The latest post on Maryott's site:

Our weekly specials continue today with our last special of the year; JUMPING JACK. We rarely make UF crosses but when this one bloomed, we knew we had a winner. Excellent scapes, with excellent growth. Quite distinctive. This is one of our 2013 introductions that sells alone for $100. It is yours absolutely free with a $100 order or $100 addition to an existing order not including tax or shipping. Don't delay, you have just a few days as our season ends Thursday September 26.

Betja said:Beautiful!

Thanks!

virginiarose said:

Thanks!

Here is the last weekly special, only one pic in database maybe more will arrive soon.

• Daylily (Hemerocallis 'Jumping Jack Flash')
• Uploaded by Joy

That's a diiferent cultivar. Bill's is a new intro, 'Jumping Jack'

oh darn. Here it is! Not a good picture, again it does not even look real to me.

What doesn't look real about it? The flower looks fine to me.

Put it next to 'Jumping Jack Flash', that is a real picture.

they just used a little photo-shop magic to make it stand out, by putting the border around it. It's still a real photograph of a real flower, and looks very similar to the photo on the home page at Maryott's store: https://daylilygarden.net/cgi-...

The one on his website is just as bad. Similar to Hot Seat and I never could figure that one out either. I will wait till I can see it in someones garden.

Photoshop is over used. It is a very deceptive practice, whether you are cropping that extra chin or two off prior to posting on Match.com, or making slight color varancies in a daylily more dramatic. Either way it is a lie

And that's why I love our own garden shots here in our ATP database! There is always color variation depending on whether the bloom is in shade or sunlight plus differences in people's cameras, but at least it gives a nice comparison to the hybridizers' pictures so people can get a feel for what the blooms will look like in the garden.

I love the ATP database too, I can see how it does for other people in my zone, and I can check out the data. I just love to look at garden pictures anyway so it totally works for me!

Say what you want about cropping the flower and putting into his catalog that way but the color looks realistic. Juxtaposing it with the picture of JJF, it still looks fine.

The presentation is one thing but to insinuate that the flower is not represented appropriately is entirely unfair.

I was going to buy this one next year, now I will have it.

This is exiting to be at the tail end of the season and continue to buy.
I was concerned that Bill was not going to offer any more specials after Rio Del Mar, which I put in two orders to make sure I would have plenty to share.

Gerry

JWWC said:Say what you want about cropping the flower and putting into his catalog that way but the color looks realistic. Juxtaposing it with the picture of JJF, it still looks fine.

The presentation is one thing but to insinuate that the flower is not represented appropriately is entirely unfair.

Totally agree.

The only photoshopping I see is cropping the bloom from the background. That is how his camera rendered the purple though, most likely taken on an overcast day as many of his days are out there on the coast. When I took photos in his fields/GARDEN, it was overcast and the colors were really intense. Betty takes duplicate pictures in both sun and shade so you can see how the light affects how the color is through the lens.

I just prefer natural garden photos. Any thing else is distracting. I would like to thank those that post their own photos here on ATP.

JWWC said:Say what you want about cropping the flower and putting into his catalog that way but the color looks realistic. Juxtaposing it with the picture of JJF, it still looks fine.

The presentation is one thing but to insinuate that the flower is not represented appropriately is entirely unfair.

No one said anything about cropping. The photo looks realistic to YOU. It does not look realistic to ME. I would never insinuate that the flower is not represented appropriately because I have nothing to compare it to.

I was under the assumption that no one in the ATP had this cultivar, and therefore the hybridizer's photo was the only one available.

Yes, I do prefer candid photo; however, at this point in the history of this cultivar, we need to trust the hybridizer's photo.

Since this is a gift, you only pay for the ones you buy, and you would only buy what you already know. Since I am new at this gambling game, I trust Bill's taste and judgment.

I have bought a lot this summer and I am sure that in time I will decide that I do not like certain cultivars, but others will love them. I will either donate the ones I do not like, or I will learn to use the LA and sell them. It is part of gardening.

Gerry

virginiarose said:

No one said anything about cropping. The photo looks realistic to YOU. It does not look realistic to ME. I would never insinuate that the flower is not represented appropriately because I have nothing to compare it to.

I'm sorry but the direct implication of your statement was that the picture was fake and somehow a dishonest representation of the flower. I am trying to understand what makes you think that. The only artificial thing I see in the picture is the cropping. The one on their website, which is taken in situ looks normal just not taken in full sun.

I have found Bill to be a very honest and generous man which is why the implication that he was shady with his photos does not sit well here.

JWWC said:Say what you want about cropping the flower and putting into his catalog that way but the color looks realistic. Juxtaposing it with the picture of JJF, it still looks fine.

The presentation is one thing but to insinuate that the flower is not represented appropriately is entirely unfair.

this.