What do the admins think? @zuzu @calif_sue @eclayne @kentpfeiffer

Currently we check off 'Stem or bark' some people may not know what a scape is. (like my spell-checker) Perhaps it can be changed to Stem, scape or bark.

Another useful photo category, I think, would be one that reflects site perspective/context for the plant.

Consider the difference between these two "entire plant" photo's. Both are useful, but in a much different way.



I so often find it frustrating when Googling photos of an unfamiliar plant and all I find are close-up views of flowers and/or foliage, or frame-filling photos of the entire plant. I can view dozens, even hundreds of photos and still have no idea what the plant actually looks like in perspective.

Not sure the best way to identify the category. Maybe:
Entire plant -closeup
Entire plant -perspective

Surely someone can come up with a good category name.

The idea would be to encourage people to take a step back when taking some of their photos, or maybe to not crop so close. I want to be able to mentally cut and paste the plant into various parts of my yard to see where it will look best, or if it will fit in at all.

Ron

In your first image, I would personally check 'Bloom', the second is 'Entire Plant'. Paul chose 'Entire plant' because it certainly does show the bloom and leaves and it's overall look so his choice does apply too. I don't think it's really necessary to differentiate the closeup or perspective because it's visually apparent. Hopefully as more people contribute, they will add more of those wider shots.

My 2c. We have "Stem or bark" which I've used for scapes as well. When I've taken photos of Iris or Hosta there is usually a "Closeup of buds, sepals and receptacles" in the photo so I haven't had a problem. Maybe we could add scape to the "Stem or bark" gallery.

Edit: cross-posted Sue.

Calif_Sue said:Perhaps it can be changed to Stem, scape or bark.

I agree!

or even Stem, scape, stalk or bark.

Calif_Sue said:or even Stem, scape, stalk or bark.

This is it!! I've made the change!

One problem with having a checkbox for Scape is that it is a somewhat poorly defined term. Its meaning varies quite a bit from person to person.

Maybe I chose a poor picture for the closeup "Entire plant" example, as I thought the same thing when I chose it. I just wanted to show two different photo's of the same plant.

Often, however, an "Entire plant" photo shows pretty much the whole plant, but doesn't give me a feel for what the plant really looks like. Kind of a 'can't see the forest for the trees' type thing.

I'm talking specifically about researching plants or cultivars with which I am not familiar.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

I think we have a category for "Habitat View" (for native habitat or something like that?) Maybe we need a category "Garden View" where we can show the entire plant in our garden?

Lin, that was my point. When I first saw the 'Habitat View' category, I started to post a photo there, but quickly realized it wasn't "garden habitat" that was meant. Perhaps I shouldn't have included the closeup photo in my original post. This photo illustrates the type photo I would like to encourage more of:



I =LIKE= "Garden View" as a category name.

I like closeup photos as well. I certainly am not suggesting 'Garden View' would be a better category. I realize perspective photos fit into the "Entire Plant" category, but having a separate category would encourage people to purposely include this type photo.

Ron

Thanks Dave, Sue. That's perfect!

Wouldn't a 'Garden View' be redundant to the Multi-Plant Photos which, if properly labeled, will be shown when opening the plant entry? I've noted that the multi-plant photos are either a long shot of a whole garden bed (very nice to see plants in relationship to one another) or limited to just a few plants that complement one another (companions). Both are useful when researching or just oogling potential plants.

I was wondering that, too. The photo shown above is a perfect candidate for the multi-plant photos.

Yep, I guess Multi-Plant and Garden View are about the same. Is Multi Plant View a category option when uploading photo's to the database? It probably is and I just missed it with my vision.

No, you have to add them in a separate place, under the Goodies area.

Thanks Dave!

Do the multi plant entries come up in a search for a particular plant that would be in the photo? Or is it connected to the plants in the database?
I just tried looking up Sedum lydium, and the Multi Plant photos do show up in each plant entered in the database. I just learned something new about another Dave creative tool.

I agree that multi-plant images would sometimes fit the category I had in mind. The specific plant would not have to be the main focus of the photo, but the photo would need to provide a real feel for the character of the plant, how it looks in use. The photo couldn't be just a mass of foliage and color, part of which would just happen to be the plant in question, even though that would qualify for multi-plant.

On the other hand, there wouldn't need to be more than one plant in the photo. It could be by itself in a pot, or planted under a window, etc. The idea is more to get a sense of what the plant looks like from ten feet away, rather than right in your face.

This is a type photo I always want to find when I am researching any plant with which I am not familiar. For me it helps fill a need met when I see the plant in person. I don't just mean the ATP database. So many times I have wasted a lot of time trolling the internet trying to find a good perspective photo of a particular plant. Everyone wants to take closeups of the blooms if that is the attraction, Or of the foliage if it is a foliage plant. Or fill the frame with the entire plant so you can see the details. I'm a details kind of guy, so I get that. But I also want to put the plant into perspective.

However, I concede the point. The category would need to fill a need for a much wider audience than just me. It would need to fill a need for the general "viewership" of the site, and clearly that is not the case.

Thanks everyone for considering the idea. It's nice just being heard.