Write on back of pictures?

[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