It is no secret to daylily lovers that pictures of any one particular cultivar can have as many variations in appearance as there are different pictures that have been taken of that same cultivar. One might at first think that these variations are caused only by the types of cameras being used or the film being used. Others might think that the variations are caused by enhancements to slide pictures achieved by the new computer scanning technical capabilities. All of these are, indeed, possible causes of these differences, but to these possible causal factors must be added others which may include such things as: environmental conditions (soil and climactic factors) and plant establishment( growth cycle, adaptability, and vigor). With so many variables coming into consideration of why the same particular cultivar can look so very different in pictures, it is no wonder that many of us sometimes get frustrated and say to ourselves, "Will the TRUE DAYLILY CULTIVAR please stand up and testify!" LOL Let us give a rather brief consideration of some of these things.

I am most definitely not and do not claim to be any kind of authority on cameras of any kind whether they are traditional ones using film or the newest digital ones. My love and fields of study were in Art, the Life/Earth sciences, and Horticulture, all of which I have always loved, and in none of which I have ever been the master, but, rather, only a traveler. In regard to my experience with using the traditional cameras and various films I have noticed a great difference in the quality of slides produced. The particular camera used certainly makes a difference. Film makes a notable difference. Before the advent or some of the recent digitals it was very difficult for me to get consistently good slides/images when taking pictures. The box of hundreds of slides beside me as I write this is proof of that as most of them will never be used since they were poor portrayals of the appearance of the flower.

The coming of our new computer technologies, scanners, and digital cameras have been the most welcome and monumental advance I can remember in my life. The coming of TV was dramatic to say the least, and hand calculators also, but for me the computer technologies are nothing short of miraculous and more so because I understand little of it. I only know I can push keys and things happen. I have spent hours creating and developing something on the computer only to strike the wrong key or three or four keys and in that many seconds to have lost all of those hours of work. :-( What a benefit the scanners and computers have been for us with their enhancement capabilities. Throughout the world slides which might otherwise have been unusable have been salvable and with the honest and conscienscious usage of scanners and computers the daylily world is being brought ever closer to better renditions of the appearance of cultivars. But with the new digital cameras the closeness in achieving accuracy is astounding. Here I have seen no need of enhancement or alteration though I am sure that from time to time it possibly may be needed.

Yes, it is true, I have seen pictures of daylilies whose colors are so exaggerated or changed from the reality of what is seen when those same cultivars actually bloom. One certainly feels that truth has not been well served in such situations. This may happen accidentally through printing processes or may even be deliberately planned for some less noble reason. It is my conviction that the advancements of this new technological age are wonderful and the abuse of the same by any does in no wise negate the overwhelming benefit it can and is bringing to all of us. Some may think that enhancement, contrast, and color modification are simply wrong. To this I ask, Why?- when we can actually bring about a much closer proximity in likeness to the real appearance of the cultivar as we have seen it. Some may think that you must use a slide just as the camera has taken it with no additions or subtractions. To this I ask, Why? - when we know the flower picture is poor and the rendition is faulty. Showing a poor picture of a flower simply because the picture is just as the camera has taken it IS SURELY NOT as good as showing that same picture after conscienscious and careful modification has brought it closer to the way the flower really looks.

I think with the new digital cameras we are likely to have more and more pictures of daylilies that are accurate in their rendition of the flower. Still other factors such as those of the environment and health of the plant can have a bearing on the appearance of the flower too. When a picture is taken in the morning when the temperature is 80 degrees a flower is often deeper and more intense in color. The same flower picture taken in the afternoon in 95 degree temperatures may not even look like the same lily or be the same color. There is enough difference in the two pictures to make one wonder if the picture is really a picture of the same daylily. In this case if we asked for a testimonial, both flowers would stand up and testify as the real thing and yet both would not look the same. :-) Another climactic factor that can devastate the true appearance of a cultivar is when it is grown in areas such as mine and that may often have strong late cold fronts passing through and which cause temperatures for several mornings in the low to mid fifties during the bloom season. It may take A FULL WEEK of night- time temperatures in the mid sixties before the flowers will again regain performance that truly indicates their real appearance. Areas that do not have nights that remain in the mid sixties or higher for a week or so consecutively may never see many cultivars the way they actually can and should be. Pictures taken in such locations and under such climactic conditions can never give the best representation of what that particular flower CAN be. They only show what the flower looks like under conditions that have not been the best for that particular cultivar, and they are almost sure not to look good as compared with pictures taken where favorable climactic conditions exist. Extremes of high and low temperature readings for the same day affect cultivar appearance. Two or three rainy cool days followed by scorching sun and heat the next day causes the blossoms to curl and look like they are in a sauna bath-(they are :-). You could not sell the blossoms for a dime a dozen the way they look, and yet this is the day that 10 cameras are in the garden taking shots of a 100 things that could never be recognized for what they really should look like. When this happens I sometimes think I hear the flowers say, "Jack, please do not let them take pictures of us TODAY. We are just simply in shambles in this sauna bath." LOL Really, which person wants their gorgeous face in a picture as they just roll out of bed early in the morning and the camera goes click in their face? :-) Many of us who live here in the south are quite familiar with our lilies looking just beautiful one week and this being followed by another week that makes us wonder why we grow them at all. Climactic and soil conditions may greatly affect the way flowers look and often explain why a flower never seems to look like it did in the garden where it was purchased.

Elsie Spalding's garden was near the Gulf coast and the warm, muggy, humid mornings during bloom season had some effect on the appearance of those lovely flowers. But another factor that I suspect made her lilies so beautiful was the wonderful soil in which they were growing Elsie had a wonderful silt loam soil to which she added organic material, manures, and some commercial fertilizer as well. I remember when I would scoop a handful of soil and crumble it in my hands and then smell of it. I knew the minute I smelled that soil that it would grow anything. Her plants were absolutely beautiful and the picture of vigor and health. Both soil and climate have a definite effect on the way daylilies grow and on the appearance of the flowers they produce.

In conclusion then it should really not surprise us that pictures of the same cultivar often show considerable variation in appearance from one picture to another. The film and/or camera used can have its bearing. The temperature, time of day, and climactic conditions prior to and during the time a picture is being taken can have its effect on the way the flower appears at that point in time. Soils which produce strong vigorous growing daylily plants will also produce better scapes with blossoms more beautiful than those grown under less favorable conditions. As long as we have such varying conditions as kinds of cameras and films being used and different climactic conditions existing where the cultivars are being grown, we are going to have notable variations in the way pictures portray the same cultivar. Of course, once we develop a cultivar that is always perfectly photogenic regardless of cameras and films used and performs well everywhere irrespective of its environment, we will no longer need to concern ourselves with those things mentioned here :-). I suspect that what most of us hope for is that when people take a picture of any one's cultivar they will do so when the environmental conditions have been and still are within the reasonable limits that enable the cultivar to perform well and appear as it should. We also hope that such cameras and/or films are being used that will give a good rendition of the flower. To do less is unfair to both the cultivar and its originator as well as to all who see the picture that is being shown.

Just a thought here- once you have a picture of a cultivar and are thinking of spreading it over the world by the click of your computer button, look at it carefully and remember the circumstances under which it was taken and if you really think justice is served in this picture. Remember, if “ a PICTURE is worth a thousand words” then the picture you send has the potential of saying either more or less than you might have wanted to say about the flower. When various attendant conditions exist that have made a picture less than what it should or could be, the old saying- “SILENCE IS GOLDEN” may be a preferred course of action.