User talk:Palmbob

From Palmpedia - Palm Grower's Guide
Jump to: navigation, search

New Crazy Ideas

  • Well, now that we are done with everything else..............Joking Again of course
  • Two crazy ideas:
  • Since you love talking on the phone so much :-), how about considering an exclusive Palmcast interview featuring the reclusive enigmatic Palmbob himself? That would shake the Palm World.
  • And, have you ever wanted a place to display your sketches of palms. Those species that you have details of, we could put on each species Palm Page. Or I know you used to do a lot of jokes. We could do one a week on a special place on the Main Page that I am thinking of designing for features/specials of the month/week, or Palmpedia news, etc.

I said they were crazy :-)...................Dypsisdean 19:45, 6 July 2007 (PDT) BTW --- I moved your comments about Jeff's garden to the discussion page for that topic, along with a response from me. I would like people to get the idea that every page has a discussion page/tab associated with it where comments and ideas about the topic can be placed. If it's a worthwhile idea or info, it can then be incorporated back into the topic page. But simple comments and/or chat should go on the discussion page. Dypsisdean 19:52, 6 July 2007 (PDT) Not interested in an interview... too many others with a lot more experience that you need to interview (Darian would be great!). As for drawings, I will see... not sure how I would reproduce those.Palmbob 15:31, 20 July 2007 (PDT)

Check out the "Palmbox."

Palmbob, meet the Palmbox. :-)
Another contributor has been working on this. I don't know if you have seen it. Check it out, in use, on the Ravenea glauca page, along with some great habitat pics. I would value your feedback. I just wrote him telling him about our idea of different qualifying symbols for culture requirements or "no-nos" in the SZS. I thought maybe we could use them in the Palmbox for exposure, watering, and other criteria instead of words. That is, if we can ever come up with a workable plan. :-) Dypsisdean 13:21, 7 July 2007 (PDT) I like the palm box... no idea what that zone designation means, but then again, I don't have to, since I don't live there.. .not sure what the big problem with having multiple zone designations for each palm is... the Australians can have theirs, we can have ours, Florida theirs, Hawaii theirs, South African theirs, etc. Eventually enough zones will be listed that someone from some other place can decide what their climate is most like, and go with that places zones.

  • Geoff, I have no objection to multiple zones. But who is going to do it? If someone wants to start their own Australia zone on Palmpedia, they have my blessing. But it's not going to happen. You are more than welcome to list your SoCal publication info here. But expecting an Australia zone, a Florida zone, a New Zealand zone, etc to just materialize is dreaming. It's a ton of work just to do one. And just making sense out of SoCal many zones is a confusing task for a new grower. I was just trying to get some kind of universal quick guide for novice growers, since veteran growers know how to figure it all out anyway. You don't know how many times I have been asked if a certain palm can be grown in a certain area. And the only thing I have found that works is to ask the person what else is growing in their area. Do they see Oranges in their area? Do they see Avocados in their area? Do they see any palms in their area, and if so, what kind. If they say, yes we have Queen palms, then I know what will grow for them. But if they say, "I live outside Perth at about 1000 ft on a East facing slope," I don't have clue what to tell them unless they tell me what palms are already growing there. That is why I am trying to develop an easily understood reference for new growers to get a clue if a palm is a possibility for them. I can just imagine a new grower who just bought a home in Mexico City trying to decipher 6 different geographical zone ratings. Does he use Australia's, Florida's, Brazil"s??? But if he sees D. cabadae growing there, he could use the SZS easily and without becoming confused. Anything hardier than D. cabadae is a definite possibility.
  • You said, "I like the palm box... no idea what that zone designation means, but then again, I don't have to, since I don't live there.." That's the point. It doesn't matter where you live. The rating is universal. The idea of the SZS zone is that if a palm is listed as SZS #3A or lower, by definition it is hardier than a King, since #3A is the King zone. So if Kings are growing in your area, any palm with a #3A rating and below will grow for you. It's not perfect, but IMO it's better that just listing a low temp. Saying a palm is hardy to 26 degrees, doesn't do a whole lot of good for reasons you are well aware of. Maybe I should just list Sunset zones. But that really doesn't help anybody IMO.Dypsisdean 21:18, 9 July 2007 (PDT)

OK, I will try my best to find out how Floridans, Australians, etc. deal with the zone situation... maybe that will help me shed more light on a solution. My main problem with the species zones is that I think it's just as subjective and random as any other zone rating, and probably much less accurate, since so many palms do better in one climate than another, while another will do exactly the opposite. So it may only mislead people in the long run.

  • I agree. All of this stuff is subjective and only understood after years of observation and documentation. That's why your experience is so valuable. You have been observing the death of palms from freezes for years. :-) Really, when you think about it, SoCal is ground zero for palm hardiness data collection, and I would think most data will correlate to SoCal with some exceptions. The next most fertile ground for palm freezing would be central Florida. But between those two locations, I think we have 95% of rare palm hardiness data collection in the world.Dypsisdean 01:16, 10 July 2007 (PDT)
  • I also think that if we can just get some kind of rough framework developed, we can massage it, and tweak it here and there over time, until it becomes a document that others will add and refer to. That is why each wiki page has a discussion page attached to it. If someone thinks a palm is out of order and enough people on the discussion page agree with him, anyone can move it to where the majority thinks it should go. Perhaps someone will see enough discrepancies between Cal and Florida that a different ranking could emerge. Time will tell, if we can only get the ball rolling. Don't you think enough people have enough palms side be side to make an accurate evaluation. For example, if someone has a Sabal X next to a Bismarkia, and Sabal X dies in a freeze and the Bizzie doesn't, he can let us know the Bizzie needs to be rated hardier than Sabal X. Info like that would provide a decent ranking if enough participated. Dypsisdean 01:16, 10 July 2007 (PDT)
  • Oh, BTW --- I agree that some of the present listings are inaccurate. What I did is pull that data strictly off of the Florida Cold Hardiness Data Sheet. Just so I would have something to start from that was considered credible. I think when palms are listed in order of hardiness as opposed to associating temperatures to palms arranged in different ways, it helps to show the errors of some of these previous assumptions. Dypsisdean 01:28, 10 July 2007 (PDT)

I talked to my friend Mike Dahme in Central Florida about this zone thing, and he is in complete agreement with me... you cannot possibly begin to make a list of plants on a hardiness scale that has anything to do with how they will do in a completely different climate... but I think you might be right in that Florida and California pretty much cover the hardiness possibilities for the majority of palms in cultivation... there are a few subtle differences in more tropical climates, but most palms that grow in the tropics will grow in Hawaii or N Australia. Either you live in a great climate, or you don't.. and if you don't it's either humid, but too cold, or too dry, or too dry and too cold. Guess those are the main possibilities... and two of those exist here in So Cal, while the other exists in central Florida. But mixing the two or three hardiness lists I think would be a big mistake. Folks from Australia, South Africa, Japan etc. will just either have to make up their own list, or decide which of these three climates theirs is most like (if hardiness is a problem at all). Maybe we could make your species lists, but make 3 completely separate lists... a humid one, a cool climate one, and a desert one. No point in making a tropical one, as it would be huge and determining order would be impossible.

  • Thanks for the feedback. I can't argue with anything you said. I agree completely. Time to think some more, but I don't know if that will help. I've got one question for you. Is SoCal more the norm for palm growing locations around the world, or is Florida? In other words, away from the tropics, are most people growing palms in Mediterranean temperate type climates with generally cooler winter weather and occasional freezes, or do most have generally warm days even in winter, tropical summer weather, but get blitzed occasionally with chilling cold nights followed by warmer weather again as does Florida.
  • I'm inclined to think Florida is the exception that few other places in the world suffer from. If we had two lists, how many places in the world would be referring to the Florida list. How many places are essentially tropical except for a few hours a year. :-) ?
  • The reason I'm asking is, if we begin a list, shouldn't we begin with the one pertaining to the most locations? If that is a SoCal list, we could begin there (since you have so much good info) and then go from there. Perhaps when finished, we could see if there is a way to modify or qualify it that would make it relevant to places like Florida.
  • I agree that for the true tropicals we could have a category for them exclusively. No ranking necessary. The only requirement would be a true tropical climate. Then we could get all of them out of the way. If one is later discovered to be more hardy in nature, we could just add it in. Is there a common tree or plant that you associate with the true tropics? If you said coconut, perhaps just create a category of tropical palms that would include all palms destined to fail if there are no mature coconuts in your area. If there are no trunking cocos in your area, you can forget about everthing in this category. That would cover a lot. Besides, anyone with mature coconuts won't be reading our list anyway. Then we could begin to work on rankings for everything else. Dypsisdean 18:12, 12 July 2007 (PDT)

Well, my guess is that California is the exception, actually. Only the Mediterranean area, and possibly South Africa is similar to our climate here... all of eastern Australia, like the Eastern US, is humid. Sydney is probably about as close to the halfway point between florida and here as you can get, but I have never been there so am not sure about that. Most islands that would need to know hardiness would most likely be tropical and influenced by the oceans. Only the islands along the eastern Pacific would be more likely to be less humid, but there are few such islands (Galapagos is only one I can think of...not a big palm growing community there). New Zealand I think is fairly humid, too, but I could be wrong about that. That is the research I need to do.

  • Forgive me for being so presumptuous as to butt in -- is there any validity to listing palms in this scale based on their origin? So instead of saying "good in California coastal and Florida this or that, plus Queensland", why not just describe where they grow naturally, in habitat, and what the elevation and climate is there? As in, "Lord Howe Island, subtropical, so many inches/centimeters of rain, elevations so many feet/meters." Then you can add, "Also known to grow well in Coastal SoCal below 32nd meridian, blah blah blah." The point being, give a thorough description of where they grow in habitat, and permit extrapolations from there? So people can then compare their climate to the natural climate of the palm. Yes? No?Kim 22:09, 12 July 2007 (PDT)
  • Kim, you should know we welcome and value your input. My whole intention of trying to rank palms was to easily answer the question I have been asked hundreds of times. Namely, "Can I grow Palm X at my house?" And I know of no way to answer that without knowing what other plants are growing in their neighborhood. You can ask them what zone they are in, but if they look at a sunset map, it doesn't differentiate between a hilltop in Vista and a valley in Vista. And I have found almost everyone thinks they are in a better zone than they really are. So before you even start recommending palms to them, you could be on the wrong page. But if they tell me there's a trunking Royal across the street, I can begin recommending palms with some assurance. While those growers with lots of experience and living in the same place for a number of years would find the native growing conditions of value, those buying their first palms for their new home would not. And because experienced growers don't really need hardiness info like novice growers do, my intention was to try and help someone who just moved to San Bernadino from New Jersey. To hopefully keep them from buying Ptychospermas and Euterpes and Burretiokentias. And to do it with a system that was very easy to understand. For example, if someone writes me and wants to know if they can grow a Royal in the foothills of No. Portugal, I don't have a clue. But if they tell me there is a trunking Foxtail next door, I can tell them yes with confidence. Or they could look it up with confidence.
  • Right, I need to keep in mind this is for new enthusiasts. Later today I will move my above comments to my own page, doesn't need to clutter up this page.Kim 12:04, 13 July 2007 (PDT)
  • Kim, no need to. This is the right place for your comments, so Geoff and others can experience the "stream of consciousness" that these user pages become. However, do what ever makes you comfortable. Dypsisdean 12:54, 13 July 2007 (PDT)
  • So Geoff, do you have any proposals about what to do now? Are you proposing two scales? Maybe a temperate Med type scale, and another "subtropical" scale? My opinion is any more than two will become very complicated. I think we have to accept that there isn't a method that is going to cover every palm in every situation. Dypsisdean 23:53, 12 July 2007 (PDT)
  • Geoff, I was going to delete some of the earlier stuff on this page, but it is your page and that would be impolite :-). I notice there is a warning about this page getting too long. So go ahead and delete some of the earlier stuff if you want.

Delete away. Kim's comment is a good one and the whole point some experiences are useful and a scale or two would also be helpful as there is often little correlation between where a palm is from and how it will do in your environment.. Phoenix roebellenii is a great example- from tropical Asia... yet does great in temperate climates that are far different from where it's from. Yet Juania australis, from a small island off south America in a climate that doesn't seem horribly unique, somewhat similar to where Howeas are from, is nearly impossible for anyone to grow outside that climate... northern California is about the only other place in the world (perhaps northern New Zealand?) where that palm can be grown. Some Livistonas from N Australia are super hardy, while others are so finicky, only expert growers in perfect climates can grow them here in California. So sadly knowing where a palm is from often has little correlation to where else it can grow... makes it all that more exciting to keep trying new palms in marginal climates, though.

  • Geoff, you are so right again. So, I am going to repeat my question from above. "do you have any proposals about what to do now? Are you proposing two scales? Maybe a temperate Med type scale, and another "subtropical" scale? My opinion is any more than two will become very complicated. I think we have to accept that there isn't a method that is going to cover every palm in every situation." Dypsisdean 13:47, 13 July 2007 (PDT)

OK, we can do two scales: low humidity, cool climate (Mediterranea) and high humidity, warm climate (subtropical). I can help organize palms in the Mediterranean climate, but will not be able to do too many in the subtropical climate by myself. I can try this species zone thing if you want, but I would create very different species limits, and the limits have to be pretty hazy. I will work on something and let you know what I come up with. PS where do I send my palm photos on disc?

  • Great !!! Give me a little time (2 or 3 days) and I'll set up another scale for you that you could start filling in. You can start thinking about it. Since the one I started is based on the Florida scale, let's just keep that as is, and I'll fill in the rest according to their own data. That can be the start of the warm humid scale. Maybe we can get someone else from there to fine tune it. I can lend a hand for the Med climate scale with some knowledge and any logistical stuff needed. For names......What do you think about the Mediterranean Scale and the SubTropical Scale? Any better ideas?
  • If you get me a disk, I'll watermark them and send them back to you via this flash drive I already bought for this purpose. You will dig it. I guarantee it. Fast, small, reusable, and super easy to use, and based on the same card your camera probably uses. So a normal envelope would suffice. I can set that program so ten photos could be uploaded at a time. It would save me so much time. We could probably fit 500 or more photos on one little card. I could keep half here to upload, and you could do the other half if you like. My address is DEAN OUER, 73-1557 HAO ST. KAILUA KONA, HI 96740. Be sure to give me your return address. Dypsisdean 23:26, 13 July 2007 (PDT)
  • OK, I got it up and ready to go. Tell me if you like how I have it arranged and explained. The Med Index Pages are ready to be filled in. The Sub Index pages have the data from the Florida data sheet that was already started. If you have trouble figuring out how to get a page started, let me know. You will see the link is a red color. This means that there is only a blank page connected to that link. By clicking on that link, you will get a blank page where you could begin to list species. I will try to get some species listed just so you see how it begins. We can change any category parameters as you see fit. We can make each species a link to another page were we can go into more detail, or explain certain nuances to an individual species if needed.
  • I am becoming more comfortable with the two scales idea. It has reminded me of a long drawn out and eventually unresolved discussion I had with a Florida grower after the Calif. freeze. He kept insisting on knowing if the damaged palms had frost on them. I tried to explain to him that our freeze events were generally so dry that no ice crystals formed on the leaves of palms. Certainly not visible frost. He couln't understand, no matter how hard I tried to explain. To him, if it was that cold, frost had to form. He said it didn't matter what the temperatures were, the only thing that mattered was whether frost formed on the surface of the leaves. For him, he suffered substantial damage even at above freezing temps if frost formed. Apparently frost can form even if temps do not drop below freezing. And in Florida this happens regularly. So for them, visible frost is the enemy, and they care more about that than what the temp was. Visible frost severly damaged Kings, even at 33 and 34 degrees. Anyway, this is just one illustration of the obvious differences between the survivablity of a species in the two climates.

Survivablity Zones

I will start adding palms to zones, but I dont like the names of the zones... first of all, I find no difference whatsoever between Washingtonias, Queens and Canaries... all have about the same cold tolerance... you have two separate zones listed under hardy. You need to eliminate the second, and change the low end palm of the first one. Rhapidophyllum is the low end palm. You can pick Washingtonia robusta, or Canary or Syagrus romanzoffiana as the high end... whatever you want... but I need you to at least change those parameters.

  • Geoff, Don't forget that you can edit and do anything you like to these pages. You can change the zones, the names, the order, whatever. Experiment. Like I keep mentioning, you can't mess anything up. You (or I) can always roll it back to a previous version. It's basically just the same as editing this page. Especially just changing a name.
  • I think I know what you want. I'll do it. You can tweak it if you want. Three things though.
  • One......If you didn't notice, I was trying my hardest (and accuracy was suffering a little) to have common palms as the reference points. Most new palm guys know Canaries and Queens, but have never heard of a Rhapidophyllum.
  • Two......If possible, I would like to keep two sections (A & B) in each zone. That way there are 10 overall categories, a good number to work with. I think you are suggesting only one in Zone 1, with no A and B?????? I'll go ahead and make it one, so we can get this going. Because we can always adjust this anyway we want as it evolves. However, I would think there could be 1A with super hardy snow tolerating palms, and 1B as those just really hardy palms. And it would be nice to have it uniform with the Subtropical Index.
  • Three......I had always considered Canaries as more hardy than Queens. Especially before they start trunking. I have never been to Las Vegas, but I thought there were many Canaries there, and few or no Queens. But I will difer to the expert, especially if you are willing to give this thing a go.
  • I have a feeling if we just start listing palms in the order of their hardiness, and don't get hung up on exactly how to name and arrange the categories and zones, we can get the index going. In other words, pretend we have only one long list with all the palms in an approximate order of hardiness with no categories. It will then be easy to go back and look at that list, and pick the points, pick the names, and divide the scale where one category should start and another end.Dypsisdean 15:40, 19 July 2007 (PDT)

And one last thing. Remember the data that I have plugged in so far (now in the Subtropical Index) is strictly off the Florida Cold Hardiness Rating. I needed some credible place to start, without my personal opinions envolved.

  • So notice that they have Sabal minor as hardier than a Needle. And clearly have Canaries, Washies, and Queens separated but as much as 2 1/2 degrees.
  • Sabal minor (4.5/-15.3)
  • Rhapidophyllum hystix (4.8/-15.1)
  • Phoenix canariensis (20.8/-6.3)
  • Washingtonia robusta (22/-5.6)
  • Syagrus romanzoffiana (23.2/-4.9)
  • And I would tend to agree with the order of Canaries, Washies, and Queens --- each separated roughly by a degree. I have seen six foot Queens fried, that were planted next to 6 foot Canaries without a scratch. But I have pretty much stopped thinking about and observing hardiness except for this project, so I should probably just depend on others. Unfortunately, it looks like Australia might be collecting some data these days.Dypsisdean 16:06, 19 July 2007 (PDT)
  • Wow, I can't believe their placement of Rhapidophyllum... that palm is growing in Washington DC and Albuquerque... like to see Sabal minor survive those climates!! I did a 'test' page under the most cold hardy palm section. I did it all in one section, so you can spread it out into two if you like. Washingtonia hardiness seems to be related to overall height, which doesn't surprise me... tall palms are never exposed to the same cold as short ones. We did see burn on Washingtonias here in my neighborhood... but also on Canaries (young ones only)... however, not on queens... interesting.
  • Thanks a bunch Geoff. That will keep me busy for a while. I'm going to list the palms as you have them, but just as a list. I will make each palm a link to a page that will have your discussion of them, and where others could add comments or experiences if they like as well. Even cold damage photos could be posted there. I would like to encourage you to type the four 'tildes' after your comments. That will put your name and date stamp. Especially after I move your comments to the dedicated pages. It will help everyone to know that those are your comments. I am unable to sign your name that way. Only you can. If you sign it that way it also makes a link to your user page, so people can comment to you directly if they wish.
  • BTW --- If you don't plan on doing so, I may dig up a few photos of you and put them on your user page for you, with a brief blurb about you. That way you won't have a blank user page and a red name. :-) Dypsisdean 02:13, 20 July 2007 (PDT)

What's a tilde?

  • No habla Espanol? "No speaka Spanish?" :-) A tilde is that wavy line that goes above the "n" in the Spanish alphabet to give it the "ny" sound, like in canyon. I don't know how to make a "n" with a tilde here, but you've seen it in Spanish words like manana and Espanol. Look around on your keyboard. It's there somewhere, probably as an uppercase symbol on another key. So four tildes in a row signs your name, makes it a link, and time and date stamps your comment like this. Dypsisdean 13:31, 20 July 2007 (PDT)

I just finished adding the last section, under Wod-Manilla... but now it seems to be gone... do you know where that one went?Palmbob 15:29, 20 July 2007 (PDT) Hey I can't even figure out, on this page, how to start a new topic... anyway, just wanted to let you know Brahea pimo photos were listed under Butia for some reason... not sure how to move those (though you have told me... I just don't get it).Palmbob 15:52, 20 July 2007 (PDT)

  • Well, glad to see your signature. As more people use and contribute to the site (hopefully) a signature will be necessary to recognize who is "saying" something.
  • Have you ever clicked on "Recent Changes?" It is one of the items on the lefthand menu. It is one of the main ways I keep track of what is going one. It lists all the changes, to what pages, and by whom, that have recently occured. You will see all your changes and uploads there with a link to them. I do not see anything listed that was added to the Manilla-Wodyetia page. -DARN- You must have hit "Preview" or something else other than save. I looked everywhere. It's too late now, but I would suggest when doing a big edit (like that) to hit save occasionally, just in case. Or better yet, you can do it all in your word processing program, where you feel comfortable, and just copy and paste it into the wiki page. I hope you didn't do the #3A and #3B pages because I don't see them there either. I still would really like to talk to you sometime. I could make all of this wiki stuff a lot less mysterious for you. I know I could. I've already done it with others. :-)
  • Are you going to be sending a disk?
  • As offered several times before, I am willing to send you this nifty little "drive" that will make it so easy for you to send photos to me for watermarking. I spent the $60 with you in mind. It is an 8 Gig camera card that plugs into your computer. Then you can just send this little card in a standard envelope. I made a mistake before by indicating it would hold 500+ photos, when 8 Gigs will really hold closer to 4000-5000 photos of the size we are using. All I need is your address. It would make life so much easier than uploading, then downloading (for the watermark), then uploading again. Plus I could watermark 5000 all at once.
  • I'll check out that Butia/Brahea confusion. Dypsisdean 18:02, 20 July 2007 (PDT)

have finally divided up the zone 2B into 4 separate categories (zones 2B-1 to zone 2B-4)... so I would probably move two of those to zone 3, as I have no palms in that zone. I would rename the zone as such: Zone 2B would be the Middle Phoenix Zone, with Phoenix sylvestris probably being the most hardy, and Phoenix rupicola as being the least hardy. Then I would rename zone 3a and 3b as follows: The first one would have as its limits, Livistona saribus and Chamaedorea glaucifolia (call it the Chamaedorea zone?), while the next one would have Parajubaea torralyi to Phoenix roebellenii... guess you could call that one the Pygmy Date zone. Anyway, I don't know how to move a chunk of text like that or I would do it myself. UH... should have left well enough alone.. I renamed the zones and all the information within vanished... what happened???

I know you are opposed to it, but a third desert zone should still be included, separate from the other two. This zone would be most notable for what common palms cannot grow there thanks to the intense heat, and not the cold. However, it is also unique in what can survive in this zone that one would normally associate with a hot, tropical climate. Not sure how to fit that discussion into the zone scale discussion or 'lists' we have here

Editing Problems

  • Well, first, congratulations on having the courage to try some major editing. I have been watching, and will try and come in behind you. :-) Your question is a little hard to explain here. move blocks of text......most of the time a cut or copy and paste is the least disruptive way to do that. As you have found out, if you change the name of a page, that page will no longer link to where it did before. It will link to a new page. The old page still exists, but it is harder to find because the link no longer exists to take you there. There are several ways to find it. You can change the name back again, or roll back the page (which renames it back), do a search, look up recent changes, etc. Once you understand the concept behind the wiki that almost all pages link to others, then everything "clicks." I keep two browser windows open most of the time when I am doing major edits. That way I always have the page I'm working on available if I screw up a link. Let me look around, and try to correct a few things. You may wish to see how I have arranged MSI 1A & 1B. I have some ideas on how to expand the knowledge base using that concept. each species will have it's own "survivabilty" page where we can add data, pics, or whatever easily, and keep the original index simple and clean so finding a species will be a little easier. Tell me what you think. Dypsisdean 18:17, 22 July 2007 (PDT)
  • I really want to try and keep the zone divisions limited to 5 with an A and B in each for a total of ten. That should be enough. And that way we can keep the same format for the Subtropical SI as well. Don't worry a whole lot about the specific beginning and end of each zone. We can change and fine tune that as we get more species listed. Also, if we want to group (or sub-group) within those main zones, we can do that with lines or colored text, or symbols, or something else to designate a "sub-grouping." I can do that fairly easily, since I am getting a lot of editing experience. Dypsisdean 18:28, 22 July 2007 (PDT)
  • So for now, just pretend the two zones in each category have no names at all, just numbers, and try and get the two groups listed. Have an idea in your head, but wait until we are done, then we can name them whatever we choose to, and tweak things if we need to. Dypsisdean 18:32, 22 July 2007 (PDT)

That's why I wanted to move the text around- to keep two zones per section.... but I didn't see any cut and paste options like I do with Microsoft Word. Sadly, I cannot remember the names of the old pages I changed, nor do I know what it means to 'roll back' a page. So dishearteningly, seems all the work I put in has vanished. You said it's somewhere, but I have no idea how to retrieve it. Oh well. Palmbob 22:07, 22 July 2007 (PDT)

  • Don't give up yet. I think I located most of it and placed it where I think you intended. The only way something is truly lost here is if you forget to click on save. Check it out and tell me if anything is still missing.
  • Also, anything at any time on your screen is available for cutting or copying. Has nothing to do with MS Word. You can highlight any text on your screen, and a right click on it gives you the option of copying, cutting, or pasting (if you have something to paste). So highlight the test you wish to move. Right click on it and select copy. Then go to where you want to put it, right click again and select paste. The text will be left right there. Then go back and delete what you wished to move. That way you won't accidently delete it first. When you get more familiar with that technique, you can cut and paste. Then you don't have to go back and delete. This is probably the most useful tool there is on the computer. You can copy anything that appears on your screen. Any text out of any document, quotes out of any news story, or any invoice that you have filled out. Copying and pasting stuff off the web is indispensible. And it's available through the right click on your mouse. And has nothing to do with MS Word. MS Word just mimics what you could already do everywhere else. You can copy anything anywhere and paste it into Palmpedia. That's why I suggested doing this all in MS Word first, then you can copy it and paste it into the wiki page of your choice. That way you can't loose it, and if you are more familiar with MS Word, you will feel more comfortable. Dypsisdean 22:33, 22 July 2007 (PDT)

Apparent Sucess???

I see you starting to upload. I am assuming that means at least partial success. Can you read the files on both the card and the disk?

haven't tried the card yet... just going through some disc photos.

Don't Forget

Hey Geoff, Don't forget you can do multiple uploads now. May save you some time. Dypsisdean 13:20, 15 August 2007 (PDT)

  • Sorry, I forget how again
  • Click on 'Special Pages,' then 'Upload files' Remember --- not 'Upload file,' but 'Upload Files.'

How do I make comments on each of them then?

  • Don't you have another box there for each entry entitled 'Summary?' I know it looks small, but it will take much more text once you start typing in it. Dypsisdean 16:36, 15 August 2007 (PDT)
  • Looks like you got it. FYI --- You can always go to the ImagePage for a pic, click on edit, and then you can edit your description if you wish to add or change anything. Dypsisdean 19:51, 15 August 2007 (PDT)

Hey Dean, I was lamenting on a lot of my photos as I was uploading them how bleached out they were- lacking in color mostly... then I compared them to the unwatermarked versions on my computer and I was shocked how blanched out they all were... there obviously was some process during the watermarking, or the copying, that has really faded the photos. I have stopped uploading until I can add some color back to the all the watermarked photos I have yet to upload... what a bummer!Palmbob 20:49, 15 August 2007 (PDT)

  • Geoff, I haven't noticed that on this end. Let me check that out. Of course, if this is the case, that is no good. However, there is no need to individually try to add color back in. We need to stop the color from leaving in the first place. Let me do some research and get back to you. I haven't looked at anything yet, I just didn't want you to try fixing photos one at a time. Dypsisdean 23:40, 15 August 2007 (PDT)

Well, too late for that, but I think I got most of them looking 'colorful' again.

  • Geoff, did you get my email? I am really curious about what you experienced. I can't find anything like what you mentioned. Can you give me more info, like a couple of the photos you are referring to. I am assuming at this point that you are not referring to all of them? Originally I thought you meant all of them, and didn't want you to go back and try and "correct" all those individually. :) Dypsisdean 14:14, 16 August 2007 (PDT)

It is not as noticable on the photos on the little card, but the DVD photos are very obviously washed out... I put a few up on my computer and compared them side by side with the originals, and it was almost like half the color had been sucked out of them. But it can be added back in by increasing color saturation in photo shop.. only that is not an exact science- sometimes I add too much color, other times not enough. Contrast appears to be slightly brighter on the watermarked photos, but not as glaring as the color washout problem. ANyway, if you can recopy those with the orginal colors that would be great. IF not, I can keep trying to doctor them. IN the mean time I will just upload photos from the photo card.Palmbob 14:19, 16 August 2007 (PDT) Well, I looked more closely at the card photos and they, too, are noticably washed out.. can tell particularly on palms with red on them... the red is a dull grey-red, when it was a brilliant deep red in the original photos (see C renda photos). Not every photo seems to be similar affected, however. Hmmm.Palmbob 15:00, 16 August 2007 (PDT)

  • Geoff, Please tell me specifically which photos you are referring too, because I can't find any that look different on my monitor side by side with my settings. You mentioned C. renda, but which ones. They look perfect to me when viewed side by side. I don't want you to saturate any photos until we figure out what is happening. Because if the problem is on your end due to the settings you have your on your monitor, software, or wiki preferences, then the photos will be over saturated for everyone else. Please answer the following:
  • 1)Did you get my email? Could you tell the difference? I am putting your photos side by side on the screen together and can't see anything. *2)Please tell me one or two photos specifically so I can check side by side.
  • 3)When you say a photo looks washed out, are you viewing the photo off of the disk or on the wiki. It makes a big difference, because the software thst is displaying the pic will be different if its your CD/DVD software, or your photo software, or your browser when viewing on the wiki. I'm going to try and call you.
  • 4) Are you comparing the color from the ImagePage, or from the Full Resolution photo? If you are just looking at the ImagePage that is not the high quality pic. You need to be looking at the Hi Res photo. Dypsisdean 18:24, 16 August 2007 (PDT)

I am comparing the photos just on my computer screen from eihter the card or disc, with the original photos on my computer screen. These photos are washed out BEFORE being downloaded. Some are less noticable than others. I have not downloaded most of the washed out ones because I didn't want to waste the time. I still think I downloaded a few and I will try to find them. A lot of the Hawaiian photos were particularly noticable to me as the colors of Hawaiian palms are vibrant, at least compared to most of the Southern Californian palms I photograph. So I think I didn't notice those at first as I was downloading a bunch of local palms. But now that I am doing more Hawaii stuff it is a lot more obvious- most obvious on the palm photos of Pauleen's garden, Marcus and Bos from this last trip.Palmbob 18:38, 16 August 2007 (PDT)

  • I hope I am understanding. You are not comparing any uploaded pics from the wiki to the originals. You need to do that. That is the true test. Because when you view them directly off off the disk it is different software with different settings that is doing the rendering. Are you putting them side by side on the screen together? That is what I am doing, and as you can see, so far everything looks OK. Can you put two together and take a screen shot like I am sending you via email?
  • Let me emphasize that until I can see a difference on either of my two computers, I have to assume it has something to do with how your photos are being rendered. I can only think of one mechanism that could be altering anything and I don't want to confuse matters until I eliminate the others. But please first, compare one of your "problem" photos from an uploaded photo from the Palmpedia Hi-Res rendering. Take the original and put the Palmpedia Hi Res shot side by side and see if there is a difference. Dypsisdean 19:05, 16 August 2007 (PDT)