Re: Almaden (Maryott '90)
- Subject: Re: [iris-photos] Almaden (Maryott '90)
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 10:41:22 EDT
In a message dated 5/26/2003 1:02:00 AM Central Daylight Time, email@example.com writes:
Am I posting too many pics? I know most of mine are pretty common irises
and probably have been posted before, and probably of better quality,
since I am no photographer.
I do not see the objective of this list as collecting one photo of each iris but to collect a number of depictions of each iris in different areas of the country. We gain the advantage of more realistic assessments than can be gained by the "money" shots properly offered in catalogs. Too, I gain knowledge of value being able to view some of the subtle nuances of blooms that could not otherwise be observed. For some of us acquisition of knowledge is it's own reward.
A not so obvious advantage of additional postings of the same iris, in those instances when it occurs, is the ID confirmation and error minimization it promotes. The fact is we are more inclined to learn by rote rather than arduous research. Repetition works. Without list member support in this area a misidentified iris can travel about and the error be multiplied many times over. It offers each of us an opportunity to perform reality checks in our own yards and helps the people posting do so too.
True, we see more of the irises from the judge's list than we do of others. Occasionally though, and more often than in the past, we are seeing the gems that did not make their lists and scream Eureka! Other times we get to observe a unique feature of one that did make their list. Still other times we get to see irises that have fallen from favor, perhaps been retained true to name in only a few places get rediscovered. As the judge's lists become less relevant and the assessments of the larger, more comprehensive iris community more, the performance and popularity of irises nation wide becomes greater.
Your idea of voluntarily limiting postings to a few per day or even one is sane. Not because we need to be micro managed or restricted in the number of pictures we are allowed to post but partly because of the ego satisfaction/pride doing so entails and partly because of the warm fuzzy feeling that sharing them imbues within individuals on both ends of the net. A large portion of mass postings and zipped files are ignored or deleted without viewing by some of us. Spreading them out minimizes this inclination. If photos are to be enjoyed by the masses the time involved must not be daunting.
Me? I like pictures. I take them. I post them. I borrow them. I steal them. I use them. I am proud to get them regardless of how they come. Too many? The problem here is more one of not enough.
Guess this is the preacher's long way of sayin' I love 'em all. So keep them coming as you see fit.
Smilin' and preachin',
Bill Burleson 7a/b
|Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.