Re: Registration Images

[cemahan@aol.com]

Bravo! I very much approve having pictures with applications for registration.
But never forget. Pictures often lie. Clarence





-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Aitken <terry@flowerfantasy.net>
To: aisdiscuss <aisdiscuss@aisboard.org>
Sent: Mon, Mar 14, 2011 5:27 pm
Subject: RE: [AISdiscuss] Registration Images


Hi John
 have to laugh at your comment about descriptions beside the photo. You are
bsolutely right. When I see them, my brain starts a flashing light that
ays "REDUNDANT", "REDUNDANT", "REDUNDANT".! I will say that it is a check
oint to see that we have the right image with the right description -
nother inside joke!
hen we intro something, we try to provide other information like early,
ate r. rebloom (and when) fertile if we know. The problem is - this
nformation disappears after the year of introduction. Perhaps, if I could
ut it in the WIKI, that problem would solve itself.
f we go to a requirement of pictures, I hope they are to go to the WIKI
ather than a "redundant" location.
 am all for the pictures and we don't have to solve all of the problems.
he incentive is there for the registrant to do the best job possible,
hatever that is.
o for it!
erry
-----Original Message-----
rom: owner-aisdiscuss@aisboard.org [mailto:owner-aisdiscuss@aisboard.org]
n Behalf Of John Jones
ent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:37 PM
o: aisdiscuss@aisboard.org
ubject: RE: [AISdiscuss] Registration Images
I have a couple of comments on Terry's thoughts as well as a couple more
f my own.
Terry comments that "If I have a color image to look at, I will not bother
ith 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
ot bother with a written description, why do you have descriptions on
our web page underneath each flower's picture?" <grin> (it's a rhetorical
uestion)
This is a good discussion and we need to vett the idea of requiring images
horoughly. I am not necessarily against this idea, but this is a big step
e do need to ask tough questions.
I agree with most of Terry's comments about images. I would add that while
reat advances are being made in display technology, one need only go into
 store that has a lot of screens on display showing the same image to see
he large differences that can occur.
It is good to know that other societies are requiring images as part of
he registration process and it would be great to know what they are using
hem for. But we are not them and we must ask "What are we going to use
he images for?"
Are we to use the pictures for identification? Most of us know better and
now that the only way to positively identify an iris is to grow it next
o a sample of what we think it is. Even then it may nit be easy. Take
tepping Out and Going My Way for example. Even side-by-side they are
ough to tell apart.
There is so much variation in pictures - morning versus late afternoon,
irect sunlight versus shade, fresh bloom versus aged bloom - that a
ingle picture as a "registration image" is misleading. One really needs a
ange of pictures to represent a cultivar. One only needs to look through
he wiki (Iris Encyclopedia) to see how widely images can vary. It would
eem that the wiki and online catalogs are providing this sort of service.
Cheryl commented "Being a hybridizer, it is so difficult to "describe" a
olor that isn't exactly on a color chart, and there are so many different
olor charts." She is right, but in many respects display technologies
nly make this worse. One cannot be sure what one is looking at is really
he color.
If we were to do this, then we should also specify digital only, size,
esolution 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
mage supplied. The information is published and people download the
mage. Now the hybridizer decides to not introduce the iris and releases
he name, but likes the name so much that they register a completely
ifferent iris with the same name but a new image. Now we have two
ifferent "official" images for the same name in cyberspace. Once an image
s 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/


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