What Would You Do? Overlapping Rolls of Film

These pictures show various scenes from the farm, some sand dunes, and a trip Ellen took to the Grand Canyon and southern Utah. The Grand Canyon being the theme du jour, it is a good time to post this odd assortment of pictures. All are from Grandpa's slides and were developed in July 1970.

Sometimes putting pictures in the proper order is like solving a puzzle. If you do not enjoy puzzles, just enjoy the pictures, write any names or stories you know about the pictures into the comments, and skip the rest of the text.

These pictures were all developed at the same time and had no additional information about the development printed on the slide frames to set them apart. To further complicate things, they arrived from different collections at different times. This post is my attempt to put them back in order and reconstruct the original rolls of film with the slides in the proper order.

Each roll of film lacks most of the slides, so the collection is incomplete. The slides were all numbered, and they all contained some information written on the slide mount that I incorporated into the file name for each image. You can see this information by clicking on the image and saving it to your computer (the default file name will show the information) or by looking on the right side of the URL for each clicked picture. This is cumbersome, so I provide what I think is the pertinent information at various places within the slides.

The slides were named using GAP's fancy pants file naming system, with one exception and one caveat. The exception is that at the beginning of each slide is a two digit number that I added for purposes of this post to group the pictures in the correct order (per the printed slide frame number) and by roll (I grouped them into four rolls, each roll's numbering beginning at a multiple of 10). Thus, the earliest frame of the first roll has 01, the second earliest from of the first roll has 02, the earliest frame of the second roll has 10, the second earliest from of the second roll has 11, etc. The caveat is that several of the file names have a Roman numeral (I or II) after the "JUL 70", which was an unsuccessful attempt by me to distinguish the rolls when scanning and naming the images; ignore this number, it means nothing now.

The pictures in this post are not in the order that they are on the DVD I sent out. If anyone is still reading this -- which I doubt -- and is interested in solving the puzzle -- which I really doubt -- you may want to pull the images for July 1970 off the DVD and sort them out yourself. If nothing else, you may get a sense of what GAP goes through when trying to recompile family history from little bits and pieces.

The rules I followed when arranging these are:

1. The order has to be logical;
2. The slide frame numbers within each roll have to increase from one frame to the next, since this is the order the pictures were taken; and
   
3. The content of the pictures has to make sense in the context of the picture groupings.
   

Numbers 1 and 3 are explained below. Number 2 you can take for granted ... or you can look at the slide numbers in the file name to check my work.

OK, here is my grouping and reasons.

Roll 1 - These pictures are a different size and shape than the others and had increasing frame numbers with no overlap, so I grouped these together as one roll of film. I put them first because the weather looks colder and, thus, earlier in the year than in the other rolls of film. Can you name the people and the place?







Roll 2 - These pictures start on the farm and conclude at the Grand Canyon. I reason that there was a roll of film with farm pictures in the camera that was taken to the Grand Canyon. I grouped these pictures together because they had increasing frame numbers with no overlap. I could not group the farm pictures with the later pictures from Zion's or Bryce Canyon because the frame number would have overlapped. What is going on in the farm pictures?







Roll 3 - These pictures start at Cedar Breaks, continue into Zion's, and conclude at Bryce Canyon. I reason that the roll of film was changed between the previous Grand Canyon picture and the following Cedar Breaks picture because the frame numbers reset between the two and the picture content naturally breaks between them. What were Ellen and friends doing on this trip?










Roll 4 - These pictures contain only Bryce Canyon. I reason that the roll of film was changed at Bryce Canyon because the frame numbers reset. I placed this roll after the previous one because Bryce Canyon pictures conclude the previous roll and begin this one.




Thus, I reasoned that the chronological order of the pictures is as follows:

1. Sand dunes (probably on a different camera than the rest)
2. Farm
3. Grand Canyon
4. Cedar Breaks
5. Zion's
6. Bryce Canyon

Other explanations could be that there were more than four rolls of film developed in July 1970 or that there were multiple trips to the same locations, making the obvious grouping of pictures the wrong one. Perhaps someone knows the answer and can clarify this? If clarified, I will update the image file names in the collection of slides to reflect the proper chronological order.

What would you do?

I am guessing that, if anything, what you are doing is smiling slightly, shaking your head in a sad sort of way, and clicking over to something more interesting. At least, that's what I will do after I read this!

UPDATE

Woohoo! Ellen writes in the comments that I got the order of the pictures correct.

Yes, Rob, you have organized these pictures correctly. I took a trip with my girlfriends, Mary Tucker, Ellen Millett and Patty Millett, to Grand Canyon, Cedar Breaks, Zion's and Bryce Canyon one summer about 1970 or so. I probably borrowed Grandpa's camera because all those pictures are of my trip. It was really fun. Thanks for the memories.

Thanks, Ellen! Your help filling in the details of these pictures is always appreciated. Plus, I can now stop fiddling with trying to get the pictures in the correct order. I will relabel the file names to ensure that these are organized correctly, and I will include the updated names the next time I send out a DVD. This is a good example of why it is useful to replace previous versions of the pictures with new ones; sometimes identifying information is updated!

The pictures in Roll 1 above are now the subject of Mystery Picture 100108.

What Would You Do? Slide Dates -- Again!

So, I usually don't tell you when my fancy pants file naming method for slides works -- and it almost always does. But, sometimes I encounter a problem or two, some of which are easier to resolve than others. Today I present a third, more intractable problem.

The file naming method uses the information printed and written on a slide's frame to name the digital file. What should I do when different slides from different rolls contain the same information? Here is an example:

As you can see, all the slides are developed as "AUG 61D". But, there are differences. The top left one has the date printed in black and the slide number also printed in black. The top right one has the date embossed but the slide number printed in black. The bottom left on has the date printed in red and the slide number also printed in red (very faint). The bottom left one has the date embossed but the slide number printed in red. This tells me there are four different rolls, separately developed, and (unfortunately, from an archiving perspective) with the same information.

What would you do?

I solved the problem by putting a number (1-4) after the date information in the file name so that the slides are at least grouped by roll. This is an imperfect solution for two reasons. First, future "AUG 61D" slides might not be easy to group with the correct roll, since I do not record an image of the slide frame; hopefully, this blog entry will help with this issue by recording what the frame of each roll looked like. Second, some slide frames actually have a number printed after the date information; while this potentially could be confusing, none of the "AUG 61D" rolls had a number, so I figured this was an acceptable solution.

So, the problem was basically solved, until I found this:

Not only does it have the same information in the same format as the bottom right slide above, it also has the same frame number! This means that there are at least two rolls that look exactly the same, and determining which slide goes with which roll (based on content) might be difficult or impossible.

What would you do?

I ended up just identifying the second slide at frame "4 -2" and left it at that. There were not enough slides to spend to much time sorting it out right now. But, it does raise the possibility that my file naming method does not create unique enough names for rolls of slides that are printed with the same information on the frame. Thus, other rolls potentially have mixed up slides. I figure this is rare simply because I have not seen it before. But, it is a problem without an elegant solution.

What Would You Do? Slides Dated in Wrong Order

OK, so this question is similar to the previous WWYD, but involving two pictures, each with a plausible date when viewed separately.

The first has source information written on it dating it August 20, 1973. It is frame 1 on a roll with the description "SEP 73 P 4".

The second has source information written on it dating it June 22, 1973. It is frame 21 on a roll with the description "SEP 73 P 4".

The problem? If both are from the same roll "SEP 73 P 4" then how did a pictured dated August 20, 1973, end up on the frame 1 but a picture dated June 22, 1973, end up on frame 21?

There are several possible explanations that do not involve a time machine. First, the source description (printed on the slide frame by the developer) could be wrong, such as if the slides were put in the frames in reverse order. Second, the source information (written on the slide) could be wrong, such as if the dates were wrong. Third, the roll of film could have been shot backwards, with the the numbering running from largest numbers to smallest; I have seen this happen before on a roll from my wedding (I was very aware of which events happened first, despite the numbering on the roll), and it may be fairly common but unnoticed on old rolls. Fourth, there could be two rolls of film "SEP 73 P 4"; I have seen this before (I will do another WWYD on it) where the multiple rolls are developed in one month (e.g. "SEP 73"), although I honestly do not know what the description "P 4" means.

What would you do?

I did the same thing I did with the mismatched dates on a single slide. I recorded all information from the slides into the file names and gave Grandpa the benefit of the doubt about which dates to apply to the images.

It may be possible in the future to solve this mystery if I get other "SEP 73 P 4" slides. These might show that there are multiple rolls or that the written information was incorrect. Unfortunately, I have only four slides from "SEP 73 P 4", and they do not solve the puzzle.

One thing I will not do -- although it might explain if there are two rolls involved or if there is one roll shot backward -- is dismantle the frame (mount?) and look directly at the film for information. It would be too destructive of the old, paper frame (and, possibly, the film).

What Would You Do? Mismatched Dates on Slides

So, I have a fancy pants file naming method that I use when saving images that I have archived. This method requires inclusion of both the source description that exists as an original part of the source material and any additional information existing on the source material in addition to the source description. What do you do when these conflict?


Here, the date description shows the slide was developed in February 1984. But, Grandpa wrote that the picture is from September 1984, after the slide was developed.

What would you do?

I know what I did -- I recorded all information from the slide into the file name and gave Grandpa the benefit of the doubt about which date to apply to this image. Thus, this file is named:

840900.FEB 84 P 3 (23).'Rosies surprise' - Lake Powell (Sept 84).jpg

This seemingly impossible file name (to my eyes) is just gibberish (to your eyes, probably) unless you understand the file naming method I use. But, it presents a very minor diversion about how either memories or film developing can be fallible. That's about the extent of the diversion -- humans are fallible.

TIP: You cannot undue past mistakes -- and you certainly should not try to rewrite history -- but you can ensure that our fallible moments are preserved as an important part of the human experience.

UPDATE

Dave writes in the comments

Oooh - I'd disagree with you on this one. I would expect the automated dating system from a photo developing place to be much more accurate than a penciled-in recollection. I would bet this was taken in September 1983 (not 4) and then developed in February 1984.

Maybe. Probably. Hopefully, we can find out.

What Would You Do? Digital ICE with Kodachrome

My Coolscan film/slide scanner has Digital ICE, which can reduce dust and scratches from scanned materials. ICE does not work well with most Kodachrome slides, though, and Grandpa loved to use Kodachrome.

Using ICE with Kodachrome involves tradeoffs and a requires a judgment call. Here is one example of the tradeoffs from a picture of Grandma's graduation.

Scanned as a Kodachrome with no Digital ICE:

Scanned as a Kodachrome with Digital ICE:

Scanned as a non-Kodachrome slide with Digital ICE:

In the first picture, there are obvious defects caused by dust, dirt, and scratches.

In the second picture, the ICE has removed some of the defects, but many are still obvious. However, a new defect has been introduced, a blurring of detail, especially where different colors meet. This blurring is most noticeable (to me, at least) at the bottom of Grandma's collar.

In the third picture, the ICE has removed most defects, but the blurring is even more pronounced and is visible along a number of edges in the image.

Which would you do? Which picture would you keep -- the one with the fewest blurred details, the one with the fewest defects, or somewhere in between?

I opted for the second picture. The way I see it, the defects are now part of the source material, and I would rather not introduce more defects during the archiving process. The second picture removes original defects without really introducing new ones, a tradeoff I am willing to make. If need be, I can use Photoshop Elements to remove additional defects in a copy of the image.

BTW, congratulations on your graduation, Grandma!