hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: PUBS: formalities, exchanging pdf's, color issues


I think I should comment on the "color accuracy of computer screens".

I'll do the short version:

A picture of an iris (or anything else) can (and mostly will) look very different on different computers.
It is all because (a lot of technical gobble-de-gook).

A simple example. I have two large, reasonably high end, identical monitors connected to my Mac and the a picture on one looks very different on the other. The color balance you see on your screen will be very different than someone else sees on their screen even if they have the same computer and the same monitor.

Yes there are ways (very expensive ways) to have a monitor that has realistic color, but I doubt anyone reading this has one.

Yes computers can make an iris look really great. You have a nice high contrast picture of a well lighted iris on a bright monitor and WOW! But if you could take you computer out to the garden and hold it side by side with the flower, I doubt they would look enough alike to identify the iris.

I don't want to go into the issues surrounding the actual photograph and the process of getting a good printed picture, but let it suffice to say that every camera (digital or otherwise) and every film will take a different picture.

Using a photo to say anything other that "Yeah they sort of look the same" is a good way to get a mislabeled iris.

John

On Feb 17, 2008, at 9:21 PM, Gesine wrote:

Publications: formalities, thoughts about exchanging
pdf's, color issues

Hi Linda and all,

Actually, dealing with various iris societies/sections
isn't as complicated as folks often think.

In something like this, where Linda wrote in
IrisEditors that she had scanned old issues of Roots,
and I emailed her off-list asking if she could send me
her pdf's of those scans, there isn't any need to go
before a board.  It would be helpful to me to have
already-done scans of old issues, without some iris
source pages is fine.  Eventually, I'll scan the old
issues of ROOTS myself, but my list of stuff-to-scan
is pretty long so it'll be a while!

After the 2008 Convention I'll get back the "morgue",
the copies of old Roots issues that goes with the
editor position.

Anyhow, the point I'm trying to make is -- and this is
especially true for those of us on IrisEditors --
dealing with any iris group (any group in general)
doesn't have to be a very formal, must go through the
board, must be voted on, query must be on approved
paper, etc. kind of thing.  Sometimes we get caught up
in thinking that way, and it makes what was simple,
very complex.  For big things, sure, we go before the
board.  But not for every single interaction between
people.  And this is no
disrespect at all to any board -- it's rather doing
our jobs and letting them do theirs.  And I'm on the
board of HIPS, which is a large board.

We tend to say, we're not doing brain surgery or
rocket science, nor running a small country!
(and actually, in doing those things well, hopefully
one would also delegate!).

On color and color accuracy --

This is a confusing issue.  It's NOT true that color
is more accurate, necessarily, on a computer screen
than in print.  Also printing good accuracy color
isn't "extremely" expensive.  We have a very good
relationship with a horticultural printer, who is used
to aiming for serious accuracy in print.

Compared to say doing color photocopies (which are
usually pretty inaccurate), printing good accuracy
color in a copy run above a certain size is MUCH
cheaper!  Also, unless you have an extremely good
home printer, that will affect the color of the pages
you print out, too.

I agree that accurate color certainly has it's pros.
But to print it, is extremely expensive.
If it can be done on the computer for the computer
people, then I would like to have that option. It not
only is environmentally more friendly and cheaper,
but I have the option of printing off what is
important to me only and filing it the way that works
for me.  Plus in general the color is even more
accurate.

I'm certainly all for sending pdf's around! having
been scanning stuff for over 4 years.  But it's good
to know pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, of
various media.  And also, print media allows you
to bring the photos, in accurate color, into the
garden.

The discussion on IrisEditors was about doing
local-iris-society-monthly-newsletters, in which it's
almost always too expensive to do color much if at all
-- e.g. we do ours in color onscreen, print it as
black and white, photocopy it, mail it, and put a pdf
on the group's website.   Doing color photocopies
was mentioned in that discussion, and they're quite
pricy and usually quite inaccurate color-wise.

On the sending-publications-as-pdf's topic --

Probably, a good way to do this would be to convert
them to pdf's and then **reduce**
their size (easy to do with pdf's).  You need a LOT
less info for something to look quite
good on a computer screen, compared to what you need
for something to look good
in print.

Gmail email allows sending attachments of up to 20 MB
-- other email systems allow less.
------------------------------
From Gmail help:  With Gmail, you can send and receive
messages up to 20 megabytes (MB) in size. However, the
precise amount allowable will depend on the
attachment.

When you add an attachment, the size of a file may
increase because transport encodings are automatically
added. (Transport encodings are the information that
allows your message to be safely sent and read.)

This means that in some cases, attachments that are 17
to 20MB in size may push the total message size above
20MB. When this happens, Gmail displays a warning that
your message exceeds the 20MB limit.
-----------------

As has been mentioned on IrisEditors, one idea is to
have the newsletter or whatever posted on a website,
rather than emailing to people.  Some folks would
probably still want to receive it as attachment to
email.

ANYhow!  Linda, if you're uncomfortable sending me
pdf's of your scans of Roots, please don't send
them.  I asked you off-list, because I thought cool,
already-done-scans!  In my experience with HIPS
since 1999, there's a lot of back and forth, and most
things don't get or need board scrutiny.  It's not
like
there's some special format to give scans to HIPS, or
some procedure.

Gesine

***************************************
On Feb 17, 2008 7:24 AM, Linda Smith
<irisgrower@cableone.net> wrote:

    Below are some questions from editor of Roots.
    The part in black are parts of her questions, in
color are my answers. Just in case the color is not
picked up by iris hortnet or iris editors I've put
extra spacing between questions and my answer.

    Was the historic newsletter you scanned, ROOTS,
the HIPS  journal?    I KNOW how much time it takes to
scan things!

    Yes it was Roots. But you've got to understand I
didn't scan certain pages.
    Yes it takes lots of time to scan things.

    I was editor for the "Fall 2005" and "Spring 2006"
issues of  Roots, and have resumed being editor, just
sent "Spring 2008"  to the printer.  I'm also
Archivist for HIPS.
    I don't have copies of most of the ROOTS issues!
nor does the Archives.  It'd be a very big help to me
to be able to use   your scans.  Next Fall's issue
will be the 20th anniversary issue, so it'd be
especially helpful to have scans of the older issues.

    I would think the historic society might provide
you w copies of the old issues.
    I do not understand the inter workings of various
sub groups.
    But if you are the archivists, then it seems you
would need copies of the old for your knowledge on
where and how all this got started, so you know where
you are going.

    If you were to get a publication, say Roots, as a
pdf, what size would be best for you?

    That at the moment I do not know.

    If you were getting a publication as a pdf, would
it still be OK with you to pay the regular
subscription fee, or not?

    Again, that depends on what a regular subscription
is. I don't want hard copies, since my computer gives
me better color and, as far as I know, can handle most
things sent to it. I think a reduced rate for people
that receive electronic messages should be considered.
I'm certainly willing to pay for that.

    The reason I'm so big on printing photos of
historic iris (and why I went to color-on-every-page,
which was new for Roots) is that Roots serves as a
touchstone for identifying old irises -- photos are
much more important to historic iris stuff, than in
some other areas.  We're very serious about ID
accuracy in photos for Roots, and in color accuracy of
photos, and color accuracy of printed page.   Trying
to have "meat" too!  please feel free to let me know
your opinions!

    I agree that accurate color certainly has it's
pros.
    But to print it, is extremely expensive.
    If it can be done on the computer for the computer
people,
    then I would like to have that option. It not only
is environmentally more friendly and cheaper,
    but I have the option of printing off what is
important to me only and filing it the way that works
for me.  Plus in general the color is even more
accurate.

    If so, would it be possible for you to send me
copies
    of the pdf files of these scans?

    This would be up to the historic societies board
and members I think.
    I'm happy in any way to help out the Historic
Society. I belong to it, but I feel what I did was for
my on use. They need to let me know what they want me
to do and the form which might work best.
    There are many ways that this can be handled.  I
need to know the options that are acceptable within
the organization. But you've got to understand I
didn't scan certain pages, like list of all the
commercial growers of that day and time, b/c many of
them don't apply anymore, so I saw no need to copy for
my personal use.

    Linda in CW AZ




______________________________________________________________________ ______________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS




John                | "There be dragons here"
                         |  Annotation used by ancient cartographers
                         |  to indicate the edge of the known world.

List owner iris@hort.net and iris-photos@yahoogroups.com
________________________________________________
USDA zone 8/9 (coastal, bay)
Fremont, California, USA
Member AIS Board of Directors
Chairman, AIS Committee for Electronic Member Services

Online Iris Checklists at: http://www.irisregister.com

Subscribe to iris@hort.net by sending:
Subscribe iris
To: majordomo@hort.net
Archives at: http://www.hort.net/lists/iris-talk/

Subscribe to iris-photos at:
http://yahoogroups.com/subscribe/iris-photos
Archives at:http://www.hort.net/lists/iris-photos/
________________________________________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE IRIS



Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index



 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement