@Calif_Sue

There are two cultivars of Amaryllis (Hippeastrum) pictured so it should qualify as a multi-plant photo.

Hardly a landscape in the garden sense but, yes, it does qualify as a multi-plant.

This feature was originally called "Multi-Plant Photos" and remained that way for years. Photos could feature garden landscapes, multiple plants growing in their native habitat, combination pots & planters, or other displays with multiple plants. The switch to it being called "Landscape Photos" is fairly recent (in the last year or two) and seems to have created even more confusion since there are no instructions posted.

I know, it was called "Sets" before the name changed to "Multi-Plant Photos."

Posting photos like this one to the Landscape Photo adds to the confusion and really contributes absolutely nothing to the feature. It doesn't show how the plants look in a garden setting or in an arrangement of potted plants. How is this photo helpful to someone who would like to know how this plant is used in landscaping? Why would cwhitt choose to upload it here and not to the Amarillys forum escapes me.

Oh, yes, it was called "Image Sets" for about two months before it was changed.

Just because it doesn't meet your definition of "helpful" doesn't mean that others feel likewise. If I were researching these Amaryllis cultivars, then I would find it helpful as a comparison shot. That has been an acceptable use of the feature for years. If that has changed recently, then I haven't seen it posted anywhere.

Since Cwhitt went through the proper steps of linking the cultivars to the database, the photo will appear on the plant database page for both cultivars. If uploaded separately to each database page, then the server would have two duplicate photos hogging up server space. If a photo featured many plants, such as 20, then that method would use twenty times the server space.

The only photos that seem nearly useless to me are the ones that don't feature plants (obviously) or photos that haven't been linked to the plant database. The unlinked photos can't be accessed via the plant database and, with no other reasonable way to search for or access them, end up just getting buried in newer submissions.

Unfortunately, this feature has been a problem child for years.

I have to ask, was the dropped "e" a typo or a pun?
"...Amarillys forum scapes me."

Danita said:Just because it doesn't meet your definition of "helpful" doesn't mean that others feel likewise.

I didn't define "helpful" in this context , simply gave an example of how it fails to serve the purpose of the feature. A photo of two Amarillys next to a table lamp is definitely not a landscape.

I have to ask, was the dropped "e" a typo or a pun?

@_Bleu, @Danita, @Calif_Sue - - I thought it might be of interest for a comparison between the two. They are almost identical, but there are subtle differences. It is difficult to get two specific Amaryllis to bloom at the same time and seeing them side by side in the same photo would allow for comparison of them. Two different photos, side by side, might not allow for comparison of color, size etc, as photos can vary from photo to photo. As an Amaryllis lover, I like to look at the various details of a specific bloom before I would consider purchasing one. I did not know exactly where to put them and this seemed the best place - I have seen other photos under Landscape that also have only 2 plants in them - never occurred to me that there was anything wrong with that. Certainly did not mean to offend anyone.

This is not personal so no offense taken, Christie, at all. There is nothing wrong with showing only two kinds of plants if they happen to be in a garden landscape setting. Your photo, indeed, is very valuable to Amaryllis enthusiasts. I would think the Amaryllis forum provides the best audience for it.

Not too long ago, when I was a new member, I saw a beautiful sunset photo in the landscape photo section. I had just happened to have captured a lovely sunset myself so I uploaded it. Later that day I was informed that my sunset landscape did not belong in the landscape photo section because the feature was dedicated to garden landscapes. I deleted the photo immediately and started to pay close attention to what was being uploaded to the feature and noticed a number of non-compliant photos, in any given week, so I started a thread on the Site Talk forum and took the time to read all previous threads on the subject as well. That helped me understand the feature's purpose.

In the past months, I've been contributing beautiful qualifying photos to the feature so that they can serve as examples of what to upload as well as help new gardeners visualize how plants can complement each other and how color, texture, form, perspective, materials, etc., are used by seasoned gardeners. That's my way of paying it forward; this feature has been so very helpful to me this past couple of years. I'm not a new gardener but relocating to CA and buying a house surrounded by lawn presented a huge challenge.

Best regards to you, Christie.

Whatever the actual title (and perhaps "Multi-Plant" would be more appropriate), the "Landscape Photos" section is for images of more than one plant, in any context... potted, cut, harvested, or in the landscape. This image is perfectly appropriate for the section. There has been some confusion as to what belongs here, but that's the bottom line: more than one (different) plant.

Trish said:Our goal for the "multi-plant" or the "landscape" images is and was to encourage gardeners in planting their plants in beautiful ways.

Posting a photo of two very similar plants in an indoor setting doesn't seem to fit the above criterion, Baja.

Yes it certainly does. It shows the combination of two flowering plants which are nearly identical but apparently different enough to have different names. It tells you what the difference is between those plants (or not). The "Landscape Photos" section can be quite useful for telling the difference between similar-looking plants. This is something I view as quite useful for combining plants in beautiful ways.

Another "comparison" shot which is not so much an example of beautifully planted cacti but intended to illustrate the differences between 3 genera of "old man" cacti :



This I view as belonging to the Landscape Photos section for the same reasons as the picture above.

But aren't we comparing apples to pears here?

Indoor setting, plants that look almost exactly the same, no pots showing.

Plants that do not look identical in an outdoor setting.

The second image definitely fits the landscape criterion.

Anyway, Baja, I'm glad you chimed in.

I'll leave this discussion now. It's been interesting.

The issues you have brought up here and previously on the site talk forum are known to the site owner/operators. You are not alone in being frustrated by the apparent ambiguity of what belongs there. I would hope after all the teeth gnashing on this thread

The thread "New Landscape Photos section" in Site Talk forum

that you would appreciate how everyone views the situation a little differently. I don't think it's fair to disqualify a photo from this section because 2 plants look nearly identical, or because a picture was taken indoors, or because none of the leaves are showing.

To the extent an image displays 2 or more different plants, or parts of 2 or more different plants, it belongs in the Landscape Photos section. That is the least narrow definition I can think of. You are of course welcome to disagree, and I'm sure others do as well.

Some people think the section only pertains to plants in the ground, or has something to do with big rocks, and Trish has made clear that she would rather use the broadest possible definition for Landscape Photos, to the extent they don't even want to display text on the submission page indicating what sort of pictures belong there. It is pretty much a free-for-all. I have indicated my understanding of what constitutes a landscape photo in the second post in that thread, and it seems to be accepted as a basic minimum by concensus, if not certification.

Christie-- Your picture is very valuable here in landscapes. I like to go to individual members profile pages and look at their plant photo contibutions and landscapes! For one... it is way easier to thumbs up that way. I do not feel landscape photos are lost in that context either. Because when members actually have their own photographs in those areas (especially landscapes)... and I look at their profile pictures...I feel like I have gotten to know a member.

I further feel it is rude and inappropriate to have this conversation on a thread attached to someone's photo...my mother told me...if you can not say something nice or positive...just do not say it. Let people have their beautiful personal photos in peace.

May you have an extraordinary week-end full of blessings!