Re: HYB:AIS:Checklist
- Subject: Re: [iris-talk] HYB:AIS:Checklist
- From: o*@aol.com
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:00:02 EDT
In a message dated 10/8/2002 10:45:19 PM Central Daylight Time,
stevesz@erols.com writes:
Steve,
Ordinarily I find your logic on target and analysis of issues sound. In this
instance I find flaws.
> John is right more than he is wrong. There are many varieties of iris that
> are very close to one another in color and pattern. If images are supplied,
> and they are not seen as they are meant to be seen, then that can lead to a
> lot of misidentification of varieties, a problem already. Why make it
> worse.
>
It is doubtful that misidentifications will cease to occur because of a
correct, precise photo representation. There should emphasis on getting
correct photo of depicted varieties in the data base. Errors in the data base
will be minimized by a preferred photo hierarchy. Hybridizer first.
Individual who purchased directly from hybridizer second. Others third fourth
and fifth etc. Historic can be reviewed by historic group. If photos are
suspect they are designated as such. Editing/change/improvement an ongoing
process. This is not a complicated issue just a detail.
> OK, so you get a high quality image of an iris from film (John did not
> mention variations in film) and when it is scanned in it makes a 30MB .TIF
> file. Of course, if you convert it to a .JPG file, and compress it to
> 300KB,
> you have already lost a lot of the image information. On a CD, that means
> you have increased your number of images from about 21 to about 2167.
> However, now you are beginning to have problems. The blue in the .TIF may
> not exactly match the blue in the .JPG, mainly because of the loosy
> compression. Add to that the difference in video cards and monitors and the
> way they process colors, and one iris could look to have the same exact
> blue
> as a different one does in real life. Any manipulation you do with the
> original file will result in changes to the colors in the file, whether or
> not it is perceptible will depend on the person looking at it and the
> amount
> of change (see below).
>
All this is true. It is not germane to the issue. These anomalies exist
regardless of how a picture is conveyed. Photos, regardless of media and
technology used to capture, are representations of reality not reality
itself. No doubt the blooms always have more nuances, shades, tints, tones
and degrees of color saturation that a depiction of reality can reasonably be
expected to convey. Photos, with their inherent limitations, still give
information descriptions cannot.
> While it is true that one can do calibrations to make the colors look the
> same from video card/monitor to video card/monitor, the process is not easy
> and rather technical, so you know that people will not be doing that.
>
Ditto my above comment.
> Colors are funny, too. People do not perceive color in the same way. In a
> fer instance, The back of my house is one shade and the front is another
> shade of the same color. Now, most people think I am nuts, by my sweet
> other
> half also saw the difference on her own. (Neither of us works much with
> colors any more, but between us, we have over 30 years of experience with
> color, she in printing, and me in coatings.) We have to live with it,
> because we could not get the painters to see it, nor could we get the
> contractor in charge to see it.
True for sure. Machines work better in this capacity than people. Most have
noticed the many ways hybridizers describe/disguise the color brown with
words in R&I descriptions. Fascinated here with color spectrometers looking
for "blue" tints in daylilies and red in irises. In the daylilies they see
blue where I perceive none.
> I don't know how much you have seen of the discussions here of the database
> that is being worked on now, but it is a very labor intensive task, with a
> lot of checking and rechecking to make sure the information is correct.
> The
> AIS is making the steps into the 21st century, but they are doing it
> cautiously, and attempting to make sure it is done right.
> From your address tag, I see that you live in an area where there is a lot
> of technology available, and people are using it. Same here. However, when
> I
> go back home, I get a dose of reality. Most of my friends do not own a
> computer. Those that do, don't use them often. We get a lot of questions
> about our cell phones, and people don't believe that we cannot live without
> them. In this area, everyone I know has at least one computer. However,
> their ability to use them varies all over the map, from novice level to
> expert level. It is unknown how the membership of the AIS fits into this
> schema, but it would probably be safe to say that the membership follows
> the
> general population with regard to computer savvy. This must also be taken
> into account.
>
This reasoning is flawed. Very similar to saying everyone does not need an R&
I it should not be printed. Or, less than a majority of AIS members choose to
have an R&I so there is no need to print. The reality now is regardless where
you live technology is available and you make a personal choice.
Disc/electronic/printed data base is not properly an either, or, if question.
Properly the question is "When?". Answers like years from now, a decade from
now, well into the 21st century, bogged down in technicalities/indecisions
etc. are unacceptable. They suggest the need for examination of mid course
corrections necessary to accomplish the objective- freely distributed data in
a convienent form.
Bill Burleson 7a/b
Old South Iris Society
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home for Top $
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/2gGylB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
