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
New Trillium species discovered

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

RSS story archive

Re: Re: AIS: R&I images (and other related items)

Hi Sandy and all,

I usually avoid this sort of topic, but thought I'd add a few cents worth

Sandy, I understand where you are coming from, and all your arguments make
perfect sense.  It is indeed true that photos vary in quality with the
reproduction (always have, whether on paper or on a monitor), It is also
true that somebody can cheat and make the photo look better or substitute
another cultivar.  On the flip side, this is also true of verbal

I realise that it is more work to require photos, but it is also very
useful to have the photos.  Think of all those old cultivars that nobody
can identify now because there seems to be NO photo in existance, and the
verbal description could apply to a hundred different clones.  Photos show
details that no verbal description can capture properly, and they are a
good tool for recognizing clones.  I personally think it would be great to
have photos with the listings.

Generally, people who have any experience looking at real flowers, plants
(or whatever) can generally spot a doctored photo.  I'm sure a few might
such photos might slide by unquestioned, but even then, as long as they are
photos of the actual plant in question, they will show details of the
flower that cannot be described.  You can take a fancied up photo of an
Iris flower and compare it to a more natural looking photo or with the real
flower, and even if doctored up, you can usually tell it is the same thing,
and the details of pattern veining, ruffling, bracts, buds, etc are still
visible, even if the color is off.  Anyone remember the flower catalogs
from the 50's and 60's, where they used the same photos over and over for
different plants?  Actually I saw a few new ones of these again just this
spring.  They just changed the colors, flipped the photos over, or some
other doctoring, but you could compare the doctored photos and still see
that they were all from the same original.   You could usually even tell
which one was the un- (or least) doctored photo.

I think the chance of a few dishonest photos, and the added initial work
are worth the advantage of having the photos available.


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

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index