2006 mailing list messages

2006 Archived Messages

Click on the week you require.
To return to the main Archive index, click the button at the bottom of the page.
Links to all the Photos and other images accompanying the list messages can be found on the Images page.

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: Projector Model with USB etc
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 02:05

Try;-
http://www.ltrc.mcmaster.ca/class/classdocs/EPSON745cUSB.pdf
for a model that has USB inputs and therefore will accept sources of signal
(some cameras) without the need for a laptop. There must be others too. Of
course, they may not come free!!!!
Cheers
John

> Some digital projectors have USB input facilities and can be 'fed' from a
> Palm or hand-held PC...

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] To bo or not to be !!!!
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 06:15

We did tell you the answer to that , at the time, Roger. Orchid viruses do
not float about in the air , as far as anyone knows. So the scalpel could be
waved about without getting contaminated.

Orchid viruses are in the sap , and get from one plant to another on the
‘mouth’ of some insect , or on the unsterilised knife/scissors/scalpel uised
on a series of plants.

From: Bill Haldane
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Patience rewarded
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 09:55

Hi Dennis!
Congratulations! Maybe I shall give my dormant Glauca another chance.
Regards Bill

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Vanda Miss Joaquim.
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:35

Hi Ron,
1. Maybe the pronunciation of the name has as much to do with the country in which the person liv/es/ed as from where the name derives. Miss Agnes Joachim was Armenian. I don't know how the Armenians pronounce a Portuguese name but think what a mess the English make of Braun!!! Many names are pronounced differently in different countries even though they may derive from one. Linnaeus or Von Linné? In English a name may be differently pronounced according to the posessor's wishes; Mainwaring? ("Mannering") etc
2. Does it matter?
3. More to the/a point;- was the plant a deliberate or fortuitous cross? (I am currently half-heartedly chasing a tail/tale over that! (there's probably no answer).
John

From: P G Hieke
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Photography.
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 16:00

Hi All,
It just came to my mind this morning, while I took some pictures,
that I always use a tripod when I photograph flowers. It is safer
for positioning of the plant/flower and one does not have to worry
about the shutter speed.
Kind regards
Peter from Bloubergstrand

Hi Peter,
While respecting your traditional view of the OM2 I feel bound to wave a flag for digital consumer cameras that can shoot very close up with good depth of field and manual control. I use a digital SLR too but wouldn't advocate the expense for the kind of pics under discussion. The major advantages of an SLR are inherited lenses (albeit probably losing auto facilities and an effective lengthening of focal lengths) and the instantaneous shutter response. There is also the advantage of the far quicker experimental aspect with near-immediate viewing of results before a flower expires. I use an old Coolpix 995 for closeup and tiny flower work (the colour jpg attachment is of an 8mm dia droplet on the micro-print edition of the Oxford English Dictionary − arty rrather than scientific but I think it makes a point) . Far better than any extension tubery! In my 'umble opinion! Maybe off-topic for the forum though ?
John

...Maybe the answer is a digital SLR, but it is a question
of available money. So, I try to juggle between the two. Use the
digital one for the medium to large flowers and the OM2 for the
small to tiny flowers, because there I have the various lenses,
extension tubes, bellows aso.

From: P G Hieke
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Peter's tips.
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 16:20

Hi Rocky,
No I have no attachments whatsoever for my digital camera.
Kind regards
Peter from Bloubergstrand

From: Esther Koh
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Vanda Miss Joaquim.
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 17:05

From: Ron Newstead
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Vanda Miss Joaquim.
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:20

Yes, he has. But he also told me that it was spelt Joachim − which is not
Portuguese anyway − but the Portuguese were great sailors..........

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Vanda Miss Joaquim.
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 01:50

I will happily pass on any info I have but can I just say that my info has
been passed to me by those with far more expertise than I in orchids and
that particular hybrid. Those who recall Manuel from Fawlty Towers will
remember his get-out phrase "I know nOthing" !!!

First, an apology; I seem to have inadvertently created a new spelling of
Joachim − it should be Joaquim. Apologies if that is creating
argument/discussion/diff of opinion. However, the lady was Armenian in
origin before residing in Singapore. I have no idea how she pronounced her
name.

Apparently there are two issues that get folks excited; did the lady
deliberately cross Papilionanthe ("Vanda") teres with Papilionanthe
("Vanda") hookeriana or did she simply discover a fortuitous hybrid
resulting from the close garden-proximity of the parents? There are
arguments both ways but no agreement to everyone's satisfaction.

There is significant variation in both parental species and so the hybrid
(Miss Joaquim) is variable.

Although P.teres and P.Miss Agnes Joaquim are reasonably easy to grow under
glass in Europe, P.hookeriana is a tropical wetland plant that would be a
challenge, even if you can get it I m told

Apparently, P.Miss Agnes Joaquim is one of , if not the, most studied orchid
. . . full stop!

Incidentally, my wife and I grow P.vandarum and P teres and hope to acquire
P Agnes Joaquim soon. P.vandarum is especially beautiful − see Jay Pfahl's
website at http://www.orchidspecies.com/

I have been sent images of the hookeriana habitat which I could post up
here. If you are interested further, you might like to explore
http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com ) from where
e-friends have supplied the other half of my info.
John

From: P G Hieke
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Patience rewarded
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 16:20

Congratulations, it is a superb looking plant/flower.
I was never lucky with my plant. I had it for many years
and it never got of the ground. It just sat there and
then eventually it gave up.
Regards
Peter from Bloubergstrand

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Orchid pictures and colour correctness
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:00

I have flowered several Vandas with quite interesting colours recently − one
a very dark colour ( Indigo ?) , another orange-brown, another a very rich
dark purple − plain not spotted or reticulated, etc., but have been having
difficulty in getting colours which I can accept as accurate . And I don't
mean the colour which first appears when I download etc., , but I mean that
even messing about in my imaging programme , adding or subtracting different
primaries, increasing/decreasing saturation etc., I still can't get very
close.

Some members of this group have in fact seen some of these, and may recall
them, so I'll put up a few pictures and comment , as follows :-

A very dark Vanda − the picture has much more purple in it, but the flower
is not as dark as it was in real-life. Its actually V.Gordon Dillon "Blue
Spots" , and is supposed to be a top-cutting from the original awarded
plant. I'm surprised that even a Thai would have used such a varietal name
for this plant, so maybe it is not what it is supposed to be anyway.

Vanda densioniana ( maybe) . Its really a lot more of a clean lemon colour
than this, but when I get near the right hue on the screen, it looks washed
out, and increasing saturation brings back an unreal butteriness.

Asocenda Sylva Lena Dila x Haad Rahan looks a much more even brown colour
than shown here ; the veins are perhaps true, but the bit between the veins
looks much lighter than in real life.

And finally, since it is probably a matter of lighting − not that I am any
nearer a "solution" when I realise that − two snaps of a nice blue Vanda -
Pakchong − or maybe its Pakchong Blue, cv "Sunday Best" . One taken by flash
, which is supposed to be neutral daylight equivalent, and the other snapped
by daylight in late afternoon, mid-summer.

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Vanda Miss Joaquim or even Hovakimian but not Joachim.
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 22:25

First, having apologised for the confusion caused by my mis-spelling of
Joaquim, I should point out that Joaquim is, itself, an anglicisation of the
lady's Armenian name Hovakimian. This makes a nonsense of trying to sort out
the correct pronunciation by anyone on the basis of the source nation for
Joaquim/ or my erroneous "Joachim". Maybe we have an Armenian in the Orchid
Talk family who could sort the pronunciation of that out! It is more than my
tiny mind can get around. However, I am embarrassed by the trouble I caused
even so. Sorry again!

I can hear the chorus of comment from here; "Here's another fine mess you've
gotten us into, Stanley! Huh." (For those less than half a century old, look
up Laurel & Hardy).

"Hailed originally as the product of much experimentation by its creator
Miss Ashkhen Hovakimian or in English, Agnes Joaquim, it is now described as
a natural hybrid, which Agnes chanced upon. However taking into
consideration Agnes' horticultural expertise and contemporary accounts of
the orchid's advent, I suggest that she did indeed cross two orchids to
produce her namesake."

The above was copied from an article in −
http://www.amassia.com.au/debate.htm where it can be seen in context. Even
"Agnes" seems to have been derived from a very obscure name (to English eyes
and ears).

Now I'm beginning to realise why this orchid has attracted so much
attention; we've spent a week working out how to refer to the lady! Now
then, accidental or deliberate cross folks?

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Vanda Miss Joaquim or even Hovakimian but not Joachim.
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:35

I'm curious( sceptical ? ) about " as the result of much experimentation"
, and wonder if this is a gloss added by the journalist ?
My understanding is that the lady , fine grower though she was, was not
actually into hybridisation or seed-raising in any sort of way at all -
which indeed would account for the general (?) scepticism when it was
claimed that she had bred it , and the presentation of the alternative
explanation that she stumbled across a natural hybrid.

But it should be understood that unlike certain stars of the silent screen
(BTW are you the thin one or the other one John ? ) I am not an expert on
Armenian first names or any other aspect of this thread − indeed I am
awe-stuck at the depth of knowledge and breadth of talent we have in this
group. BTW was it Mack Sennett who made the original L & H films ? I know
he did the keystone cops ( recently went to London to see "Mack and Mabe;l"
which is a musical about part of his life − but I'm straying a long way from
orchids now, so time to shut up and go back to something serious -(
dead-heading roses is the task for today).

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: Papilionanthe Miss Wotsit etc etc
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:05

Hi Geoff,
A large amount has been written about Papilionanthe Miss Agnes Joaquim.Some would say more than any other orchid on the planet. Some publications are peer reviewed and some are private publications. Much of the controversy results from the writers of peer reviewed papers insisting that their writings are of a higher quality (my phrasing) than the others. However, it is clear that both have good and less good papers and some are better researched than others no matter if they are peer reviewed or not.

The website I referred to in my last email gives the essence of the history albeit biased in favour of one author but there is no denying the existence of her references ignored or glossed over in allegedly superior publications. The answer to the question of Miss Agnes's competence in hybridising seems, to me, that she was quite expert. Whether or not P.Miss Agnes Joaquim could have been made by her is almost certainly a possibility. Whether or not it was is not certain but there is quoted evidence from the time (late 1800s) that it was. For what my humble opinion is worth (and I have gleaned much info from Peter O'Byrne of Singapore who hasn't gone public on the issue) I believe she probably did cross what are now correctly referred to as Papilionanthe teres and Papilionanthe hookeriana.

My knowledge is certainly not sufficient to raise me above ordinary mortal status in the orchid world but what makes me think she probably did make the cross (apart from contemporary historical written record that she did!) is the fact that P.teres and P.hookeriana are not plants easily growable in the same local environment. P.hookeriana lives in tropical wetland vaguely akin to our fens (give a few more global warming years!) whereas P.teres, although liking light and wet, doesn't live in such wet environments (or, in the wild, in the same country) . I would have thought it necessary to contrive circumstances for crossing. Also, I believe that they do not flower synchronously and that would render a natural hybrid unlikely . . wouldn't it?

I'm not sure that I want to spend the rest of my life getting deep into the research area that has been already well trampled. Maybe I am a bit of a champion for the unqualified. (I recall a geology book called "The Bombarded Earth" written by a Spanish Civil War English pilot. Virtually all of the book has proved absolutely true and yet it is still not accepted as a scientific reference in matters of known meteroitic impact phenomena even though it was decades ahead of the 'proper' scientists!).

If anything would get me off my backside to do some experiments with orchids, I guess an attempt to cross P. teres with P. hookeriana would be it. However, the latter is v. diff. to grow in UK , it needs recirculating water, (unless you know better) and I have never seen it available for sale.

But, if you can add anything . . . . . . . . or know a source of P.hookeriana . . . . . . .

Oh! Oliver Hardy was the fat one who uttered in exasperation; "Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into Stanley . . Huh!" , to the the thin and ever bewildered Stanley (Stan) Laurel. I find it easy to identify with Stan − partly through a professional career littered with the quotation (occasionally deserved), constant bewilderment at almost anything of 21stC, and ill-fitting suits.

However, I have the now faded lid off a carboard box of steel rules which states quite clearly *Stanley Rules" although it omits the "OK?"
John Stanley
(or even Stan)

From: dennis READ
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Patience rewarded
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:05

Thankyou Peter and Bill for your response. As you were the only two to respond it leads me to think that
a) We are the only people trying to grow this orchid
or
b) We are the only growers that have had any difficulty.
As this is one of the main building blocks for Cattleya hybrids I am surprised.
Regards from Devon

From: P G Hieke
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Vanda Miss Joaquim
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:55

Hi all, this is the story of Miss Joaquim which I have read many years ago in
one
of the orchid magazines. I believe it was the AOS, but I'm not sure about this.
I tried to find it, but was not successful, so I' m writing from memory:
Miss Joaquim found one morning, in her garden in Singapore a flower which she
had never seen before. It was none of the vandas she had seen. So, she took
one flower and went to see the director of the botanical garden, whom she knew.
He also was at a loss. Eventually they came to the conclusion that it must be a
natural hybrid between V. teres and V. hookeriana and it was named in her
honour Vanda Miss Joaquim and years later it became the national flower of
Singapore.
Fact or fiction? I don't know, but a nice story.
Kind regards
Peter from Bloubergstrand

From: P G Hieke
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Can some one tell me what I have
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:05

Your plant does not come from Mars, but from S.E.Asia, it is Flickingeria comata
also known under Ephemerantha comata.
Kind regards
Peter from Bloubergstrand

> I was given this species and I don't have a clue. The
> flower looks like a Epidendrum, but the plant looks
> like it came from Mars.

From: Theta Sigma
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: Orchid pictures and colour correctness
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:35

I'd recommend using a professional "grey card" to set the color
temperature before taking any photos. You'll be setting the camera's
white balance against the grey card in the light that you intend to use
for the final photo. Following that, you'll want to access your
computer's "color management" settings within the following areas: the
video display, the imaging software, the scanner, the printer and any
other equipment or software that deal with images. These should all be
set to match (details are too voluminous to reiterate here − just look
for "color management" or "color settings" within the software). Once
all these are set up everything will match from original subject matter
to the final screen display or printed photo. (This is not necessarily a
trivial exercise).

Bearing all of this in mind, some cameras are just not capable of
properly rendering color. For example, my pricey Canon EOS digital
camera (about 4 years old) cannot accurately reproduce ruddy-blue
colours such as violet, purple, etc. Later versions of Canon cameras now
have new software that greatly helps to produce more accurate color. It
is possible to impose a "color curve" inside the [digital] camera (if it
supports user settings of that nature) which should help improve color
accuracy, but I have not gone to those lengths yet. There are businesses
that set up the color curves for professional photographers, e.g.,
flesh-tone for portraits, vivid for eye-popping color, normalised,
incandescent, etc. These curves are separate from the camera's built-in
"vivid" and "portrait," etc., settings, giving the photographer a wider
latitude in choosing a color scheme to use.

From: Peter Fowler
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Books for sale.
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:45
Source: mail.orchids@orchidguide.com

Dear All, Sadly, after growing orchids for 26 years, due to a very bad
back, I am no longer to grow them any more. I have sold 90% of the
plants
but have some good quality books for sale.

Manual of Orchidaceous Plants, J Veitch, 2 vols. Original copy, not a
reprint. These were rebound last year at a cost of A3100+. Hand
stitched.
Superb looking volumes. H/B

Orchid Monographs, 8 vols. (various authors), EJ Brill, Leiden.
Produced
through the help of the University of Leiden. S/B

Plate 152, plus text page from Curtis92s Botanical Magazine. Epidendrum
cochleatum (actually fragrans).

Please contact me personally for details on price and weight of books,
as I
am willing to ship them anywhere in the world. But the Lindenia, 6
volumes &
Veitch, 2 volumes, will be expensive to ship, even in the UK.

From: jns tropic
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Can some one tell me what I have
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 02:30

Peter thank you very much for the name. I googled
both Flickingeria comata and Ephemerantha comata. The
first was spotted but the second looked identical to
my plant. The attached jpg is my plant.

From: jns tropic
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: Orchid pictures and colour correctness
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 03:15

When I used a point and click digital there were colors that were a problem. I photographed Joe Romans for at least 7 times with all sorts of ambient light and it always looked washed out. 1.jpg was typical and I didn't like it one bit. I: went to Photoshop and extracted the blooms and tinkered with hue and saturation until it looked like flower sitting on the desk. My phony picture gave honest color. Then when I realized that I could change the flower to any color, I made a blue one. I posted the blue.jpg and said that the color was not the original.
About 5 years ago some one wrote me and asked if he could have a piece of my large Blettia. He also ask if I had a big dog in my back yard and if I did, what was the dogs favorite treat. I sent him a picture of our very large standard poodle. In the picture I made the 60 pound dog look twice his size and the Blettia that had four flowers and one bud all of different colors. I also said that the dogs favorite treat was arms and legs of intruders.

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Re: Papilionanthe Miss Wotsit etc etc
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 06:45

If you are not now too bored with this subject (?) to want to continue − and loving a good argument...mind , I'm not sure that we are argueing , maybe we are agreeing ?
One thing is clear ; whether she found it or made it, both must have been flowering at the same time in her garden or somewhere, since the technique of keeping pollen ( dry and in a 'frig ) can hardly have been known at all in the 19th century before 'frig's ?
So if the lady was an expert orchid grower , then she would have been responsible for growing both − whether or not she went on to do the pollination bit. So that has to be undeniable. Growing two orchids in one place, which normally live in very disparate conditions is easy-peasy − evryone who is an orchid grower does it all the time. "Normally grow in disparate conditions" partly means − has never spread to the other place/conditions might not be suitable for seeds to germinate and grow − although adult plants if established might well struggle along....So bringing one in , and nailing it to the fence, may well be enough.
And as to needing it very wet , my understanding of the climate of Singapore ( my wife lived there for 3 years) is that it would not be difficult to satisfy that !
All of it ( the hybridisation ) took place long before Knudsen , and the standard (?) technique for seed-raising before him ( in Europe ) was to sprinkle the ripe seed around the mother plant , into the compost , then water very carefully to avoid it being washed away. But in the tropics , Vandas were grown in brick lumps, or planted in the ground ( in both cases as in Singapore Botanics today − or at least that was what they did when I first saw them 25 years ago , and still did when I last saw them maybe 2 or 3 years ago) and neither would be very suitable for seeds.
But the usual system for seed-sowing , on a casual basis in the tropics, in dampish places − so I have been given to understand by someone who raised a lot in the West Indies, could be no more than rub the pod over a suitable branch, trunk or even fence post . It must be very sexist to imagine that a member of the gentle sex would be incapable of that , assuming that it was a known technique at that time. But I have no idea about that.
I do think that Dominie's success (1869 ?) − sorry if I mis-spelled his name -would have echoed around the horticultural world, and any interested gardener would have been applying pollen all over the place " to see what happens" and trying all kinds of things to see if germination occurred − and in a busy life, forgetting about what had been done, then through happy chance discovering a plant... That seems a likely scenario to me ; when I've finished modifying my Time Machine Mark99 ( the other 98 did not work for some unknown reason) I'll pop back and have a look.

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Re: Orchid pictures and colour correctness
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:15

Mark , I shoot in NEF ( Nikon RAW format) so I do not (need to) set white balance , colour temperatuer etc., or any of the other variables at the time of shooting − I can pick what I want when processing the file converted to a digital negative ( Adobe Converter) − this has tremendous advantage , like I can adjust the exposure through 2 stops either way ,use trhe HD technique to combine a 2 stops under-exposed image for high-light detail with a 2 stops over-exposed image for shadow detail , etc etc. I don't even have to select the colour profile and can go to Adobe 1998 v2 or sRGB or whatever when I process − even make a 4 colour image for a commercial printer without affecting the dng version.
I use a profiled monitor, and re-profile in theneutral environment of my work-space with blinds drawn and no ambient light , every month.
My point is that even with all this versatility and control − which is undreamt of by film users − and probably unknown to most digicam users − I still can't get colour which my eye can accept as accurate, in many cases . This is what is known in tghe moist scientific circles as Sod's law....and I was just having a general whinge about it, to relieve my feelings.

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Re: Papilionanthe Miss Wotsit etc etc
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:50

John , I wrote a long reply earlier , using the ‘reply’ button on the
webmail site of my new ISP ( virgin) but then found it was not sent ,
perhaps because my service with them officially begins at the coming
week-end . I’ll try and reproduce it more briefly, as it’s near breakfast
time.
Maybe the scepticism about her result was just sexist , ( a woman ? and
breeding orchids ? At a time when a few men managed it ? )

I'm sure that Dominy's success with his Laelocattleya would have been hot
gossip at the dining tables of the cognoscenti ; and Kew people were
travelling out to Singapore quite a lot , one way or another . Agnes, in the
much smaller European colony of the day would have been a guest to dinner
with Raffles ( was he still about then ? − with his successor , anyway ) "
to provide someone who could talk plants to the guest" who had nothing
useful to say about London fashions, which is what the hostess wanted to
hear about . And any gardener worth his/her salt would have had a go -
wouldn't you ?

However , dear Agnes would not have saved pollen , no frig' in the 1800s ?
and I doubt if the technique was known ; I remember it being questioned
whether it would be viable, even in my day .
But she did manage to get both in flower together. I don’t rate the
unsuitability of Singapore for one parent very highly . For one thing ,
Singapore has a lot of micro-climates ( my wife lived there for 3 years and
I have some 2nd hand knowledge ) and anyway , if she imported a plant − got
one from a plant collector visiting Singapore on the way back to Europe
maybe , it may well have flowered out of season − as they do − just once
before expiring...long enough to give pollen if not carry a pod.
But I reckon she could easily have grown both orchids , I did even in GB way
back in the Thames Trading jungle collected days .
And as for seed-sowing − those were very uninformed days, and pre-Knudsen.
The technique for plants in UK grown in loam and bark kind of mixes was to
sprinkle the seed on the surface of the compost around the mother plant − at
last that was the practice in the 1920s.
In Singapore, growing on trees, fence posts, in the ground ( I've seen Teres
in beds in the lawn at Singapore Botanics) on coconut shells tied to a wall
, or whatever, maybe the same sprinkle around the roots would be tried. In
The West Indies and Venezuela too, I've heard of the technique of rubbing
the pod on wet branches all round the garden/estate hoping that one will
provide a suitable environment.
And then forgetting all about it until some years later there is a plant in
flower , and so "discovering" a hybrid in the garden.
Likely ?

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Re: Papilionanthe Miss Agnes, string and time machines,
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:55

Geoff,
I woulndn't dream of arguing over the points you raise re-hybrids etc etc. You have had far more expreience in such matters. My point is that there are written records to the effect that she made the hybrid. The romantic story about the discovery may well be the truth but in historical research, as well as in purely scientific research, there has to be good reason for ignoring one recorded statement and accepting a counter-one.

At this time-distance from the event, other than finding her own records of procedure, I don't see how anyone can prove the issue one way or t'other. However, it seems important to keep the puzzle intact with all the evidence for 'n' against just so that those with an infinite lifetime ahead can avoid being confused..

The site given beneath can not be the last word since it has been compiled by one of the parties to the argument but there are some very interesting aspects raIsed. I guess life isn't long enough to attempt to get to the bottom of the issue − even if there is a bottom!

Interesting that if P.teres and P.hookeriana are grown in nearly everyone's gardens over there, that more hybrids haven't turned up (or would anyone notice if they did!)

I'll tell you what Geoff; If you need any hollow capillary string for that Mark 99 time machine, I'm your man. The thought that crosses my mind though, is how do we all know that you aren't a contemporary of Miss Agnes and simply used your MK 98 version to beam you up to the 21stC to join us all in this forum. What you are trying to do with Mk 99 is fit a reverse gear − yes? Y'can't fool me !
Cheers
John

From: Ron Bower
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] perlite
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:00

Perlite. 100 Ltr UKP10.49. 4X100 Ltr UKP35.65. From Kay's Horticultural Products 01946 692134. www.kaysdiscountgarden.co.uk
Ronbow.

I would be interested to know where you can buy 100ltrs of Perlite for UKP8.50. I am paying twice that.

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Re: Orchid pictures and colour correctness
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:45

But I am using RAW files, so the question of white balance, colour profile
etc is quite immaterial − and still I can't get colour that pleases me....

Grey cards are indeed good for those using the old technology , or cameras
where there are presets which you can set , but are then stuck with for the
life of that image, but RAW sidesteps all of those questions.

I'd recommend using a professional "grey card" to set the color
temperature before taking any photos...

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Re: Orchid pictures − RAW versus the rest
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:40

While agreeing with Geoff and his RAW image method, which is the best we
have to date, imaages sent over the net are inevitably interpreted according
to the settings of the monitor on which they're viewed. If I consistentlty
take over-blue images (I hope I don't!) I might have my monitor adjusted to
compensate. In that case, Geoff's perfect images might well have a colour
cast. If a dozen or so of us could line up our monitors displaying an
identical image file, I'll bet we'd be amazed at the variation. However,
we'd also find that some colours would seem to vary far more than others.
That might be to do with personal colour perception − another variable!

If images are printed, no matter how cleverly the printer is set up for
correct colour balance, that correctness can only be for one set of lighting
conditions because a print derives its colour from he ambient light
reflected off the pigment particles. The pigment cannot reflect wavelengths
it doesn't receive. Colour slides are even worse because they depend on
correct temperature projector bulbs, filtration qualities of the dyes and
the reflective bias of a screen. As for digital projection . . . whew!

Basically, what I am trying to suggest is that there will be an inevitable
variation in our viewing experiences of each others pictures unless we have
a joint meeting on the setting up of our monitors to a standard (let's not
bother eh?) that isn't unique to our particular camera-monitor-printer
system.

However; at the end of the day aren't we really nitpicking over the few
colours (blues lilacs and purples) that are notoriously difficult to
interpret by any method because they tend to stray out of our spectral
range. I wonder if that is as variable between individuals as our audio
spectral maxima?

I suggest that the great advantage of Geoff''s method is that he knows
exactly what he has created whereas most of we mortals, even if we may shoot
occasionally in RAW) use just 'jpg without really knowing what the camera's
internal program is doing.

I admire your perfectionist tendencies Geoff, but except for show prints, I
don't think I have a long enough life left to process all RAW images!
Cheers
John

From: Theta Sigma
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Re: Orchid pictures − RAW versus the rest
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 01:10

Just to follow up on my earlier note, what I have observed with 2
different Canon cameras, is that the older digital camera uses an image
processing chip version 1. This camera cannot accurately take photos of
the violet range (especially noticeable in flowers). However, the newer
camera uses the same processing chip but as Version 2. This newer
camera gets much closer to the original flower color than the earlier
digital camera. I have been told and read that some of the Infrared
filtering used in some digital cameras to protect the imaging CCD, can
also filter out the red tones (my experience) leaving the color more
blue than it should be.

In regards to display appearance, there are color alignment products
that attach to the screen and "read" the color − allowing the software
to properly set up the display to match the color management choices
made for all other hardware that is used for the imaging. These
"spiders" are the "professional" way to do the color alignment −
everything else is just guesswork and subjective.

Finally, getting everything to match up is no trivial effort and is not
for the faint-hearted.

From: jan
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Re: Orchid pictures − RAW versus the rest
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 06:25

John Stanley wrote:
> Basically, what I am trying to suggest is that there will be an
> inevitable variation in our viewing experiences of each others pictures
> unless we have a joint meeting on the setting up of our monitors to a
> standard (let's not bother eh?) that isn't unique to our particular
> camera-monitor-printer system.
>
But perhaps it doesn't all have to quite that difficult. The problem, it
would seem, is that different computer setups will show the same picture
differently, and the person at the other end has no way of knowing what
it looked like in real life. But this can be helped: If the person
taking the picture were to include a standardized colour card in the
picture, then the person at the other computer would be able to correct
the colour settings on their computer by comparing with a similar colour
card, if they are thus inclined.

The problem is of course where to get the standard colour card − but if
we don't have to be absolutely perfect in the scientific sense, this may
be quite simple: we agree on using a set of colours that can be bought
easily from most paint shops. Then, if everybody uses that specific set
of colours and paints them on the same, easily obtainable material, it
should be OK. How about that?

From: R Parish
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Growing media for orchid propogation
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:10

I am a Biology teacher from a school in Nottingham. I want to do some propogation of orchids as an AS practical. Would you have any information regarding what would go into a medium. I am interested in being able to make it up here rather than buying in a set solution, we have plenty of agar. Thanks very much Ross

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Re: Orchid pictures − RAW versus the rest
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:55

Hi Mark,
All very true and interesting but, unless we all (in the forum) go to these
lengths, there will be different perceptual experiences of the colours in
attached photos. Like Geoff, I like using RAW (Nikon) files with my D100 but
for most family photos and so on I find big .jpgs sufficient. I have filled
enough wardrobes with prints and so, now, tend to simply view pictures on a
high(ish) resolution Sony Bravia LCD TV except for those I either email or
compile to CD. It's the old story that used to apply to hi-fi when folks
listened to the equipment rather than the music; you can get so involved in
the perfection that you fail to look at the subject illustrated!.

With regard to infrared; I never had the money for infra-red pass filters in
the film days and my experience with IR has been with small-lens (small
cheap filter aperture) digicams. There have been published, on the web,
camera dismantling instructions to enable the removal of the IR-blocking
filter but I never had the courage. The old Nikon Coolpix range (990, 900,
and its predecessor) I found pretty good with IR and the auto focus made up
for the old IR focal correction indicator. I've not got an IR-pass filter
for the big lenses on the D100 otherwise I'd try on that too. However,
there's limited application for orchid imagery there . . . I think!

One other point; many of us have gone to monitors with LCD display. I find
these more difficult to adjust than the old CRT monitors although, overall,
I wouln't like to return to CRT.

I have to admit that much of my orchid photography is snapshottery and
opportunistic. I admire Geoff and yourself for such meticulous approaches
though.
Cheers
John

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Re: Orchid pictures − colour chart
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:10

Hi Jan,
I agree in principle; there used to be a standard colour chart for soil
analysts (I think). It cost a mere arm and a leg! Your paint chart would be
cheaper but can you really imagine most folks going to the trouble? After
all, we're all to busy writing emails about achieving colour perfection . .
. . ! In any case, I wonder how long a chart would be stable after light
exposure in the local B&Q for a few weeks? I really think we're all going
OTT. After all, many orchid species don't know about standard colours and
throw out flowers from year to year that aren't always the same.. However,
I'd be prepared to give it a whirl if you can suggest a good stable colour
chart, I think it's the most practical solution to date in the forum. I am
just a bit worried that comparing a chart in (tungsten, fluorescent,
daylight or halogen?) reflected light with a backlit monitor image isn't
easy either!
Cheers
John

From: Gordon Walker
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Growing media for orchid propogation
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:15

Ross Hi,
If no one else answers you come back to me as I have a recipe for medium which does seed and reflasking. I got this from a friend so would have to ask him first before passing on.
Gordon.

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Re: Orchid pictures − RAW versus the rest
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:35

The problem of pictures looking different on each different screen is wel-known and easily solved − although I do not expect that many members of this group will want to go down that road.
I have − but I am a member of an RPS (Royal Photographic Society) digital imaging group and I guess most of us regularly contributing pictures to that site have followed the same route. We calibrate our screens using devices such as the Colorvision Spyder2 Plus ( that's the one I use) which enables us to set colour temperature and regulate the three colour channels to a standardised profile . Not all screens can be calibrated this way − many of the older ones are not adjustable at all , and as they age, the phosphors ( if a CRT) or whatever lose their potency or whatever it is happens, and the colour shifts.
I do my two flat screens every month or so , and they are almost identical in colour- but not quite. My old Dell lap-top is not adjustable this way as far as I have bothered to discover, and shows distinctly different colours.
My point was that despite all this ( and the versatility of RAW) I still can't get what I want − my wife reading this over my shoulder says " ah , but that's because you are a perfectionist" − it can be a burden sometimes !

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Growing media for orchid propogation
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:40

The various Knudsen formulae would be located with a web-search , I would think , and nowadays many people add their own magic pill too − like banana,coconut milk or fish emulsion. But as for the actual ingredients, I recall that the list was at least a dozen different ones , and of course all in such very minute amounts, like 1/100 of a gram of this -and even 1/1000 gram of that ... assuming that enough for just one flask was being made up ; which is why most people buy them ready mixed in a packet.
I always did.
Geoff

From: Dr Chong-Yee Khoo
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Re: Orchid pictures − colour chart
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:15

You don't need to take a photo of a "standard colour chart" − you just
need some data to describe the colour capabilities of the device which
captures the image. This profile is then embedded into the image -
i.e., an ICC profile.

A display device would read the profile and be aware of the
limitations of the capture device and adjust the image presented
accordingly.

From: James H
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Growing media for orchid propogation
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:30

i was just looking into this same topic the other day and found this site,
it has alot of information on orchid seed and culture, they also sell
species seed and other rare seed along with many different mediums.
they also have alot of articals on sterilization and such, i found it to be
a good read and wish i had read it before trying to raise ghost orchids from
seed that i collected behind my lake house.

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Re: Orchid pictures − coloursync
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:00

Thanks for that Chong-Yee,
I stand corrected ; I used to use colour charts many moons ago for
describing the colours of natural sediments and habits die hard! (although
I've never used one for orchids) I will enjoy experimenting.
John

From: jan
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Re: Orchid pictures − colour chart
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 06:00

John Stanley wrote:
> Hi Jan,
> I agree in principle; there used to be a standard colour chart for soil
> analysts (I think). It cost a mere arm and a leg! Your paint chart would
> be cheaper but can you really imagine most folks going to the trouble?
>
Most people? No, but I was thinking more of agreeing on some recommended
standard, so if you wanted to, it would be simple and easy. What I'd
suggest was not to use the colour charts, but instead buy the actual
paint, which would get rid of the problem with fading, since you could
simply paint a new one when needed.

From: Geoffrey Hands
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Colour problems
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:45

Analysis of my latest problem picture suggests that the IR filter in the
camera is the problem. I have flowered a Stellamizutaara ( never heard of
that one before − its Broughtonia x Cattleya) , specifically S.Miva
Passionale "Quasimodo" − and despite the cultivar name it’s a stunner. Two
versions attached − one is the RAW file which shows the flower relatively
washed out , although that is not an exposure thing − but note how the
sepals are so much paler than the petals. In real life − to my eye − they
are the same colour.

The second pic ( probably the first as you see them) shows how I have done
my best at restoring the flower to what it is really like , but it’s a poor
version of reality.

Now looking at the colours, and doing spot checks, I see that the RGB
content of the areas of the petals which are fairly true, is about 260R ,
95G and 130B. The content of the pale version − on the sepals is about 250R
, 230G and 150B . Of course − in case you have forgotten, 255R 255G 255B
white , and 0R ,0G and 0B black.

The excess green in particular, I put down to the IR filter allowing the
complementary colour at the loss of the other two , and the fact that the
numbers now approach equal values in all three channels , thus approaching
white , accounts for the paleness.

So , the next thing is how to get rid of the IR filter in my Nikon ? I think
that I don't want to destroy a piece of kit costing UKP600 . The answer then
is to look for an old camera without the IR , for this purpose. If I can
pick one up cheap enough , I'll do it.

BTW if anyone covets the Stellwhatsit , which has 3 flowers about 4 1/2 inch
dia on a first flowering , it comes from our friends in Italy whose name
always makes me think of Nazi's for some reason.

From: dennis READ
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Colour problems
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:45

WITH THIS PROLONGED DISCUSSION ON PHOTOGRAPHY (IT REMINDS ME OF THE DIATRIBES ON DEFRA AND CITES) MY COMPUTER REFUSES TO RECOGNISE THE PROGRAM THAT HAS SENT THIS PICTURE. YOU MAY GET THE COLOURS PERFECT BUT IF WE CANNOT SEE THEM ?!!.
REGARDS FROM DEVON

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Re: Orchid pictures − colour chart
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:45

Hi Jan,
Paint fades too!
Chong Yee's contribution − it's worth having a look at the website he cites
if only to reassure yourself about the capabilities of your computer kit −
even if you're not a McNut!
Cheers
John

From: James H
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Colour problems
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:00

you should look in your manuel alot of newer cameras have an option in their
OS to disable the IR, my Sony DSP has this option and when i take pictures
of flowers and aquaiums i turn it off, mostly because it scares the fish for
some reason and they all scatter.
i really like my sony its just a point and shoot with some additional
features but it takes better or equal pictures as my uncles DSLR and he is a
pro photographer, we both took the same subject from the same angle and mine
came out with better colour and clearer image as a JPG than his $4000 pro
quality camera in a RAW format.

From: Tricia Garner
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Hue and Cry
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:35

Rather like Dennis, I am tiring of the discussion re colour reproduction. I
mean, does it *really* matter in the context of this list? Perhaps those
who are still into it all would like to take their thoughts off list...

Alternatively, maybe I should take a leaf out of another list to which I
belong, which has a sub-list for off-topic discussion. They just added 42
to the original name − 42 being the answer to life, the universe and
everything. How about forty-two@orchid-talk.co.uk ???

From: Tricia Garner
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: Colour problems
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:35

On 14 Jul, in article ,
Geoffrey Hands wrote:
> This is the second copy , with the alternative attachment

Geoff, there was only one picture − was that correct? I had to tinker
somewhat with the file before I could get anything to render it as a JPEG.

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: Geoff's un-openable pic
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 23:05

If Geoff''s pic is saved to a a folder and then opened with Irfanview (downloadable free off the net from − http://my-free-software.com/irfanview/ you will be able to view it. The only snag is that Irfanview 'thinks' it is a jpg file with the wrong extension and it may be that, in extracting a jpg image from a RAW file you will not see all Geoff would like. Alternatively, it might need an alternative extension for RAW which it can read.
Nikon has proprietory software to take full advantage of the RAW facilty some of its cameras generate.
John

From: John Stanley
To: Orchid Talk list
Subject: Re: [OrchidTalk] Hue and Saturation (not cry)
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 23:15

Sounds liked a ageist group but I agree − I can't imagine most going to all
this bother for a pic − even a good one, unless they're into publication or
competition. (Incidentally, a colleague of mine once cynically suggested
that my old university should combine the departments of Biology,
Astronomy and Philosophy and offer degree courses in that very subject)
John

MONTH	DATE	DATE	DATE	DATE	MONTH	DATE	DATE	DATE	DATE
January	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-31	February	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-29
March	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-31	April	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-30
May	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-31	June	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-30
July	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-31	August	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-31
September	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-30	October	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-31
November	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-30	December	1-7	8-14	15-21	22-31

2006 Archived Messages

July 8—14