

I see no problem with writing in pencil on the back. I do it all the time. It is helpful with press photos that have a caption sheet as it can be upside down or when it is folded over you only see the blank side. Stickers or Post-its are not a good idea on older photos. The adhesive is not archival and older photo paper is porous. Putting a piece of paper in an archival sleeve behind the image is not bad, however the paper can still react with the image.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Michael B

Putting a piece of paper in an archival sleeve behind the image is not bad, however the paper can still react with the image.

I've never heard of this - please show an example. Thanks

[drcy]

I will add by saying that, as a photo historian, a problem is that there all these non-sport tintypes, cabinet cards etc around where the identities are lost in time, and it would have been great service if people had noted the details on them.

People often come to me with a tintype and ask how they can find out who is the person in the image, and I respond that they more than probably will never be able to know.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I've never heard of this - please show an example. Thanks

Scott,

I should have been clearer on this. It will affect the back, not the front on glossy photos. You may see it on press photos as an example. Non archival paper could affect fibre prints as they are not glossy, but I would not expect anyone to purposely place a piece of paper on the front of a photo not matter the finish.

[Runscott]

I thought you said that a piece of paper in an archival sleeve on the back could affect the printed image on the front. That seemed odd to me, but just because i haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't possible.