If you ever:
(1) create a COLLAGE photo print to include with holiday cards, AND
(2) you generally label the backs with who’s who,
then I wish to ask: HOW DO YOU DO IT? I wish to ask that of you even if the question is hypothetical because you do not do that and you do not do that either. (I’m going to attempt to keep my terms tidy, so that “print” or “collage” refers to the entire printed collage, and “photo” refers to one of the photos in that collage.)
Like, imagine it: it is a 4×6 print, let’s say it is horizontal, and it includes let’s say six photos of various family members. And you would like to label the back of the print, so that future generations (and also the not-very-in-touch people on your card list) know which people are in which photo.
My first inclination was to label BEHIND EACH PHOTO. That is: if Elizabeth and Edward are in a photo together at the top right of the print, then I would be writing “Elizabeth and Edward” on the top LEFT of the back. Like, if you were to cut the photo collage into separate little photos, each individual photo would still be labeled correctly.
But when I imagine taking someone else’s collage print and flipping it over, the behind-each-photo idea seems confusing: my brain wants to project my memory of the images onto the back of the card, and have the names written correspondingly. If I look at a photo at the upper right, and then I flip it over, my brain expects to see those names at the upper right, just like on the print.
I suppose I could do a sort of “L to R, top row:” situation, but that feels…exhausting.
WHAT SAY YOU. (If your very valid opinion is “Just don’t label the back, this solves everything,” I do hear you, I do, but I am going to label the backs, so “don’t” isn’t one of the options remaining to us at THIS stage of the decision tree.)
Is there a photo that could very clearly be only one person (or group of people)? If so, I’d partly trust people to use that as a starting point.
Also, my starting assumption would be your second theory — that people will be labeled/mapped to correspond with the photo that’s still in my mind, not in a cut-them-out and have the correct label on the back
I cannot wait to hear that my brain’s operations are not typical. Lay it on me!
I would write it based on how the photos appear left to right on the other side. As if the caption were underneath, not on the other side. And you could add “(L to R)” to be even clearer, if necessary.
This is tricky! I think I’d label it in the way the photos appear when you’re looking at it from the front (so like, the top right photo would also be labeled in the top right on the back). I’d also probably make a little note to indicate the location of at least one photo—maybe write “(top right photo)” or “(bottom left photo)” below the names in the corresponding spots—and then let the recipient figure it out from there.
I would do the thing you said you would not do (top row – Elizabeth and Edward. Middle row – Swistle and Paul. Bottom row -Henry, William and Rob) It makes the most sense to me because I for sure can figure out who is who. (sorry).
I *think* I’d put the label on the same place as the photo. I think I can picture myself holding my thumb on the picture in question and then putting my index finger on the same spot on the back to look for who it is. Or maybe I’d add some words to help identify the picture too, Elizabeth in hat, Edward in his college sweatshirt, Paul standing on rock, Swistle in rocking chair. Or whatever.
I would most likely interpret the labels as corresponding to the same front placement – not mapping to the actual location when flipped over. Basically what Slim said – I’d imagine the same collage layout in my mind when I flipped it over.
I also think there’s an acceptable level of “if these people [inclusive of my future self/future generations] can’t figure out or remember which family member is which, even with labels that get them 80% of the way there, that’s kind of on them” attitude one can comfortably take.
You read my mind! If the people can’t identify your family….cut em off the list :-)
Or do something funny like:
Paul – the one with gray hair (50)
Swistle – the one wearing the funky scarf (40)
Rob – has the fluffy hair (22)
Edward – has even fluffier hair (16)
etc…
I love this. I might steal this for our holiday card.
Can you put the names on the photo, instead of on the back? Like in a nice font, at the bottom of each photo?
I think I’d be tempted to add the names to the actual photos in a cute text? So much simpler! And aesthetically pleasing if you do it right.
Another vote to add the names (and I like including ages, too, if you are into that) onto the front of the collage, with the photos. Alternatively, you could write “Happy Holidays from Rob, Elizabeth, William, Swistle, etc.” (writing the names in the order that the faces appear on the card).
If you are going for the back, I like EITHER “Top Row/Bottom Row” (and assume that the person would read Left-to-Right, OR “L-R” (and assume that the person would read Top to Bottom).
And also: in the wake of Big Problems sometimes I kind of like solving Little Problems. :)
I think your method of putting the name on the back where the photo lies in the print is a good one. Some of them will be obvious, so it will give the reader context clues for how to read it so I don’t think it will necessarily be confusing, especially if it’s written small enough that there is space between them.
Alternatively, maybe like they do in group photos in the newspaper or yearbook? “Clockwise from top left: Edward, Elizabeth, Rob…”?
I don’t know if it’s correct, and this seems to be the minority opinion, but I would definitely do it with the “cut it up” method.
I would type up the info in the “L to R, top row:” way and then print that out onto labels, then affix the labels to the back of the 4×6 photo.
I am also someone who prints out mailing labels because addressing holiday cards does not bring me holiday joy, so that’s my default.
My friend who sends a photo collage every year numbers the photos, then either on front or back, has a list with the numbers and names.