Simpson & Barnes_Curtis25-3

8/14/2019 Simpson & Barnes_Curtis25-3

1/23


2/23

The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 2008. 259

have become more available, botanical artists working direct fromdried pressed herbarium material have used photographs as visual

aids. Similarly many contemporary artists painting fresh material taketheir own photographs as a quick record and precaution againstthe plant suddenly wilting or losing colour, before there is time toget those features recorded on paper.

A surprising number of interesting and beautiful examples ofearly botanical photographs exist, and these show the evolution ofphotographic techniques directly relevant to the creation of botani-cal illustrations, rather than as painters aids.

Cyanotypes and sun pictures, were the earliest types, pre-dating

use of the camera, and are particularly relevant in that, in layingthe subject on light-sensitive material, the plant parts were arrangedand the first photographic botanical compositions were created.While the botanical information was necessarily limited to the gen-eral shape of plant parts and gave no indication of colour or three-dimensional form, wonderful detail was achieved, for example, withthe veining in leaves.

Indeed the first book produced entirely by photographic methodsappeared in parts from 1843, and was a botanical work, reproducedby the cyanotype (blueprint) process invented by Sir John Herschel.Entitled British Algae cyanotype impressions, it was created by Anna

Atkins (17991871) and consisted of over 200 plates of seaweeds.Fox Talbots first photographic images, or photogenic drawings,

included the first photomicrographs as well as images of flowersand leaves, both fresh and dried herbarium material. the objectwhich would take the most skilful artist days or weeks of labour to trace orcopy, is effected by the boundless powers of natural chemistry in the space of

a few seconds. (Talbot, 1839).John Dillwyn Llewellyn, active photographic experimenter at thistime, used both Fox Talbots techniques and, later, daguerreotypes.Several of Llewellyns surviving early images show plants, andFox Talbot considered him to be the first botanical photographer.(Leggat, 1997).

The advantages of the speed of capture and of the accuracyand detail of the images were readily apparent, but there was, eventhen, also recognition of the fact that further accurate detail could

be realised on enlargement, as expressed by Edgar Allan Poe (1840)when he wrote of the daguerreotype, For, in truth, the daguerreotypedplate is infi nitely more accurate in its representation than any painting by


3/23

260 The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 2008.

human hands. If we examine the work of ordinary art, by means of a powerfulmicroscope, all traces of resemblance to nature will disappear but the closest

scrutiny of the photogenic drawing discloses only a more absolute truth, a more perfect identity of aspect with the thing represented. The variations of shadeand the gradations of both linear and aerial perspective are those of truth itselfin the supremeness of its perfection.

The new techniques of photography naturally led to the develop-ment of new printing processes by which photographs could bereproduced. Initially, photography was used indirectly, for example,the illustrations in the fourth edition of The Fern Paradise (Heath,1878 ) were engravings produced from photographs. Previously, his

book, The Fern World, (Heath, 1877 ) used photolithographs. Thesewere colour illustrations and were printed from photographs of frondscollected and grouped by himself and he was of the opinion that the bestdrawing is frequently but a poor imitation of Nature. By bringing the marvel-lous and beautiful process of photography into requisition, it has been possibleto copy the very lines of Nature herself.

In both these methods, the photography involved compositionof the plant material and resulted in excellent illustrations, thoughagain these had limitations as botanical descriptions. In the latterthe photography was, of course, monochrome and the colour wasadded manually by the lithographer, and was hence not realistic bytodays standards.

Early photography, being monochrome, was, in terms of thecolour information about a plant, a retrograde step. However, theturn of century brought with it the first successful colour photo-graphy, although the early colour results could be variable and fug-itive. Of note though is Coventrys Wild Flowers of Kashmir(192330)

which contains illustrations which are reproductions from direct colourphotographs of freshly gathered specimens taken on Lumires autochrome plates.The plant material was photographed laid on a (mostly) white back-ground, and in the reproduction of the images, the backgroundaround the plant has been partially cut away giving a slightly shadedbackground immediately around the specimen. Interestingly, someimages include both flower and fruit within a single plate, thoughthis of course was only possible for plants where both parts occurat the same time. The material has been attractively arranged, but

the shadows obscure some of the detail.Later images, created by Karl Blossfeldt (1935), in Germany, were

taken for artistic rather than botanical purposes, but his exploration


4/23


of plant structure with close-up photography has a direct bearingon botanical illustration. Information about the whole plant is gen-

erally absent and colour is lacking, but the attention to the finedetail of plant structure and symmetry is directly relevant to modernanatomical photography of sections, dissections and of small diag-nostic parts.

The exhibition of Lilian Snellings botanical art at the RoyalBotanic Garden in Edinburgh, in 2007, showed examples of theuse of photography within a botanical institution in the first halfof the 20th century. Robert Moyes Adam, photographer at theGarden between 1914 and 1949, created close-up photographs

specifically of anatomical parts, dissections and herbarium specimensfor its Director, Sir Isaac Bayley Balfour, and sometimes of the actualplants that Snelling painted.

However, despite later developments in photography, such as im-proved lenses, macro-photography and photomicrography, few photo-graphic examples of composite plant portraits have been foundin more recent literature. In The Art of Botanical Illustration (Bluntand Stearn, 1994 ) there is a an emphasis on the merit of artworkover photography and significantly, the term photography is notincluded in its index, though there is a very brief discussion in hischapter on the twentieth century where Stearn notes that colourphotography is increasingly important and the work of Blossfeldtgets the briefest of mentions.

A year later, Saunders (1995), in her selection of examples ofbotanical illustrations held in the V&A in London, mentions theuse of photography in both horticultural literature and field guides.

Just one modern photographic image is included, that being an ex-

ample from the pioneering work of Roger Phillips in his importantseries of photographic field guides, the first of which was Wildfl owersof Britain, published in 1977. Yet with Brent Elliott (1996) we findthe first mention of the future importance of digital imageryspecifically for botanical illustration. In assessing Phillips work,Elliott viewed it as pioneering the photographic counterpart to the artistscomposite plate. He was aware then that image manipulation wasbecoming a reality and, with foresight, he goes on to state boldlythat we should not underestimate the potential of photography for botanical

illustration.In recent times, botanical photography has mostly been confined

to single images showing habit, habitat or individual anatomical


5/23


6/23


Fig. 1. Pimpinella saxifragaL. Scanner composition by Liz McDonnell/Natural England.


7/23


We are aware of various approaches to the use of digital imagingin the field of botanical illustration. Perhaps the most basic approach

is the use of a slide scanner simply to convert a transparency intoan electronic file, which can then be manipulated to a degree. Phil-lips & Rix (2002) take this approach of using scanned film images

very much further: parts have been cleaned of spurious backgrounds,colours have been adjusted, scale information added and the partsthen combined with the text to make a highly attractive and infor-mative page.

A step up from scanning transparencies is to use a flatbed scan-ner directly to capture an image of one or more plant parts. This

method has the inherent advantage that all images are scanned at thesame scale and in constant lighting conditions. The only manipula-tion is the arrangement of the plant parts on the scanner bed andthe single image file is considered the end-product (see Fig. 1). Donewith a good eye for design, the result can be both attractive andscientifically valid, but it is inevitably limited in the botanical detailshown. Metzing (2004) has used a flatbed scanner effectively tocreate detailed images of cactus flowers and points out some of theadvantages of scanning over photography with a camera and Kolt-now (2005) shows how scanner images have been used to illustratespecies of Salvia.

This technique can then be further developed by manipulationof the scanned image. Peterson (2005) terms such images as scano-graphs. Plant parts are scanned separately, each isolated from itsbackground and then re-composed on to a new, often coloured,background with any desired text.

The arrival of high quality digital single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras

opens up the possibilities very much further. The constraint of thelimited size of the scanner bed is removed, and the options formacro-photography and photomicrography extend the potentialmuch further. It is generally accepted that the output quality fromsuch cameras is now close to matching that of their film equivalents.

Just as with a scanner, the results can be assessed immediately, andre-taken if necessary. In contrast to the use of a scanner, there isno necessity to lay the material on a horizontal surface or for thematerial to be limited in depth in order to fit under the scanner

lid. The fact that there is no film cost inevitably means that thephotographer feels freer to take more photographs, increasing thelikelihood of achieving high quality results.


8/23


A further technique used is the compilation of a composite il-lustration from a selection of digital photographs all taken against

the same background (usually white or black) and with no isola-tion of the parts from their original backgrounds, so that whenthe individual photographs are placed adjacent to one another,or on a background of the same colour, the resulting compositegives an apparently seamless overall background. A look at theimages created by Godet (1984) using a black background by isrecommended.

Lths work on Bryophytes, in fascicle 1, first edition (2004) dem-onstrates simple composite images in the form of a collage of single

images arranged on top of a coloured background.

OUR APPROACHTO DIGITAL COMPOSITE IMAGESWhat we mean by the term digitally created composite illustrationis this: a digitally created plant portrait showing the diagnostic andcharacteristic features of the taxon, compiled on a white back-ground. It should be combined in a botanically logical, yet attrac-tive, composition with all parts shown to an appropriate scale andwith all the component parts shown without confusing or obscuring

shadows. An important consideration is that the majority of partsare completely isolated from any background, and hence are sepa-rately moveable and scalable. The illustration is largely, but notnecessarily completely, based on digital photography, since digital

versions of other illustrative material can readily be included. Additional information, such as any textual component of titleblock, lettering of parts, and other information relating to the taxon,may be included to suit requirement. The steps used to create such

digital composite illustrations can be found in the Appendix.

POST-PROCESSINGOne of the major advantages of digital imaging is the relative easewith which images can be edited using a wide range of highlysophisticated software tools. Even the most basic image-editing soft-ware allows simple cropping, masking, adjustment of brightness,contrast and colour balance, but more powerful programs take thepossibilities for further adjustment to a new level. In turn, this en-

ables a new approach to image creation, most notably in the creationof composite images. Above all, plant parts captured at differenttimes of the year can each be isolated from their photographic


9/23


Fig. 2. Linum usitatissimum L. A: lower portion of stem including root system; B: top portion of stemwith opening flower ; C: bud; D: top portion of flowering stem with buds; E: single flower with

front petal removed; F: flower with all petals and calyx removed; G: 2 views of stamen; H: gynoe-cium; J: petal; K: sepal; L: calyx; M: flower, side view; N: flower, from above; P: leaf, upper surface;Q: leaf, lower surface; R: fruit, side view; S: section through developing fruit; T: top portion offruiting stem; U: seeds. Created by N. Simpson.


10/23


backgrounds and juxtaposed within a single composition, just as ina traditional botanical plate.

A further advantage is the possibility of incorporating digitalversions of other illustrative media within a composite illustration,resulting in works of digital mixed media. Any combination ofphotographs, manipulated photographs, photomicrographs, scan-ning electron micrographs, digital line drawings and artwork createdusing a digital pen and tablet, line work created digitally from pho-tographs, direct flatbed scans of plant material, as well as scanned

versions of traditional line or watercolour work, can all be the rawmaterials.

An incidental benefit of digital images arises from their use ofmetadata. This is textual data about the image, and actually storedwithin the image itself. Metadata may include useful camera-gener-ated (EXIF) data such as date, exposure and lens details, but alsomany user-editable fields, including title, caption, copyright informa-tion, the incorporation of GPS data (geoencoding), and many otherswhich are of potential value to botanists, as well as artists.

FOCUS: THE THIRD DIMENSION

The manipulation of digital images allows some special effectswhich can be mentioned in more detail. Sharp images are essential;by aiming for optimum focussing for each plant part, the compos-ite image achieves a similar all parts in focus effect to that foundin botanical painting. To this end image-stacking can be a valuabletechnique in certain circumstances.

Anyone who has taken close-up photographs, regardless of subject, is quickly aware of the very limited depth of focus. Stopping

down the lens aperture increases the depth of focus, but only to alimited extent, and soon leads to a degraded image because of theeffects of diffraction at small apertures. Photography through thelight microscope, even at very low powers, exacerbates the effect,especially as there is no option to stop-down for increased depthof focus.

Image stacking software can be used to blend, largely automati-cally, the in-focus parts of a series of images of the same plant part(frames), to output an image with far greater depth of focus than

would otherwise be possible. The examples here show low powerphotomicrographs of a nettle flower, Urtica dioica; the first (fig. 3 a)being a single photograph and the second (fig. 3 b) being an image


11/23


12/23


13/23


LAYERINGOverlap is a useful tool employed by traditional artists for many

years, and developed from the need to squeeze in as much informa-tion as possible into the space available. Some of the illustrationsof Ross-Craig (194873) for example, show this convention. It isequally valuable to the digital illustrator, who has the additionalpossibility of re-arranging, and even reversing, the overlap, suchthat the part hidden underneath can be brought in front. See Fig. 5,where overlap is used effectively to show a range of autumn coloursin Liquidambarleaves.

COLOURColour is traditionally considered, by botanists, to be secondary toplant structure as a distinguishing feature for the purpose ofidentification and hence the importance of detailed line drawings.Nevertheless, the accurate recording of colour has always been animportant feature and indeed, it is noteworthy that Curtiss BotanicalMagazinehas employed coloured illustrations since its establishmentin 1787, and Desmond (1987) confirms that plates were colouredby hand until 1949.

Compared to watercolour painting, photography can providegreater and more reproducible colour accuracy. A far greateramount of colour information can be very quickly recorded, as theimage is made, than is possible for an artist to either observe orportray in a painting, whether painted at the time or later from acolour chart reference.

Simpson (2005) showed the use of a colour key within digitalcomposite illustrations, to give colour references for the notable

parts. This can be useful for illustrating cultivars, where colour canbe diagnostic and to accompany herbarium specimens where colourmay be lost on drying. For the colour recording in the examplesshown, the colour-reference used was the RHS Colour Chart (1995edition ) which was created as a standard reference for recordingcolour in cultivated plants. Examples of a colour key can be seenin fig. 2 (Linum) and fig. 4 (Arum).

The accuracy with which colour is recorded in the illustrationsis dependent on having a fully colour-calibrated system, from

the computer used for editing, to the subsequent processes ofprinting or, indeed, any computer on which the image may be

viewed.


14/23


Fig. 4. Composite images of Liquidambar styraciflua L. (above) and Arum maculatum L. (below),Created by Niki Simpson.


15/23


BACKGROUNDSThere are two types of background to note; the background against

which the plant parts are photographed and the background againstwhich the final composition is compiled. For the former, theconventional background for close-up photography has been black.Most often this is black cloth, usually velvet for its light absorbingqualities. Using black overcomes the problem of confusing shadowscast on the background and dramatic results can be obtained, es-pecially for showing up pale and delicate plant parts, photographedat close range. However, for use within such composites, any back-ground which is relatively easy to remove from around the required

plant part is suitable to use. A plain background has been foundby the authors to be best, though white parts photographed againsta white background make no more sense than very dark parts againsta black background. For very pale or translucent parts a neutralmid-tone background is suggested.

For the background on which to compile the component partsinto the digital composite, the convention of a white backgroundis borrowed from traditional botanical artwork, with the end resultthat the plant parts are portrayed positively against white, which isafter all how we perceive plants and how we instinctively expect tosee them in illustrations. The use of isolated photographic partsdisplayed on a white background has been much used by the pub-lisher, Dorling Kindersley, in educational publications, but nevertaken to what we see as its logical development, as a full botanicalcomposite.

FLEXIBILITY

Digital techniques allow the easy rearrangement of the componentimages that make up the composite, to suit specific requirements,such as different page sizes and shapes, depending on the end product.

A composite image produced for printing on an A4 page, for example,can readily be rearranged to fit a square format for a greetings cardor a horizontal rectangle for viewing on a monitor. Individual imagecomponents can be omitted, perhaps for a childrens book, or newcomponents added as material becomes available. Indeed as improvedparts become available, they can be substituted, and the redundant

part simply deleted at the touch of a button. Of immense benefitto the artist, is the fact that if a mistake is found, corrections donot entail starting the entire illustration all over again.


16/23


The technique is thus highly versatile, offering a flexibility thatis simply not available to the watercolour artist. For example, Simp-

son (2007a) shows the re-arrangement of parts to create a horizontalformat version of an illustration, the use of individual parts at vari-ous scales, as well as how the information content of an illustrationcan be increased, by including a colour key, time bar and symbolsdesigned specifically for use in this type of digital compositeillustration.

Flexibility is one thing: it would be a mistake to suppose that itis a simple matter to produce a high-quality end-product. It requiresconsiderable observation and attention to detail, much planning

and research before starting, the eye of a botanist for selection ofappropriate material, the eye of an artist to achieve an effectiveand attractive arrangement on the page, together with a competentphotographic technique to produce satisfactory raw materials fromwhich to start. Equally, it is by no means a rapid technique; thearrangement must be on the one hand botanically coherent andlogical so that the image is both comprehensive and representativeand, on the other aesthetically pleasing. The composite digitalimage may take as much time as, or more than, the equivalentwatercolour illustration. (See Appendix for an idea of the time andeffort involved).

To date, few examples of composite digital botanical images havebeen published, but examples are given by Simpson (2005), Simpson(2007a), Simpson (2007b), Knees et al. (2007), and the latest workon the bryophytes of Germany by Lth, fascicle 3 (2006) and fascicle4 (2007). Bailes (2006) and Sander (2007) include early examplescreated in 2004 and 2005, of Ilex aquifolium (page 12) and the hybrid

larch, Larix marschlinsii, (plate 4) respectively.

DRAWBACKSAs with most techniques, there are some limitations and it is worthsetting out the drawbacks of which we are aware. There will besituations in which photography-based work, for some reason,cannot adequately either capture or portray the required botanicalinformation, for example, where illustrations are to be created fromherbarium specimens. Good material is essential: it must be fresh and

complete and above all typical of the taxon to be illustrated; it shouldalso be reasonably photogenic. A limited amount of mending canbe achieved, but largely incomplete or wilted material can not be


17/23


18/23


Fig. 5. Linum usitatissimum L. detail of fig. 2, rearranged. E: single flower with front petal removed;F: flower with all petals and calyx removed; J: petal; L: calyx; P: leaf, upper surface; T: top portionof fruiting stem. Created by N. Simpson.


19/23


APPLICATIONTO FIELD WORKDigital photography has brought considerable opportunities to

field botany, especially in allowing many hundreds of photographsto be taken, capturing images of plant habits and habitats, as wellas of anatomical close-up details of plants. Colour and form infor-mation can be recorded which otherwise would be lost on pressingand drying the material as herbarium specimens. While it can beseen that the techniques we have mentioned are more appropriateto the studio or laboratory than to the field, an effective record canbe attempted in field conditions, and Miller (in Knees et al., 2007)has had success to this end, in compiling a composite image of

Barleria samhanensis. While it may not be possible, for various reasons(for example, lack of suitable staging equipment, difficult lightingconditions, non-photogenic specimen, etc.) to photograph all therequired diagnostic features on the spot, there is no reason why anysuch elusive features should not be measured and sketched, andon return to base be redrawn (with reference to the herbariumspecimen in the usual manner), scanned and then incorporated inthe final digital composite illustration along with the photographicparts.

TAKINGIT FURTHERThe compositing technique described here is highly appropriateto printed output, whether in the form of book or journal illustra-tions, greetings cards, fine art prints, etc. However, it is even bettersuited to on-line viewing and publication and this opens up furtherexciting possibilities in the form of interactivity. Some initial stepsin this direction have been made with, for example, the trial virtual

book exhibited by Simpson in Berlin in 2007.Perhaps the greatest benefit of using digital images is the potentialfor the increased accessibility of botanical detail. In an appropriatesoftware environment, provided the original image components areof sufficiently high resolution, virtual magnifiers or localised zoomtools are readily added, allowing viewing of the image and henceplant parts at considerably enlarged scales. See fig. 3, showing par-tially enlarged portion of Linum plate.

The additional possibilities of adding hypertext-type hot-spot links

to other data or images only serve to take botanical illustration to anew level. Envisaged links might lead, for example, to further imagesand related data, and to other relevant material on the internet.


20/23


CONCLUSIONSThe authors are aware of some reluctance to embrace digital media

in botanical illustration, but it can be seen that the concept of il-lustrating plants in a digital composite manner is in many ways isnot really new at all. It is simply an evolutionary step in botanicalillustration, and also in botanical photography. In bringing bothdisciplines together, this new type of botanical illustration aims tocombine the best of the tried and tested conventions of traditionalillustration with the latest photographic and image processing tech-nologies available, to produce highly detailed digital illustrationswhich meet the constraints imposed by the discipline of taxonomy

and yet will also meet the requirements of the future.We see this as an approach of considerable value. This type of

illustration can be used to supplement the traditional line-work usedfor the description of new taxa and also to supplement herbariumspecimens. Indeed, the attainable detail and accuracy is such thatthe results may be referred to as image specimens.

While this type of illustration cannot be said to be pure inventionin the same way as a painting, it is still one person s individual ex-pression of the plant. It is simply the tool that has been upgraded;the paintbrush has been exchanged for the camera. In his Autobio- graphical Fragment, botanical artist Rory McEwen (1988) acknowl-edged that The camera is the most powerful visual force of the twentiethcentury. It has affected and refi ned our vision, but it is, itself, still only amechanism, a mirror for the mind. In the twenty-first century, the digitalillustrator can explore the qualities of light rather than pigment,but all within the constraints of creating a highly accurate, informa-tive and beautiful two-dimensional representation of the plant con-

cerned. Photography allows the extension of human vision, and anincrease in the quantity and quality of visual data captured. At thesame time, digital imaging technology allows a significant advancein the communication of those data, in the form of visual scientificplant descriptions.

With this first publication in the Curtiss Botanical Magazine of adigitally created composite plant portrait, the authors are awarethat the results will be judged in part by the print quality of a digitalillustration converted for printing by the traditional 4-colour method,

and, for those able to view the published article on-line, by theclarity of the much-reduced resolution of the digital file. It shouldbe borne in mind that the original high resolution image is a very


21/23


22/23


Metzing, D. (2004 ). A quick and easy method for documenting flower charac-ters. Haseltonia. Yearbook of the Cactus and Succulent Society of America. 10: 3037.

Miyabe, K. & Kudo, Y. (1986). Icones of the essential forest trees of Hokkaido. [in

Japanese; facsimile of 1925 edition]. Hokkaido University Press, Sapporo.Peterson, Terry W. (2005 ). Scanograph directions. http://npsnm.unm.edu/

photos/botscan.html [accessed October 2007]Phillips, Roger (1977). Wildflowers of Britain. Pan Books, London.Phillips, Roger & Rix, Martyn (2002). The Botanical Garden. Macmillan,

London.Poe, Edgar Allan. (1840). The Daguerreotype.Alexanders Weekly Messsenger.Ross-Craig, S. (1948-1973).Drawings of British Plants. Bell, London.Sander, H. et al. (2007). Hybrid larches in Tallinn. In Eesti Loodusmuuseumi Toid

5: 174192. Tallinn. (in Estonian followed by an English summary).

Saunders, G. (1995). Picturing Plants. Zwemmer in association with the Victoriaand Albert Museum, London.

Simpson, N. (2005). Botanical illustration goes digital. The Plantsman n.s. 4(4):208215.

Simpson, N. (2007a).Digital diversity: a new approach to botanical illustration. (exhibi-tion catalogue) N. Simpson, Guildford.

Simpson, N. (2007b). Digital botanical illustrations.Daffodil, Snowdrop and TulipYearbook 2007-2008. in association with the Royal Horticultural Society.

Talbot, H.F. (1839). Some Account of the Art of Photogenic Drawing. PhilosophicalMagazine XIV 1839 quoted in Ward, J. & Stevenson, S. (1986). Printed Light.

Scottish National Portrait Gallery, Edinburgh.The Royal Horticultural Society. (1995). 3rd edition. RHS Colour Chart. London.


23/23


APPENDIX

The steps to create such digital composite illustrations are broadly as follows:1. Research and plan the illustration, making appropriate drawings, notes, etc.2. Locate a suitable plant specimen, confirm its identification and make

arrangements to collect.3. Photograph the plant and all the required diagnostic parts, including

sections and dissections, with considered lighting angles, against suitablebackground and in such a way as to reduce shadows to a minimum.

4. Either take careful measurement notes or incorporate a scale into thephotographs as appropriate, and take any colour references needed.

5. Download the photographs, assess, save and file those to be kept.6. Study the photographs obtained and make a final selection of those parts

which, in combination, show all the features required.7. Re-take any poor or missing shots.8. Stitch together images if necessary.9. Where possible use unadulterated photographs in order to retain the full

integrity of the botanical information. If essential, mend damaged areas,but manipulate and mend only as necessary, and always keep the fulloriginal photograph file for reference.

10. Isolate each part from its background to form a new clipped image. A variety of tools is now available to do this, such as colour replacers,edge-finders and background erasers. Use whichever tool suits the par-ticular situation best and save each isolated part as a separate image from

the original.11. Decide on size and resolution of output of the final image and create

the overall template for the illustration accordingly.12. Arrange the selected parts into a unified composite illustration on a white

background, saving it at each stage. Size and orient each part to give theoptimum combination and emphasis to the illustration.

13. Re-visit the plant at later dates to capture details which occur at differenttimes of the year and incorporate these later parts into the composition.

14. Enhance the clarity of any parts with digital artwork if necessary anddigitise any other artwork, diagrams, etc. to be included and add to the

composite.15. Add scale bars in a consistent fashion for all parts shown and then any

textual components, such as title/name, signature, copyright, etc. Letteror number the component parts as agreed with botanist, client or pub-lisher and record caption information for these.

16. Add any other information, such as colour key, time-bar, provenancedetails such as accession number, collection number, map location, etc.

17. These stages complete the creation of the actual composite image, butthere are a few more very important stages: the image needs to be checkedthoroughly by both botanist and artist, any metadata required needs to

be added in the image file and then lastly, the final version needs to benamed, dated and saved. Most important of all is to create a back-upcopy of the file.

Documents

Simpson & Barnes_Curtis25-3