Is there a way to generate a list of the dl in the database that do not have any photos yet? I thought it would be great to list some of those out so we can make a goal over the bloom season this year to add pics of those. I don't always take pics in my own yard, sometimes at public gardens or a friends house/tour ect. It would also be nice to make a goal this year to take clump shots and include bud count or branching, I am so guilty of only taking a close up of a bloom!

Frilly there are so many daylilies without a photo it would probably be a very long list.
I really do like your idea of posting clump shots along with info on the stats of the plant. I am going to try and do more of that this year. The problem for me has been all my daylilies were too new to have formed decent clumps. Now I am getting a few named daylilies that should have nice clumps this year. This will be the third year for quite a few of my plants.

The database here already has lots of pictures of different cultivars. I think a lot of the daylilies in the database are old cultivars that are few and far between in cultivation or perhaps no longer in cultivation, so not likely to have pictures. I know in my personal garden I replace old ones with newer plants and gift the older ones to friends. I think the people here do a good job of posting to the database making it one of the largest on the web. When taking pictures I take of the bloom not the whole clump or branching unless it shows up on the photo as they are for the software I use to keep track of my daylilies and other plants for identity purposes. Plus it is usually very hot in the garden when taking pictures which is time consuming making me want to get back in the A/C.

It will be the third yr for many of mine also and I hope w/in a year or two more I will be able to post lots more pics.

I looked up several today that were registered since 2000 and do not have photos, it is not just the older ones.

A good clump shot is not an easy photo to take and have it look decent. For me it is one of the hardest shots in the garden to take correctly. It is so hard to get a clump shot that shows any detail of the flower. Normally, there are already closeup photos of the bloom, but not always. So if I am taking a clump photo I will also try to take a photo of a closeup of the bloom. I would love to be able to take clump shots when the peak number of blooms are open. The main things I am interested in with clump photos: are there plenty of blooms to really put on a good show, do the scapes hold the blooms up high enough to be displayed above the dense foliage, does the foliage have a nice shape and color? I am sure there are other things a good clump shot would reveal, what do you look for when taking a clump shot of a daylily?

I also wonder if it wouldn't be good to have on record photos of "heirloom" daylilies. I know some people collect the heirloom bearded iris & it can be hard to get photos of some of those. I have several oldies that have better habits than new ones-although I love the look of those new daylilies. I know some of the newer daylilies don't have photos in the listing, I have been assuming that the reason is the daylily isn't necessarily a good plant in some way. That may not necessarily be true though.

I think it is just that there are so few of them, I know some I have did google search for revealed nothing, I can't locate them, and they don't have to be old either. It is just as hard to find one that is too new, or one that maybe just didn't get popular for some reason. I think a catchy name automatically makes a plant 'wanted' but if a plant has a 'boring person's name', it is not as popular. A lot of the ones that really took off had names that rhymed, or were kind of funny or unusual or food names, ect. That is just my 2 cents, I know some may disagree. I think some are registered but then don't take off well -don't grow well or don't grow well in different zones so the availability fizzles out as others come available.
Advertising may have a lot to do w it as well, and the bedside manners of the hybridizer. I know there have been times I have tried to contact a hybridizer or a business only to be 1. ignored, or 2. we are so busy we don't need your money... or other similar effects. Well then I buy something different somewhere else. I guess a lot of reasons. There are some nurseries that specialize in the older varieties more-so. I like them myself but sometimes they are hard to find.

Larry you know what I am thinking would be nice is to see the scape after its dead. After all the bloom is over, pull it out and then photo to see the branching and bud count and height ect. I do think its nice to see if a scape holds itself up well and how it does in wind ect, or how the blooms do in the wind. How they hold up in rain, or blazing sun-if they like shade or sulk there.

Frilly,
I thought the same thing about the old scapes. As a matter of fact, my plan last year was to let the old scapes stay on the plant then after the season was over go back and do the bud count and branching inventory. After all it is suppose to be an average of the scapes. The problem was it did not work out in the actual garden setting. The bud scars became impossible to distinguish, and even the branching on was not clearly evident on many of the scapes. I am still hoping for some guidance on how best to collect those stats. I did actually take some photos of the old scapes, I need to do it again, but not wait so long.

I think that photo is useful. I think part of the issue w the database is that people are concerned w a photo looking pretty. Pretty is nice for eyecandy and I do like to see those. But pretty is not necessarily what the database is for entirely. A photo that gives information is what I look for.

I wouldn't even mind seeing pics of some of the roots, I have dug dl that have had orange or yellow roots, white looking roots, fat or thin roots, so if I dig something out and I get it mixed up w something, I MAY be able to get a probably id by seeing a pic of the roots.