I started to reply to the "not realistic" comment earlier today, and had to focus on work, instead. It looks to me like the picture in our database and the picture on the page I linked to earlier are the same photo. The only difference is the one in our database has been modified to fit in a box, making the flower "pop" out from the background. I, personally, don't care for that type of photo modification.

I did not interpret Susan's comment to mean that she thought the image was not true to life, only that the flower, as displayed in the image, did not look realistic to her. I think it's the angle as much as anything. And the image on the AHS database looks the same to me as the 2 images we can see more clearly.

That said, there have been occasions where daylily sellers have been less than honest and used photoshop to hide flaws. So it's easy for me to understand how any photoshop comment could be perceived as an accusation, even when it wasn't one.

I would like to know who did put in one final order, and therefore will receive Jumping Flash?

I did. It completed my goal of buying until the very end.

Gerry

profesora said:I would like to know who did put in one final order, and therefore will receive Jumping Flash?

I did. It completed my goal of buying until the very end.

Gerry

I bought Jumping Jack 2 mos ago and it has a scape.

And I received a SF of it as a gift from Bill back in July too.

I asked Bill about the plants that he will delete from the catalog, and I assumed that he would compost.

He indicated that he first offers to clubs for a phenomenal low price. I was so entrowed by the offer that I ordered the set: 55 cultivars, three double fans of each, 165 double fans total.

I am so exited!

I already have a place prepared, and I have invited new daylily lovers to pick out what they want once the plants arrive.

If your club is interested, ask Bill about it. You will be surprised.

Gerry

Once all has been planted, and winter sets in, what should we talk about?

All of you are so interesting, and we should talk throughout the winter.

I just checked Maryott's website, and he has posted a picture of a "future introduction" -- what do you think?

https://daylilygarden.net/cgi-...

I suspect it's a 2012 seedling, since the 2011 seedlings he's posted pictures of are mostly in the "M" group, so it might be a while before it's available.

Like it

Mostly it shows that Bill is adventurous to step away from his long-term devotion to the round form, and rather symmetrical color patterns.

I noticed that the fall 2013 introductions exhibit much taller scapes, yet another sign of growth.

I love the broken pattern and I am elated that Bill will offer this rather modernist style. It greatly reminds me of free hand batik art works from the Far East. I will save up my change and buy it when it becomes available.

Gerry

Ohhh, that is a very unique seedling.

I do know that Bill often photoshops his intros. But I have also found that in my northern garden, that my flowers tend to be very similar to what is represented in his catalog. I feel that I can trust the photos that Bill posts. In fact, some of my new last years daylilies have done even better than his data states.

But I also agree that the data base is wonderful to see the 'true' out in the real world flowers, that is one reason it is so valuable. If I am going to spend a lot of money on a daylily, I check the data base first.

A flower that to me, seems mis-represented quite often is Talladega. I just love reds - and many photos of Talladega on the LA depict it as a strong red - not the rose red it truly is. That is why I am glad I checked the data base prior to bidding on it. Yes, photo shop can be, and is mis-used by daylily sellers. But it can also be a help. There was a very good discussion about photo shopping flowers a year or so ago on this forum. ~Jan

Jan, I totally agree with you about TALLADEGA. I got it based on the picture back when I was first buying daylilies and I was so disappointed when it finally bloomed after a year -- NOTHING like its picture for me! But maybe in the more humid climates it looks much brighter and more ruffled, I don't know. I just know that it disappeared from my garden by that fall... But I've learned so much about daylilies since then, and whenever I see a really unique and brightly colored daylily in a picture now I don't quite believe it.

The one that amazed me, though, is RUFFLED PINK PERFECTION -- such a bright pink that I didn't expect. The first bloom really was this brighter pink color, and I only wish I had gotten a picture in sunlight! And then later as it got warmer here the brightness faded a bit -- but I do so love this daylily.

philljm said:I do know that Bill often photoshops his intros. ~Jan

pet peeve: I hate the verb "to photoshop" -- not because of grammar, but because of the implication. Photo editing tools (not just photoshop) have been used so often for wrong reasons, including falsifying images to use in news reports, that anytime one hears "it was photoshopped," it tends to translate in the brain to "it was falsified." Often-times, it just means it was edited.

Every photo should be edited -- it's a rare photo that does NOT need editing when viewed straight from the camera. Back in the film days, editing was done in the darkroom, and it wasn't as easy, but it was still possible. Some people crop photos to take out distracting background, others correct color-cast or brightness/darkness...those should all be acceptable edits. Editing to put a bloom in a frame or box, and add a name directly to the image -- again, acceptable editing.

Editing to manipulate the actual image and imply that there are toothy edges on every petal/sepal when there really aren't? Unacceptable editing, because it's falsifying the image. Editing the color? Could be acceptable if attempting to bring the displayed picture more in line with what was actually seen in the garden. Unacceptable if attempting to change the actual color of the bloom, presenting something different from reality.


Just my 2 cents, and worth about as much as you paid to read them.

fiwit said:

pet peeve: I hate the verb "to photoshop" -- not because of grammar, but because of the implication. Photo editing tools (not just photoshop) have been used so often for wrong reasons, including falsifying images to use in news reports, that anytime one hears "it was photoshopped," it tends to translate in the brain to "it was falsified." Often-times, it just means it was edited.

Every photo should be edited -- it's a rare photo that does NOT need editing when viewed straight from the camera. Back in the film days, editing was done in the darkroom, and it wasn't as easy, but it was still possible. Some people crop photos to take out distracting background, others correct color-cast or brightness/darkness...those should all be acceptable edits. Editing to put a bloom in a frame or box, and add a name directly to the image -- again, acceptable editing.

Editing to manipulate the actual image and imply that there are toothy edges on every petal/sepal when there really aren't? Unacceptable editing, because it's falsifying the image. Editing the color? Could be acceptable if attempting to bring the displayed picture more in line with what was actually seen in the garden. Unacceptable if attempting to change the actual color of the bloom, presenting something different from reality.


Just my 2 cents, and worth about as much as you paid to read them.

I agree.

We received our Maryott order today. Bill was once again very generous with bonuses. He sent his introductions as requested:

Soft Contrast (Looking forward to seeing this one in bloom.)
Laguna Seca (We have been growing this one since last fall as a 2015 National guest plant. Now, we have our own LS for keeps.)
Orchid Prelude (Another very pretty one)
Splendida (We spent much of our daylily club reward money (points) on this one at a daylily club meeting auction last Saturday. Now, we will have a nice clump!)
Fugitive (I really like this one.)
Sultry Spanish Eyes (He sent this one a couple of years ago as a bonus when it first came out; it has been a favorite here, so I welcome extra fans.)

Weekly Specials: Hot Seat and Nicole's Heat Seeker

We got several BOGOs and others. Roots are soaking now. I need to plant the BOGOs tomorrow or else we will run out of 3 gallon size pots. I have ordered lots of hosta that have been coming in lately and are potted in 1 gallon pots for spring planting. Bill's daylilies will not fit in the 1 gallon pots of which we have plenty.

Doris

Great haul!

Ya know...if you had an extra fan of Splendida....

Well, I have been busy. I finished my new bed going down the back fence and it is 62 feet long. I got my box from Maryott's and could not be happier!

I got 26 DF's all together and 7 were BOGO's!

Bonuses included several requested plants like KENNESAW MOUNTAIN HAYRIDE & THOMAS TEW, also PRECIOUS CANDY.
weekly specials and gift plants included;
HUCKLEBERRY YOGURT
SPLENDIDA
SIGN LANGUAGE
SOFT CONTRAST
ASLAN




I cannot wait to see these blooming!

Sultry Spanish Eyes!!

Very nice Susan. Looks like you could get a lot in that bed.

Thanks Cindy, sure hope so.

Oh how I wish I had a bed like that to fill! I'm excited for you Susan. Can't wait to see all the beauties you fill it with

Thank you Vickie! I'm really excited and I do have a lot of daylilies yet to plant.