...if they're pictures of plants growing in your yard, v. a nursery or store, it would be nice if we captioned the photo to describe the growing conditions - is it in red GA clay, FL sand, drought-stricken KS, etc. Sometimes there's a huge variety of color in the photos of the same plant, which I assume is because it's grown in different locations/soils.

Of course, if my assumption is wrong, disregard this thought (and educate me on what causes the huge color variations). But if my assumption is correct, what do y'all think of my idea re: captioning?

IMHO, we have just as many variables with types of cameras used,skills of different photographers, and degrees of light as we do soil types or moisture amounts. It would be a wrong assumption to presume that a picture taken in bright sunlight in Houston in the middle of the day has much to do with the type of soil it is grown in! Even here in my one garden, depending on time of day, moisture and light when the picture is taken, a bloom can have five or six different looks. Yes, the soil is important, I'm not discounting it, but I just find it enjoyable to see different images of cultivars, knowing that all of these factors are in play.

I've heard true stories of hybridizers not recognizing their own cultivars grown in different climates, and have seen cultivars growing in other gardens that grow here - unrecognizable!
But I'm not sure I'd take the time to read a bunch of comments about each individual photograph when the picture itself tells the story already. Just my two cents worth....

the picture might tell the story to you, as an experienced daylily person. But for me, some of the pics in the database have such a huge color variance as to make me wonder whether it's even the same flower, or if the photo was mis-labeled.

I agree that camera/light conditions/time of day can impact a photo, but can it make a pink flower look orange? (just an example, not saying I saw that in the db)

I tend to click on the photos and check photo location for that information although I have noticed that that information isn't always available. I have seen the thread in "Site Talk" about multiple pictures being posted and I agree with you, Fiwit, that it is extremely helpful when it comes to daylilies. I like knowing, beforehand, if a dl that I am considering purchasing is highly variable or not and having a lot of pictures helps!!

BTW, I recently did post an orange-y looking picture of a pink daylily (Hampshire Hoyden) but I did note that the re-bloom was more orange for me than the initial flush in the caption. If I had not seen it blooming before, I would have questioned the id. But alas,it had bloomed just a month and half earlier and was behaving itself then.

Oh, and my "near-whites" always bloom anywhere from a muddy apricot to a mid-tone melon so I appreciate it when people post pictures that are different than the norm

Taking and editing photos, cropping them and making sure that the picture accurately portrays what it blooming, is very time consuming. Also I reduce my pictures so when they are clicked on they are not huge. Then posting them takes a LOT of time. If I also had to put long descriptions on each picture as to growing conditions, I would never take the time to post photos.

I enjoy everyone's pictures and appreciate how much time they take to show us their beauties.

Just my humble opinion.

Dot

Dot, I dont' think anyone expects "long descriptions," nor am I saying this should be required. When I post a photo, it asks for the location. I currently put something like: "my front yard north of ATL, full sun, sw exposure." With my firefox browser, as soon as I start typing something in the location box, it shows me what I typed the last time, and I just select it. I can't speak for other browsers, of course.

Old Gardener's example of a flower that was a different color on the re-bloom could simply have a caption that said: re-bloom. first bloom matched specs.

If you wanted to share soil conditions, you could simply type "red clay," or "raised bed."

If people were only looking at the pictures to see pretty pictures of dayliies, then it wouldn't really matter. But we have people from all over the world accessing our database, and the more information we can voluntarily give them, the better.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying anyone HAS to do it, I just think it would be nice for those who have the time or the high-speed internet to do it. There's no such thing as too much data, in my opinion.

lovemyhouse said:

You also have to factor in that I've spent the last several weeks watching every episode of Numb3rs on Netflix, and Charlie Epps is always saying: "More data! I need more data!" That might have impacted me a little (or maybe it was Johnny Five - "Need Input!" )



But seriously.... I'd like to be able to see the reason when some pictures of the same flower are radically different. That's all.

"...looks like...butterfly..."

I thought I was the only one that likes Numbers. It's a cool show. I sure hate they canceled it way too early.

I just looked at a picture of Cutting Loose and really, did not know what it was until I read the caption. I had just been to another website where they had 3 different photos of it, in varying degrees of what I'll call med purple to light lavender. I figured it was a plant that got lighter as the blooms on the scape progressed or on rebloom scapes. The new picture of it is way way more red than purple. (I think of purple being a bluish purple and when I see redish purple I tend to call it maroon or burgandy)

I have been watching this plant for over a year because it's one that I really wanted but didn't want to pay as much as it's been selling for, so I thought I would wait. But, if it's going to be the redish purple color, I really don't want it. I wanted one that had the blue tones to it. SO, I guess my thought is, what is the real color of Cutting Loose. I did look at our database and it's about a 50-50 mix of the two colors.

I just went to the hybridizer's site and copied this:

""""The color is not Lavender, purple, nor blue, but a combination of all three, and what is especially appealing is the coolness of the color, completely clean with no pink tones. """"

Hmmmmmmmmm "no pink tones" I really don't know what to say about that statement.

I did come back and edit this because I wanted to state, I'm not saying this about just this one plant, I'm just using it as an example of the way a daylily can look so different and in reference to what has been said above. Is it something that can be controlled with different fertilizers or what???? I'm sure I could look at many other plants by as many other hybridizers and come up with the same problem.

Cutting Loose has a lot of red in it on early blooms such as this. This is an early bloom.


On rebloom and hotter weather it looks more like this. This is the color I prefer.


The weather can make it look different on different days. This is a mid bloom.


I hope this helps with the color question. All mine are grown in potting soil not dirt.

Dot

I agree with Julie - cameras make such a HUGE difference - even the setting on the camera or the filters. Here is an example. This is the same flower, photos taken a minute or so apart - one with a Nikon and one with a Canon. Would knowing what type of soil they were grown in make any difference - cameras "see" daylily color so differently that I don't really think you can really go by them. That is why I always say to try to see the flower in person before buying, if color is going to matter that much to you.

I've been intrigued with the question of how non-plant variables can "change" color, in addition to soil/weather/etc. As in the above picture of same-time/same-flower, we see how one camera shifts color more toward the blue spectrum. So, any notes people are willing to include with their pics are helpful, and might include the owner's thoughts on closely the photo's color matches what their eyes see (for example, is the flower above usually more ivory or apricot? If it changes, is it because of a particular reason - "hot day, bloom faded" or "eye pattern not fully developed in seedling").

In fact, I think "photo-shopping" has one beneficial role to play - when it is used to color-shift a flower photo to a much more realistic color depiction, as seen by the eyewitness photographer.

Things I love to read as captions to photos:

- climate zone - geographical location
- time of day/weather (overcast, filtered by umbrella, 90-degrees,etc)
- FFO, re-bloom, unusual bloom (poly, occasional double, etc)
- photographer's notes about the accuracy of the photo (since it can be very hard to get colors to come true through photography)
- photos that show leaf and/or pest conditions

I'm so grateful to those who post plant pictures from regular-growing-conditions ("warts and all"), and even more so to those who can include comments. I know both can be hard to do (I always hesitate to post a less-than-perfect picture ... like the database is a type of photo contest ... but I know realistic pictures can sometimes be the most helpful...) and I also love larger photos so I can really see the details. So, kudos to all who contribute, at whatever level, including those luscious photo-contest shots, smaller photos, and un-commented ones too

Thanks for the discussion on this topic; ATP is unique in creating a place where information can be discussed and honed to a point where helpful data results and gets recorded to share for the benefit of all.

Ohhh, I love Numb3rs!

I have noticed especially for Iris, that when I purchase a blue one, at my houe it looks purple-y. But when I take a photo of it, it looks blue. The same goes for reds - they look more purple red - but look like a true red in a photo. I notice this more with iris than daylilies. But I too notice the color variations from my eye to camera, and also the different times of the day.

I am grateful for any information. That said, when I see a daylily with a lot of color variations, I think to myself "this could be any of these colors" and also use that as a basis for the purchase whether I want it anyways, or decide not to buy it yet until I get more information.

I love the fact that we can all post photos of flowers/ plants here - as far as I know, there is no limit to how many pictures a particular plant in the database can have. As has been said "I need more data" - whether that is by sheer numbers of photos posted, or the photographer is able to include more information - it all helps me. ~Jan

Jan, they show repeats here on Wednesday night, so I get to see 2 aweek of "Numbers".

I have a clump of Siberian Iris "Ceasars' Brother" (incase you don't know, it's really dark blue) out front, next to the road. It has caused me more frustration trying and trying to get true colors with my camera. I've found that with it in full shade under a big old Oak Tree, I can get a different color at every angle from 360 degrees of that bloom. I know my neighbors thank I'm a nut case when I spend an hour taking photos of one plant, while moving an inch at a time around and around that darned plant. But, it really really does make a difference with each click of the lense. I usually take 30 to 40 photos and end up with maybe 2 or 3 that are close to correct. It's the most beautiful blue color, but it sure is hard to photograph and just forget getting it in sunlight. It's a washed out looking light blue.

I have loads of fun with my camera and all of GOd's colors in my garden. I spend many hours taking photos when my daylilies are in bloom. I like to do it, but I'm not one to be happy with point and click. I have to try every direction and angle to I get what I want and that's why it takes as many as 1,000 photos in one day to get it right. No, I don't keep them all, but it takes loads of time to go through them.

I have that same Iris Mona. Boy what a chore it was trying to separate it. I wanted to give my daughter some because it had formed such a large clump. It took me almost an hour to separate it. Had to cut through the clump with a knife and then I used to pitchfork. I was finally able to get some out of the ground. Those plants really dig in. It's like cutting through cement. I have another clump to separate and I am dreading it.

Yes, Cindy, I need to divide mine too. I noticed last year that I had fewer blooms. So, I got out there and dug around the center that was clogged with roots and leaves. It had actually started rotting in the center. I cleaned everything out and added some clean sand in the middle. They look loads better this year and have just started blooming. I did move a few that broke off last year and those few are blooming, too. Mine are that big but I can see how it could be hard to get a big old clump out and divide it. I bet it likes your good nothern soil. I can't imagine a place where they wouldn't be pretty. I just love their color. It's awesome.

Before you start to divide your next clump, if it's not damp, water it good the night before. This can really make a difference in moving any deep grown roots. If it's really dry, I'd water it every night for a week and then dig it up. You don't want it muddy but damp soil sure does move easier.

I will do that thanks. I was going to divide it today but worked on a daylily bed instead.