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

Very much in agreement on the variability of flowers, here.  I've seen
variation on one stalk during one season that would not be believed to be
from one cultivar, except that the flowers were connected (literally).  Not
sure how to handle variation simply with a photo or two, but then you can't
do it simply with words either.  With some cultivars you could have a
hundred photos, and still not cover all the subtleties of variation that
can occur.  You could also write a hundred page essay and still probably
not really nail it down (other than to cause confusion).  On the other
hand, even one photo usually gives a fairly good idea as to how a given
cultivar will look, as long as you realize that the flower will vary from
place to place, and may not look exactly like the photo.  I think the
photos are good to have available, but also agree that they will not be the
ultimate solution to identifying a given cultivar.  Seems to me the photos
would simply be suppliments to the verbal descriptioins and would make the
descriptions even more valuable to the user.

As for the issue of doctored photos.  I agree that a given cultivar can
vary to the point that one person who grows that cultivar may question the
identity of a photo taken in another region, and that is OK.  This could be
taken for a doctored or a falsified photo, but that can usually be settled
with a little communication  -   "wow, mine doesn't look like yours, are
you sure they're the same?".    A truly doctored photo that is made that
way to promote or sell a plant is another story, and it usually really
looks doctored.  When colors are altered, it looks unnatural somehow, and
can usually be spotted.  Usually the things around the flower, such as
leaves, also look "off".  I know of one Iris nursery in particular who
doctors almost all of their catalog photos, and I have no doubt it helps
sell plants (I've let myself give into curiousity a couple of times
myself).  It is dissapointing to order a plant that looks one way in a
photo, and find that it looks quite different in real life.  You can take a
real flower and put it next to the doctored photos and see that yes it is
indeed the same flower, but it is changed just enough in the photo to make
it look much flashier.  On the other hand, this particular nursery that I'm
thinking of is generous with extras, and sends top notch ultra healthy
plants.   I will keep ordering based on the quality of plants, and not
based on the photos.  I'll look up the plants elsewhere to find out what
the really look like before I order them!

Not sure how this doctoring issue relates to registration descriptions, but
it sort of stemmed from that topic.  I suppose these sort of altered photos
could be used with registrations, but it wouldn't be long before word got
out that the plant didn't look like the photo; so, what would the point be?
It could only hurt the reputation of the breeder to do such a thing.



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

 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index