A cabinet card separates what the visitor can see from what the responsible record identifies and what remains unresolved.
Start with the record
Use the museum or catalogue’s material field before making a visual description. Call a surface pale, reflective, granular or dark when that is what the image shows; reserve stone, gold, faience or textile for a sourced claim.
Watch case lighting
Spotlights, glass tint, white balance and reflections can change hue and shine. Make a whole-case frame and a conservative detail. Do not sample a pixel as proof of pigment, alloy, glaze or original color.
Separate surface from structure
A coating, inlay, repair, patina or modern mount can sit on a different material from the core. Describe visible layers and cite technical records for composition. Similar appearance between two objects does not establish the same material or workshop.
Use dimensions carefully
Material claims often depend on thickness, weight or construction that a visitor cannot measure. Quote official dimensions and state whether they include base, mount or frame. Do not weigh, touch or lean on an object or case.
Read damage without diagnosing
Cracks, losses, scratches and dark lines may be visible but do not authorize a conservation diagnosis. Record location and photographic limit, then use responsible condition or treatment records for interpretation.
Compare matched views
When comparing materials, use similar light, distance, scale and object type. A bracelet, relief and wooden coffin answer different questions even if they share a warm color. Keep comparison as a research prompt, not a conclusion.
Preserve processing notes
Record crop, white balance, contrast, sharpening and format for every derivative. A compressed WebP is a reading copy, not the original evidence. Keep the parent image and source record accessible in the project manifest.
Caption the uncertainty
State visible surface qualities first, then the museum’s material wording, then the source and date. If the record is broad or unavailable, keep the material claim broad. Precision includes knowing which material question the photograph cannot answer.
Triangulate image and record
Use three checkpoints before publishing: the full display image confirms which object and label were together, the exact identifier connects that encounter to the collection record, and a responsible deeper source supports any interpretation beyond the label. If one checkpoint is missing, narrow the claim. Visual resemblance, a search snippet or a neighboring case cannot substitute for the broken link.
Set the comparison boundary
When another object helps clarify a field, state exactly what is being compared: title structure, identifier system, material wording, provenance stage, date convention or label design. Match source quality and object type. Similar appearance can generate a question, but it cannot transfer identity, origin, chronology or technical findings from one record to another.
Audit the published page
Open the note at phone and desktop widths and make sure the object, label relation, case edge or contextual detail that carries the argument remains visible. Check alt text, creator, license, source URL and date together. A responsive copy should preserve the record’s evidence, not turn it into a context-free decorative crop.
Keep a correction path
When a museum changes terminology, attribution, date or display location, add a dated correction linked to the responsible source. Distinguish a changed record from a changed installation and from an earlier editorial mistake. A cabinet note earns trust by making revision visible rather than pretending it was always complete.
A photograph and label can document a current encounter. They cannot alone prove original context, complete provenance, material composition, exact date, attribution or permanent location.