RE: HYB:AIS:Checklist

Bill,

I'll try to keep this short.  I probably left too much unsaid in the earlier
post, so some clarifications may be in order.

Misidentification: Yep, there is misidentification now, and will be in the
future.  There is probably no way to stop that from happening..  The problem
is, or may be perceived as, with AIS releasing photos of iris varieties
(cultivars, if you will), people will accept that as being the final word.
What they see online, or from a CD, will be perceived as being the be all
and end all of any arguments, simply because it is AIS sanctioned.  One must
weigh this in the equation of doing something like issuing a CD.
Disclaimers are fine, but it is rather hard to mollify a "true believer"
with a disclaimer.

Changes in color with modifications and/or transformations of the original:
This is germane to the post I was answering to, with several suggestions of
how to transform or modify the photos to the media.  Each change of media or
modification made for that particular media will result in some loss of what
was on the original.  I'll get into some other things below while I am
replying to other portions of your post.

Calibrations: again, it is germane to the post I was answering.

Color perceptions:  Even the machines are limited.  Many photos I have taken
of fish do not show the splendor that is there, in real life.  They photos
may lack the iridescence present in the coloring, or not show much of the
spangling that is present in the fish.  An area of color may show up as just
the background color, often an off white, and not show the true color that
is there.  This also would probably be missed by the machine.  I'll not even
get into the area of preserved specimens, but those who dry flowers and
plant parts will know some of the limitations of that preserving method, and
that can be somewhat applied to preserving fish.

Needs:  This is not an argument for or against a printed or an electronic
R&I, but more a statement saying that no one really knows what the demand
for an electronic edition might be.  One, when surrounded by technically
literate people tends to forget about those who are not technically
literate.  Right now I have 5 operational computers in this household of 2
people.  My work is computers. I work on them all day, and when I come home,
I play on them all night (familiar refrains around here are "when are you
coming to bed?" and "what time did you go to sleep last night?").  I need
that reality check every so often.  However, if the laptop does not come
with me, my fingers get itchy as the day wears on.  I can't imagine a life
where I don't have access to a computer.  However, there are many people who
could care less about the infernal machines, and they manage to live their
lives fine without them.

FWIW, I grew up in an age without PC's and was not even introduced to
mainframes until late in my high school life.

The AIS is going along getting things into shape for electronic
distribution, but I see them as treading carefully.  Perhaps they do need to
do a survey of some sort to find out how well all this will be
accepted/needed by the members of the AIS (I am not one).  I do not know the
construct of the board of AIS, nor do I know their backgrounds.  It may be
that they are mostly old codgers that do not have the understanding what
this may do for the organization and/or its membership.  Perhaps they know
too well.  I did see a post earlier about why it is that Americans think
they need to charge for everything.  Well, for one thing, it does ensure
that the product is not diluted, and it also ensures a certain amount of
exclusivity.  All of this "free" information they say is available from
European sites is bought and paid for somehow, somewhere.  There ain't
nothing in this world that does not come without a cost.  It may be money,
it may be something else, but there is a cost.

Those who are concerned that the AIS is not moving forward fast enough on
this should run for office,  and take a look at it from the other side.
Perhaps it is that they are working too slowly, but maybe they are doing the
right thing.

I'll be out gallivanting around for the next three days, but I haven't
decided whether I'll leave my mail program up or not.  If I don't, I'll be
able to review messages from this account, otherwise and they will likely be
collecting on this machine, and not available to me.  If the latter is the
case, I'll get back on this Monday.

\\Steve//

-----Original Message-----
From: oneofcultivars@aol.com [o*@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:00 AM
To: iris-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [iris-talk] HYB:AIS:Checklist


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]





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.394 / Virus Database: 224 - Release Date: 10/3/2002



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home with Ease!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/2gGylB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index