Indigo Imposters

I posted back in May 2009 about how the False Indigo had captured my imagination and gone on to garner the attention of others, the image from my first post about it in 2007 even ending up on a shampoo bottle. Incidentally that first post remains the second most popular post on this site, ever.

In April 2010, Charleston Mag contacted me for permission to use that very popular image to illustrate their article Meet the Imposter and with perfect internet manners credited me as the author of that image and added a link to my site.  I say 'that very popular image' because I've discovered, since google now allows you to search for an image by it's url (or by dragging the image into the searchbox), that image has been used by quite a lot of people without the exquisite manners of Charleston Mag.

I don't have a *huge* problem with this as I subscribe to the notion of Dandelion Thinking ie if you are going to put 'work' on the wild web then you should allow the winds of the Internet to toss your works to every corner of the globe. It actually makes me happy to see 'my' images illustrating discussions on forums, or being posted as a source of inspiration. In these cases, proper credit is nice but, I get it- maybe you dragged it into a folder and forgot its original source. No big deal. Neither is it necessary to reach out to me to seek permission or even add a link, I'm perfectly fine with just a text credit simply because a random search sometimes digs those up too.

However, when I google 'False Indigo' and see 'my' image in the first page of results but it links to a commercial garden center it gets to be a little peeve worthy. If you are going to profit from it's use, I think a proper credit is called for. Or even better, an offer for a packet of seed would have been nice. If you are a journalist or a respected garden blogger, I think some effort should be made to either name or link back to the author especially if in the case of the former, you state at the end of each post that your own material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

I do realize, the onus is on me to protect my own work. I don't however love the idea of slapping a huge copyright or name in the middle of the photo. I used to post a bigger version of my framed post image, which is probably how that original image self seeded all over the web, but have since discontinued that practise. I also understand that where the line is drawn in these matters is also relative to your personal views. I 'curate' or 'aggregate' things by other people I like on the web myself,  always with a link to the source but not necessarily by contacting the author first. I think this is ok but there may be others who don't.

It's also worth noting that it's getting easier to use someone else's image albeit with the ability to easily link or credit via inherent software of tumbling or reblogging or the latest player - Pinterest. This is, I think, a good thing as the value of images drops in relation to the vast amount that is produced and floating around on the interwebs. When someone thinks your image is good enough to pin or tumble or talk about or mash it up into a new expression or idea then I'm all for it.

Also worth noting that taking pictures and posting on the web aka 'sharing' is now a completely new experience from before. Point and shoot quality images can be taken with your phone and immediately sent to the web. With Google plus, it does it automatically and then you decide later if you want to share it. Again, I like this, as an important facet of 'gardening', the 'looking at' part, is now something you can do online. Also, researching, thank goodness for all those images and accompanying titles and posts to help discover what that plant was that you saw. On that note I'll end positively to say I am thrilled to see that 'my' image of Baptisia Australis has played a noteworthy role in helping people identify and enjoy this lovely plant - perhaps you even bought one because of it.

Garden of Content

Managing this blog is much like gardening, you move things around, you plant some new things, some things you cut back or they die of their own accord, some things flourish unexpectedly and you, the gardener, gets a little more skilled and experienced over time. Then there's the environment which of late in the rapid changing tech world, could be described as - intense climate change - rapidly changing technology- both hardware and software. Not to mention an evolving culture around social media of facebooking and twittering.

As befits the times I changed things up a little bit here on the blog. I was motivated in part by reading this piece about how news - or it could apply to the design of any kind of information is too cluttered. As we move more into mobile and tablet forms of content - leaner more edited pages just work better - and that includes optimization for a whichever gadget you are using to consume it.

I agree. As a content user - I use an imac an ipad and an android phone I know that the experience on all three is different. There are limitations and feature differences - some things on The OG I just can't see on an ipad (flash based video, slideshows, flipbooks) although I can on my android phone. Some things I'm less inclined to consume on my phone like long form writing but I like to read books  and casually catch up with some blogs on my ipad and do serious web surfing and watch videos when I'm on my computer.

Cutting to the chase, the changes revolve mainly on a slightly leaner look with more definition between original content and aggregated or curated content ie homegrown and foraged and I think the real shift -  more gallery space to images. I continue to want to solve to what I'm doing with reference to ease of publishing. I do two things- take photos with my phone -which is more impromptu as I always have it with me and the more purposeful- I'm going to the botanic garden with my 'good' camera.  Incidentally, I recently upgraded to a better, good camera that quite effortlessy takes beautiful images. Does this mean less processed images? Maybe for the time being. In the meantime I will be moving over my sets on flickr to view here.

Videos, I'm still tinkering with,. After using blip and trying vimeo - I like how youtube has evolved quite rapidly with more privacy controls and ease of use- can upload a video shot on my phone straight into youtube, not to mention channel customization and the fact that it is owned by google as is blogger, which is the platform this blog is on. Connectivity between technologies is an important issue now, with google+  emerging as another possible platform to easily upload and share media - this might be the subject of the next 'content' update. Also, do I want to share regular short clips or more thoughtful edited pieces. Not sure how this will play out yet.

Flipbooks - I love the aesthetics, and was inspired to make quite a few, but they need some effort to put together and now I hate how that you can't see them on an ipad. So they have slipped a little to the back burner. Twitter  on the other hand is offering direct uploads and I love the look of the new photo page - no longer a link to a photo upload service but a cool framed pic.  I'm a little more motivated now to stream random pics on a more regular basis. If you visit this site now- the most likely updated content is the twitter feed on the top right hand side.

Too much information here for the casual blog reader, maybe interesting to fellow bloggers dealing with similar challenges but the point of this post is selfishly for me to keep track of the changes myself - check out previous posts about content and you'll see how this changes over time. Sorry about the confusion as I'm still tidying up around here - and enjoy the images that hopefully will be more prolific and more easily accesible.