Yellow Eyes

[blupit007]

I took a screen shot of the photo that Uli was trying to show you.  Only because it is so beautiful, I need to know what it's called.  Does anyone know??

[Pachrian]

Kristen, this is not the pic of the hib with the yellow eye ( look in the album with 200 pics, it's #105. #23 has a yellow eye too).

The one you posted is definitely awesome though

[blupit007]

Oops, that is what I saw when I clicked on your link.  Sorry, that's what I get for butting in... really cool flower though!  I will check out the one you say!

[blupit007]

Awe man, I cant get in.  Unavailable!  blah!!

[Pachrian]

Kristen, check your FB

[1.618]

I took a screen shot of the photo that Uli was trying to show you.  Only because it is so beautiful, I need to know what it's called.  Does anyone know??

I believe this is Moorea Solar Blue bred by Charles Atiu. I remember it from when he first posted it on the IHS discussion group. It caught my eye because it looked so beautiful.

Ian

[blupit007]

Ah!  Yes it is so beautiful.

[Charlie]

Sorry, guys, but that is clearly not a realistic photo. Many of Atiu's photos show colors that do not actually exist in hibiscus, particularly those in the "blue" color hues. His family is now selling and sending cuttings of his plants to people around the world. Eventually the real colors will be known and displayed after being grown in diverse gardens by many people. Already there is one man in Costa Rica who has displayed quite a few photos of "Moorea hibiscus (the island where they were hybridized)" and although many are quite nice none of them show the new blue colors that have been posted by Atiu previously. Time will tell about these, but for now this is my opinion based on what I know about hibiscus and about digital photos.

Sorry if I sound like a spoil sport but I'm trying to be fair to those who are newer to hibiscus and don't yet know the difference between those who post glory photos and those who post real photos. The real ones are good enough, no need to boost colors into fantasy representations.

Charlie

[blupit007]

Sorry Charlie,
  I didn't mean to offend.  I didn't take the photo or adjust it in any way.  I just copied and pasted it because I didn't know what the name of it was.  It did look too good to be true... 

[Charlie]

No offense at all. I know it was just copied. You hit on the best rule to use - if it seems too good to be true it almost always is.

For years we could say the real hibiscus flowers were always better than the photos posted around the internet. I liked it that way. The biggest question we hear when people see the real blooms for the first time is "are they real?" But in recent years some people seem to have felt the need to push the digital photos to the point where they are no longer representative of the actual blooms. Sometimes it's just an ego thing and other times it's directly related to commercial interests. Sometimes it is probably just someone trying to convey their sense of wonder when seeing the bloom and they don't think their photo does it justice. Whatever, I'm for being creative and showing the beauty of the flowers but not for changing the colors of the blooms using digital means.

If you know digital photos you can see what has been done to them. As a test a few years ago I posted some flowers that I created entirely digitally. Not one person came forward to ask if I was kidding. They oohed and ahhed until I described what was done. The point was just that you have to use some discrimination where digital photos are concerned.

Below are two I made and displayed. The first is more reasonable. There had been some discussion about brown and white flowers, of which there were none at the time. So I made one. Then I made another which is totally out there, not at all realistic, but some asked to order Blue Bird of Paradise.........

Charlie

[helixturnhelix]

lol, a bit psychedelic

[blupit007]

Oh Man!  I would ask if I could go on the wait list for that one as well.  Kinda funny.

[Pachrian]

I've fought long and hard to bring reality to hibiscus photos and this forum is not going to become part of the problem. Sorry if I sound like a spoil sport but I'm trying to be fair to those who are newer to hibiscus and don't yet know the difference between those who post glory photos of and those who post real photos. The real ones are good enough, no need to boost colors into fantasy representations.

Charlie

Charlie, one thing to remember is that if you shoot jpeg, the camera does it's own adjustments depending on the parameters the owner selected. Many casual photographers use a very saturated setting (which I believe is your main concern) and might therefore unintentionally post boosted pics.

I myself shoot in the RAW format, which means I HAVE to make adjustments in post processing. These adjustments include levels, curves and sharpening...something that the camera does itself in jpeg format. The difference is I'm in control vs the camera.

I agree with you though that intentional misrepresentation is terrible. On the other hand just because a photo is unaltered doesn't mean it's accurate 

[Charlie]

Hi Uli,

Yes, I understand all that. Cindy and I both from time to time will place the actual bloom next to the monitor and make adjustments that are intended to make the photo more accurate. Tweaking photos is not a sin, of course, and often helps show what we hope to show. I also use raw files sometimes but its a lot of extra work and I don't have a lot of extra time. I'll leave that to you pros!

As you know, cameras, software, video cards and monitors all differ among the many people who view the photos and what I see with my setup is not necessarily what others see. As you once mentioned, all this equipment should be calibrated but almost no one who isn't professional does that. I'm not really talking about using the flower or garden setting but rather what I object to is a pattern of unrealistic photos that I see some people posting who definitely know what they are doing. I have a long history with most of the people I refer to, having grown their plants after they post photos. Some mislead with their photos much of the time and others do not. The stories I could tell!

One of the worst offenders uses an amusing new defense - "oh, I just take them with my iPhone and post them online straight from the camera", the implication being that a cell phone camera is too unsophisticated to be able to make adjustments to the photos. He seems to count on most people not knowing that iPhones (and other smart phones) have available apps (programs) that allow the iPhone user to make almost any editing changes to the photos directly on the iPhone that you can make on a computer.

In case anyone posting photos on this forum wonders if they are being included in this - no, definitely not. I am referring to a few well known hybridizers and commercial hibiscus people who know exactly what they are doing and have a consistent history of doing it. Some are better at staying right at the limit  where its hard to say one way or the other how accurate the photo is until you grow the variety yourself, others are downright shameless.

The photos I posted yesterday show how far you can go - there is nothing real about either photo but not everyone would realize that. Short of that there are all sorts of boosts you can make to give a slightly blue flower a very blue appearance, brighten or darken other colors, increase the contrast between light and dark to create a more dramatic flower, and so forth. Hibiscus are pretty enough without resorting to this I think. Enough said.

Charlie

[helixturnhelix]

LOL, I only use iphone snaps! Overall the iphone camera takes some pretty good pics, and I think mine are pretty accurate.  I really like using it for those dark blooms like Dragon's Heart, point and shoots like to lighten them up, but the iphone doesn't.