Welcome to OrchidTalk Orchid Forums
The Friendliest Orchid Community on the Internet!
OrchidTalk - "Bringing People Together to Grow Orchids Better!"
Let us help you grow your Orchids better; Join our community today.
Register or Login now to remove this advertisement.
This is a discussion on Dtps. Minho Diamond within the Phalaenopsis, Oncidium, & Intergenerics IN BLOOM forums, part of the Orchid Photography category; I went to the garden center for pots yesterday. I had a repotting project on ...
I went to the garden center for pots yesterday. I had a repotting project on my mind. When I returned home, two of the pots I'd bought had plants in them...
The condition of the phals at the garden center was pretty deplorable and even though I managed to find healthy looking plants, I didn't trust them (also the potting material looked pretty broken down.)
It was well I checked. Both had significant root rot - primarily the lower parts of the roots. They went from 5 1/2" pots down to 4" without overcrowding. Hopefully they won't mind the repotting while in bloom. If I'd waited, I was afraid the plants would really slide downhill quickly.
Anyway, I've been playing with my tri-pod to try and get more accurate color. This is the closest I could come. This guy is a deep magenta with almost an irridesent quality. The leaves look like velvet. That means the photo doesn't look like it's in sharp focus, but it is. There's a second spike that's just poking it's head up, so hopefully I'll be enjoying this one for a while!
Pretty color - hope you do well with it!
I saw one of these in Fla. and almost bought it...but thought I have enough purply phals ,but it does GLOW !! I love it !
excellent color and photography! I have no end of troubles trying to capture that iridescent magenta velvet on camera...
Thanks, Jason. I'm open to suggestions for more accurate color photography, especially for refracted light.
I worry that iridescence may not be accurately captured on film. Color, which is merely a specific wavelength of light, is transmitted in one of two ways - unless you're a heat source that gives off energy within the visual spectrum (as in a sun or star).
The first way is reflection, which is by far the most common. Pigment granules in plant and animal tissue will absorb some colors of light and reflect others (ie, the ones we see.) The vast majority of color to us is reflected.
Refracted color is a whole different beast. That's the irisdescent color in a morpho's butterfly wings, or the feathers of some birds that have that shimmery quality. That shimmery thing is what's meant by irisdescence, although neither are technical terms. Refracted color is the tech term.
Light wavelenths are so many nanometers long. How many nm's determines what color the eye perceives (we have photoreceptors sensitive to different wavelengths, which is how we can perceive different colors.)
When light is refracted, it doesn't merely bounce back from the source (as in reflected light). The source is in fact ridged. The ridges are separated EXACTLY a certain distance apart, so that the light bouncing off them comes back in synch (waveform synch) with the other light from nearby ridges and undergoes constructive interference. I believe that requires one half a wavelength physical separation for each ridge, given the color refracted, but it's late, I've had a scotch and I haven't looked this stuff up in twenty years...
Anyway, the short take is that the irisdescent cool color might not be capturable on film. I don't know. I certainly haven't figured out how to do it. I'm open to any suggestions though. I have an old friend who did chemistry consulting with Kodak's film developers. I might drop him a line for elucidation. Any other thoughts are welcome.
Ok, for any still awake, that's enough techno babble.
Good grief! I can't even get my horrible little digital camera to take a decent picture of any flower, of any color, let alone worry about reflected vs refracted light. (Though I did enjoy the science lesson!).
Very pretty phals, love the full and wonderful spikes, and inevitable that you had to repot, in my experience, unless you are able to get what you are after from certain on-line southern-truck-driving-watch-out-for-the-tailgate salesmen that we know....
Julie, is that a film print that you scanned in?
If not, and it's digital, that might be why you're having a hard time capturing the iridescence: no matter how many pixels of resolution the CCD has (at least, at this point in the technology, anyway...), they're positioned nowhere near as close together as the light-sensitive molecules on film, and they won't be able to capture some of that refracted light in sharp focus. It makes the object look fuzzy.
For that reason, ground based observatories still use chemical film rather than CCDs to get images with the best resolution and color separation.
Louis, you just might be as nerdie as she is!
I'm probably worse....