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
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
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'm confused by taking a magazine or magazines into the yard for ID.
I take my pix, then I cut my iris, bring it in, compare to computer screen,
then compare color to charts that I have and my own pix, then I try to come
up with something that works for me.


There are just so many antique iris: So rather than have all the various
color pixs on a magazine (S) that I have to take to the yard, if that's the
way most people do,
then why doesn't someone or group or historical society publish an
encyclopedia of historical's rather than try to get little by little into
a by -yearly or what ever magazine. At this rate, I'll need a wagon just to
take the magazines out.

Wouldn't the use of the money be better spent in organizing an
encyclopedia of historics?

Linda in CW AZ
-------Original Message-------

From: John I Jones
Date: 02/19/08 08:32:31
To: iris@hort.net
Subject: Re: [iris] 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.


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:
Archives at:http://www.hort.net/lists/iris-photos/

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

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

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

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