L. anceps hybrids

[Fairorchids]

I have a bit of a weakness for both the species, and hybrids showing it's influence.

At the DCOS show in 2018 I exhibited a L. anceps with 14 spikes. However, it was blown away by a Lc. Santa Barbara Sunset 'Showtime' HCC/AOS with 25-30 spikes (exhibited by Waldor Orchids). That plant is shown in the first photo below.

Then, this October something interesting popped up on Ebay (I won't reveal what I paid for it). Please meet Rhyncatlaelia Izumi Sunset ‘Day Dream’ BM/JOGA (2nd photo). As can be seen, this is both a larger and much fuller flower.

[fishmom]

Gorgeous!

[SouthPark]

Beautiful ------- I love the shape and the colours. The pinky peachy colour is very nice and calming to watch. Great features - including the lip colours.

Originally Posted by Fairorchids

I have a bit of a weakness for both the species, and hybrids showing it's influence.

Think of it as a strongness hehehe ...... a passion, a strong attraction/liking for.

[Leafmite]

Both are amazing. The first...you went up against really tough competition...Waldor Orchids. The second just made me happy to see a photo and I have found that, in real life, all flowers are even more beautiful. Have you checked to see if all the judging centers are closed? I know a few members of our Orchid Society have been taking orchids somewhere to be judged these past few months (they are willing to travel a state or two).

[SouthPark]

True - leafmite. Our eyes tend to pick up a wider range from dark to light shading than general cameras can pick up. And our eyes have vision that sort of wraps around a flower when we're looking at it ..... sort of giving a wider coverage when close-up than a single lens. We tend to get a better view with a pair of eyes (which is better than viewing with single eye).

In lots of cases, if there are sparkles/glitter in some flowers ------ the camera shot often can't pick it up. And other features too - including colours.

Totally agree that having a photo to see is so nice already!

[Leafmite]

I have seen photos of orchids and not been impressed and then I see the same orchid at our Orchid Society or a show and I am blown away. It is the same with roses and many other flowers. The photos may be really great but there is a reason we prefer to actually own them.

[SouthPark]

True. A good example is to hold a small object the size of a flower in front of our eyes ----- and then close one eye. The view coverage will always obviously be less than when viewed with both eyes.

When a single lens of a camera is up close to a flower ------ it's pretty much like limited in the same way as one eye viewing.

And this is even before other considerations such as human eyes being able to detect a larger range of humanly-visible brightness ---- relates to 'dynamic range'.

Originally Posted by Leafmite

The photos may be really great but there is a reason we prefer to actually own them.

True hehehe ....... like a lot of us here ----- we love to watch orchid flowers so much. And seeing photos or being at orchid shows is like window shopping - which is actually nice too.

But having the honour and privilege and chance to grow some orchids for ourselves, and watch the flowers for as long as we want (and take pics too) is -------- so incredibly nice.

But definitely ------ being able to see what other growers around the world are growing, and seeing how they enjoy orchid growing too ------ unbelievably nice.

It was only when the first VGA graphics started to come out, where digital photos started to look 'ok'.

These days, with the combination of quite good digital camera technology and relatively fast internet speed ----- and no internet 'quota' limits for many internet service options, and a decent internet forum like OrchidBoard plus other internet services ------- it's just awesome how we can share good quality pics and even videos related to orchids (and other things!). Amazing.

[Fairorchids]

On the digital photo comments, years ago I took photos of Vandachostylis Pine Rivers, using two different cameras.
One turned out 'bluish', the other 'purplish', and the real color was somewhere in the middle.

[SouthPark]

Originally Posted by Fairorchids

One turned out 'bluish', the other 'purplish', and the real color was somewhere in the middle.

True ........... different different systems gather and process the information (hardware plus software plus processing combination) can lead to noticeably different results. I wonder sometimes whether different people (person to person) can perceive colours slightly differently ----- since each person is different in terms of their own visual sensors and brain processing.

On the other hand - maybe most people on average will see more or less the same colour(s). Not sure.

In any case, I think that if the colour of a flower captured by a camera system (which includes software processing) turns out to be different than seen by the eye ------ then it's possible to try (if possible) to tweak the colours using software - to get close as possible to what the eyes saw.

Tweaking is good, when done honestly. I often don't like commercial magazine shots - where somebody really abuses the software processing system - by adding too much saturation, and making the image appear much different than what the eyes actually saw.

This is why I often include notes in photographs - such as 'flash used' etc. Some flash shots can lead to colours that the eyes actually didn't see at all, and can give very misleading account of actual flower colour.

[SouthPark]

Forgot to add ------ for the attached image in the previous post ----- a slight colour adjustment was made.