RE: Registration Images


I have a couple of comments on Terry's thoughts as well as a couple more
of my own.

Terry comments that "If I have a color image to look at, I will not bother
with a written description."

   That sounds like an unintended consequence if I ever heard one.

Being the smart alec I am, I would ask Terry "If it is true that you would
not bother with a written description, why do you have descriptions on
your web page underneath each flower's picture?" <grin> (it's a rhetorical
question)

This is a good discussion and we need to vett the idea of requiring images
thoroughly. I am not necessarily against this idea, but this is a big step
we do need to ask tough questions.

I agree with most of Terry's comments about images. I would add that while
great advances are being made in display technology, one need only go into
a store that has a lot of screens on display showing the same image to see
the large differences that can occur.

It is good to know that other societies are requiring images as part of
the registration process and it would be great to know what they are using
them for. But we are not them and we must ask "What are we going to use
the images for?"

Are we to use the pictures for identification? Most of us know better and
know that the only way to positively identify an iris is to grow it next
to a sample of what we think it is. Even then it may nit be easy. Take
Stepping Out and Going My Way for example. Even side-by-side they are
tough to tell apart.

There is so much variation in pictures - morning versus late afternoon,
direct sunlight versus shade, fresh bloom versus aged bloom - that a
single picture as a "registration image" is misleading. One really needs a
range of pictures to represent a cultivar. One only needs to look through
the wiki (Iris Encyclopedia) to see how widely images can vary. It would
seem that the wiki and online catalogs are providing this sort of service.

Cheryl commented "Being a hybridizer, it is so difficult to "describe" a
color that isn't exactly on a color chart, and there are so many different
color charts." She is right, but in many respects display technologies
only make this worse. One cannot be sure what one is looking at is really
the color.

If we were to do this, then we should also specify digital only, size,
resolution and how the image should be marked.(e.g., Registration Image,
<iris name>, <hybridizer>)

We need to think about some other things: Say an iris is registered and an
image supplied. The information is published and people download the
image. Now the hybridizer decides to not introduce the iris and releases
the name, but likes the name so much that they register a completely
different iris with the same name but a new image. Now we have two
different "official" images for the same name in cyberspace. Once an image
is in circulation, you can't call it back.

Just some thoughts,

John





> 	The idea that Mike and Anne are receiving pictures of introduction
> is news to me. They have never asked and I have never sent images. Ever
> since we went to a color catalog - about 15 to 20 years ago - we have
> offered all of our intos with color pictures. With an average of 10 per
> year
> (our own quota system), the 35mm slide days, I thought it was a waste of
> time trying to collect images of plants UNLESS THEY WON AWARDS. I have
> long
> thought that, like the orchid society, we should have images of plants
> that
> are awarded. (the world is full of plants that aren't.)
> 	Now, in the digital age, an image can be a double edged sword. It
> can show how GOOD or HOW BAD a plant can really look. Another dimension to
> this is PHOTOSHOP. Enormous tricks can be played on the viewer by
> messaging
> an image - removing faults like narrow falls or adding colors that the
> real
> thing does not have. How much do you want to pay the computer operator to
> come up with a fictitious image? (I will admit to removing leaf spot, dead
> buds and torn petals on some of my images but I know it can go much
> farther)
> In addition, color accuracy on computer screens and projectors has been a
> notoriously bad problem.
> 	Then there is the issue of the skill of the photographer. Some
> photographers are very good at hiding faults like haft marks by simply
> changing the angle of the flower. How good a story does the picture tell?
> A
> photographer, unskilled in iris evaluation, may shoot a flower partly open
> or partly dead or awkwardly twisted - quite repulsive to the average iris
> judge or purchaser.
> 	While the system is fraught with pitfalls, the concept of AN
> INFORMED PUBLIC is a good one. Perhaps some of our more computer literate
> irisarians can address the pitfalls?
>
> Terry Aitken
>
> If I have a color image to look at, I will not bother with a written
> description.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aisdiscuss@aisboard.org [mailto:owner-aisdiscuss@aisboard.org]
> On Behalf Of Robert Pries
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 7:15 AM
> To: AISdiscuss
> Subject: [AISdiscuss] Registration Images
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
> <aissecretary@irises.org>
> The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
> http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
<aissecretary@irises.org>
The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/



Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index