Inexpensive image management database choices?

From: Thomas Heck (heck.3@OSU.EDU)
Date: Mon Jan 28 2002 - 23:33:47 CST

  • Next message: Louis H. Sharpe: "Re: Zipping image files" 

    Message-Id: <200201290534.g0T5YDg13864@sitelicense.arizona.edu>
Date:         Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:33:47 -0800
From: Thomas Heck <mailto:heck.3@OSU.EDU>
Subject:      Inexpensive image management database choices?
To: mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU

    <pre> There are some excellent high-end (=high expense) image databases out there, such as CONTENTdm and, perhaps in the middleground, gallerysystems' EmbARK, aimed at the institutional buyer like a museum or a university slide collection.
        I would appreciate hearing from those who are working on relatively small or private collections of images, but still hope to create image-related data and retrieval information (metadata) that might some day be easily ported (along with the slides or photos, and the digitized images, for example) into one of those large, institutional image collections -- with little need for recataloging. In other words, the basic fields would be there, and some controlled-vocabulary thesaurus (like LC Thesaurus of Graphic Descriptors) would ship with the software, would be available on the Internet, or could be created in the software as one built the data.
        In other words, is there a nice configuration of MS Access, FileMaker Pro, or some other proprietary imagebase shareware that would do this job, or allow the stand-alone researcher to do it, at a reasonably professional level? And can it be had at a reasonable price for use on a stand-alone Windows computer (and why not Mac, too)?
        Replies off-line are welcome, but I will watch the list as well. Thanks.

    T. F. Heck Library Consultant California mailto:heck.3@osu.edu

    </pre>

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 23:41:13 CST