Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Landscape Architecture and Design' started by JimLewis, Jan 29, 2002.
Jim .... I hope the pic's work as well as they look ! Good luck with it.
Stonehenge- your rant was not in vain. I had been mulling over shelling out for Horticopia this year being under the impression it was the be all and end all in a horticultural database. I will give more consideration to using Jim's method before leaping into that purchase.
Jim that is excellent. I had that same idea this past fall, but don't have the resources or the quantity of landscape jobs to actually go through with it.
Did you do the printing on your printer or did you get a professional printing service to perform this?
There are some benefits to it, but I know that when I grow tired of the limitations of the software, I will be looking for something (or seeing Jim's success, maybe making my own!).
First of all, I wouldn't worry about it. I can tell you where to find [free] pictures of almost any plant you want on the web. Just email me.
Next, I don't really worry too much about asking for authorization to use these pictures. For one, it's very unlikely that the person who took the picture would ever see any of my work (even my web page). Two, the most they'd probably do if they did see and and were upset with it is ask me to take it down. Then I'd worry about it.
Anyone who is thinking of doing something like this should email me. There are some very specific places on the internet where you can find great pictures of plants and trees.
I printed them myself on a color inkjet printer using glossy injet picture paper. They turned out perfect.
Nice work Jim. I have Horticopia and have been disappointed with it. Stonehenge is correct as to the HP printing problems and the poor quality of the plants in the pictures, and the omission of some very common cultivars. I have thought about doing something similar to Jim's catalog and will have to give it serious thought.
Looks nice, but why re-invent the wheel? Any horticultural encyclopedia will have what you need at your fingertips.
I guess there are a few reasons.
1) This didn't cost me much money. And I don't know how much these encyclopedias cost but they sound spendy,
2) My portfolio is thin and less cumbersome.
3) My portfolio is specific to the exact plants, trees, rock work, etc. that we use and are familair with, without any of the extra stuff we don't. I don't need 80% of what's in most botanical books. We only use a handful of what's out there in the plant world.
4) I haven't ever seen any such books with as much detail, per plant, as what I have done.
5) This one is digital so I can add, detract, or alter pages as the need arises.
Jim...I have to agree with Bill. AHS's A-Z Encyclopedia is by far one of the best reference books out there. As for details...unmatched. Pricey? Not for what you get.
don't know what happened to the image, but here goes again...