RE: Registration Images

[gary white <in2iris@yahoo.com>]

Greetings,
 
There is always the need to consider the pitfalls before implementing new
procedures or policies, and Terry has outlined some of those pitfalls very
well.  We definitely need to keep those in mind going forward with this idea
if it is to come to fruition.  As Terry put it, "While the system is fraught
with pitfalls, the concept of AN INFORMED PUBLIC is a good one".  I agree with
that.  With that in mind, though, I would borrow a phrase from medicine to say
that "the benefits outweigh the risks" in this situation.  My view is that
Iris introduction images will be a very good thing overall, understanding that
there may be pitfalls involved.
 
Having only written descriptions of irises in the R&I has its own set of
limitations.  You can find nearly identical descriptions of irises in the
registrations, but the actual flowers are quite different when you see them,
or view photos of them.
 
Just a few years ago, a practical way to accept, archive, publish photos with
introductions would have been much more difficult, time-consuming, and
costly.  I believe its time has come. 

Gary White

--- On Mon, 3/14/11, Terry Aitken <terry@flowerfantasy.net> wrote:


From: Terry Aitken <terry@flowerfantasy.net>
Subject: RE: [AISdiscuss] Registration Images
To: aisdiscuss@aisboard.org
Date: Monday, March 14, 2011, 12:09 PM


    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/