Re: Registration Images

[RUTHBB@aol.com]

To add my comments, I think the hybridizer's comments are very important!  
When one is looking at a picture, there is no perspective. Cooley's catalog 
used  to give the best perspective of what they were selling, because the 
comparison  of colors was evident in the pictures. BUT, the real info was in 
the comments. 
 
Yes, time of day, brightness, day of bloom all have such an important  
influence on the color saturation or size of bloom, in many cases. Surely we can 
 all deal with those variations, because we've all witnessed it in our own  
gardens!  
 
 
In a message dated 3/14/2011 5:27:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
terry@flowerfantasy.net writes:

Hi  John
I have to laugh at your comment about descriptions beside the photo.  You 
are
absolutely right. When I see them, my brain starts a flashing light  that
says "REDUNDANT", "REDUNDANT", "REDUNDANT".! I will say that it is a  check
point to see that we have the right image with the right description  -
another inside joke!
When we intro something, we try to provide other  information like early,
late r. rebloom (and when) fertile if we know. The  problem is - this
information disappears after the year of introduction.  Perhaps, if I could
put it in the WIKI, that problem would solve  itself.
If we go to a requirement of pictures, I hope they are to go to the  WIKI
rather than a "redundant" location.
I am all for the pictures and  we don't have to solve all of the problems.
The incentive is there for the  registrant to do the best job possible,
whatever that is.
Go for  it!
Terry

-----Original Message-----
From:  owner-aisdiscuss@aisboard.org [mailto:owner-aisdiscuss@aisboard.org]
On  Behalf Of John Jones
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:37 PM
To:  aisdiscuss@aisboard.org
Subject: RE: [AISdiscuss] 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/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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/