Just a curiosity. I have been spending time (too much time) on the Lily Auction and other vendor websites.
Yet it seems that time and time and time again the "official" database portraits really do not look much like the pictures submitted by real-world users here on this website (thanks so much to all for submitting - you have saved me a lot of disappointment).
On a different thread someone said that I shouldn't just buy a daylily because of the photo. I assume then it is well known (not by me) that people manipulate their images prior to registering a daylily? Particularly color-enhancement (aka "Photoshopping").
I have now seen this so many times it has gone beyond a joke. Now, I know daylilies can perform differently for different people, but when a bunch of people submit photos that look identical to each-other, but not the database I do begin to wonder.
After all, people are making money out of selling these things (some, a lot of money). What checks and balances does the Society have to stop fraud (it is a loaded word, but I cannot find another) and ensure proper representation of the daylily. The database is, after all, the historical record of all daylilies. Surely it should contain non-manipulated images?
It could just be that the daylilies I investigate are ones with bright colors (which I love) and so have a higher-chance of being "tweaked" since I am drawn to those fake strong colors.

Daylilies may look somewhat different depending on what part of the country they are grown, soil conditions vary making a difference, weather conditions, growing zones, how people fertilize and water their plants. A plant on it's first bloom in your garden or mine can look different in it's second year when it is well established.

I have been growing daylilies for many years purchased many from the LA and also directly from hybridizers. I personally do not sell as it is a great deal of work digging and getting the plants ready for shipment. I do not believe that folks are making a lot of money there is a tremendous amount of work and plenty of cost to the growers along with the amount of time needed before they can even sell a plant.

My advice to you is to grow some of those colors of less expensive plants that entice you and see first hand how they look in your garden and enjoy or not that is entirely up to you.

In the registration rules of the ADS, it is clearly stated a number of times that no digital manipulation is permitted.
Here are two rules in the registration information regarding photos (there are a number of others, as well, but these seem the most relevant):
"The photograph of the flower must be taken in the garden with no digital manipulation permitted.
- Color and form should be true to cultivar in all respects and in sharp focus"

However, I really don't know how the rule could be enforced. Sometimes a picture is just a really good photo, or sometimes a bloom is just a great bloom, and also, it depends on the time of year, the time of day, the soil or many other things. When it comes to "blue" in daylilies, it really depends on whether the photo is taken in the shade or in the sun.

I, also, am really glad we have the database on this site. It is such a valuable resource, and it does give one a much better idea of what a cultivar will look like grown under average garden conditions and in different areas.

I have no idea how much money daylily growers make, but the issue regardless of that is the manipulation of photos. We should all expect the photos submitted to the ADS data base to be an honest representation of what the actual bloom looked like in the growers garden.
I feel sure we have all seen examples where that is not the case. All I can say is, do business with those that show honest photos and be leary when purchasing from those that don't.
Sad that it is a lesson that nearly all newbies to daylilies have to learn the hard way.

Goodness somehow posted twice.

The pictures submitted by NGA members often vary greatly. I always wonder what some really look like

I agree with you, Larry. I hate it when I see an obviously manipulated photo.

I have often thought that more progress has been made in showing a "picture" of a blue daylily than in actually growing a blue daylily.

I have some cultivars that have really blue eye zones. However, even with these, some days the eye zone is much, much bluer than others. Any photos that I post here, do not have any manipulation of colour. I do sometimes crop, just to put the photo in the middle so it isn't cut off on the side.

I was thinking that, if the Society had a phone app which will only allow you to upload live pictures straight from your camera to the database this would avoid any "tweaking" of pictures. Some art people use a standardized color chart as part of their photos so everyone can compare to their own chart. Or, thinking out loud, if they allowed short video-clips of daylilies it is much harder to manipulate video than a static photo (as you would see if the sky was looking too blue, or the leaves looking too green). This latter method is used in selling opals, because flash-photography alone over-represents the beauty of opals resulting in a lot of unhappy customers if they rely solely on a photo.
But I am glad I am not alone in noticing. I was feeling a little paranoid like I might be going bonkers.
It seems that this website has become a bigger resource than I had imagined for daylily aficionados, instead of relying on the Daylily Society database.
But image-manipulation seems rife all over gardening websites for all plant types. This is not just a daylily problem in any way.

Thanks for putting my mind at ease.

However, some photographers, and I am one, use older SLR digital cameras, so an app wouldn't be applicable. Also, in order to have the photo meet the requirements of the ADS, directly from the camera to the ADS would be difficult.

You have lots of good ideas, though!

touchofsky said:However, some photographers, and I am one, use older SLR digital cameras, so an app wouldn't be applicable. Also, in order to have the photo meet the requirements of the ADS, directly from the camera to the ADS would be difficult.

You have lots of good ideas, though!

So, "Valerie" seems like a Québécois name, are you originally from Québec? Just asking out of curiosity.

No, I am in Ontario. My grandmother named me after a childhood friend.

I don't feel the ADS should be responsible for the photos added to its site and more importantly to the photos used by sellers? There is a long history of every flower and vegetable catalogue ever made to use photos where the colors are super-saturated and maybe exaggerated. I don't see this isn't a daylily issue. I think it's pretty much the whole gardening industry that sells based on the best photo ever taken, or never taken, of the plant they are trying to sell.

Like anything in gardening and beyond, if it looks too good to be true, it most likely is. After a while, you'll learn which purples exist in real life and which ones only exist via Photoshop, and you won't be so bothered by this.

Paul2032 said:The pictures submitted by NGA members often vary greatly. I always wonder what some really look like

I doubt anyone else does this, but I do. If a picture is submitted for a bloom that looks like it does in my garden sometimes, I "like" the photo. Recently, there was a photo submitted of a bloom that didn't look much like how it looks in my garden, so I passed. I think if more people did this, the ones with the most "likes" would be the ones that look most like the plant in real life.

And while I don't think many, if any, people do this on purpose, generally it does seem to me like the photos with the most likes are the ones that look like the real bloom. When it doesn't, it's often because an odd bloom is getting a lot of extra likes, like it has neat break in the color pattern or an extra petal or something.

I believe that the AHS/ADS does a wonderful job. They have a hard enough job getting all info on each cultivar into the database every year. Does anyone know how many were registered this year? I agree though database pics should be taken straight from the garden. Catalogs are different they are meant to be doctored make everyone they want you to buy and me and she and him and so on.

Dont anyone get discouraged there are some wildly wonderful cultivars out there that look like the pics some that even do better than the database pics. We have alot of them that will make ya jaw drop and so does alot of the folks in here.

That is totally true, many of of them are just unbelievably beautiful in real life, as no picture can ever convey. That being said, I wonder who chooses the photos for AHS? There are many times when I look at the ( one ) photo provided and it really doesn't resemble the many photos provided here on the website. Clearly, it's a thankless task but maybe some cross referencing to get the most representative image wouldn't hurt?

It is up to the hybridizer to provide the photo when the plant is registered, but somehow that often does not happen.

It is now a requirement of registration to submit a photo. The hybridizer submits the photo.

Well this year i had the honor of sending a photo of mine to Mr. Manning to upload to the database for Terah Georges last double registered.