Recieved garden catalog 15 today

Has anyone noticed they are pretty much all the same, in just different order, they all offer the same thing. Maybe its just us greedy gardeners, wishing for something new . I guess it doesn't exist.

Are you actually counting??! The seed ones certainly look very similar to me.

I don't mind getting them, but just 1 of each company would be better.

I'm on number 40, not counting those I've thrown directly into the wastebasket. If you check the return addresses (or look them up in Garden Watchdog) you'll find that there are a few mass marketers that send out catalogs under many different names. Not coincidentally, these are usually the ones I seldom buy from.

So many lists of plants and seeds,
Those catalogs just grow like weeds.
But they do help, I say, and smile
As I toss them in the mulching pile.

I think I get one Parks and one Wayside every other week. I don't know if I'm on multiple mailing lists? I have noticed that the quality of their catalogs has improved in the last year or two. I haven't ordered anything - wonder if the quality of the product has improved?

Heres another thing I am noticing, these catalogs are stunning, I mean the photography and all, they must spend a fortune to lay out their catalogs, the flowers seem to me like they are enhanced dramatically to make the flowers, especially, bigger than life, someone is doing some fancy photoshop work I guess.

Luv the poem Don. I must admit I love all the catalogs when they first start coming. All the usual suspects and most look pretty ratty by the time the garden clean up can begin. This year with all the snow so early they got me bad. Still they have such pretty pictures of what I want to see, how can you resist. :)

One of the things that annoys me is when you place an order, they mail you another catalog - like that's gonna make you turn around and order more from them!

What company don't do that or at least some kind of flyer?

I wonder what makes the companies send duplicate catalogs - is it that cheap to make and mail them?

They are hoping on a lot of things. Maybe you will give it away and they will get another customer. The catalogues are probably built right in with the price of the plants, seeds etc.

The catalogues are probably built right in with the price of the undies and nighties ?

the catalogs are built to last longer than the undies, that's for sure.

Well, they should limit the number they send out, saving themselves money, and lower the price of plants/seeds!

My favorites are the catalogs that are mostly artistic renderings of the plants/flowers - usually watercolors. Why on earth would I buy something without knowing what it actually looks like?

I actually work for a mail order company. 1. It is not cheap to print out a color catalog, even if you are doing it on flimsy paper like most do. Just the postage on a bulk mailing of 23,000 catalogs cost us about $3,000 this year. 2. The average company only has about a 15% order rate for all the catalogs they mail out. My company has about a 30% order rate but we do 1 mass mailing of 23,000 catalogs in January and then an average of 4,000 catalogs get sent out on request over the rest of the year. Our return order rate is considered phenomenal in the industry. The fact is we just don't inundate uninterested customers with unwanted catalogs. Something most other companies just don't understand.

I like what Fairweather does. They charge $5 for the catalog and take it off your first order. Once you order, you get it free for a couple of years. With websites, there just is no need for all this waste.

Just way too many catalogs! The one I wanted and wrote for has not yet arrived - almost three weeks later and I'm ready to give up. Park's and Wayside have to be the biggest waste of paper and Jackson & Perkins isn't far behind.

Has anyone thought that maybe there is some miss leading of people with these photoshop, over enhanced photos of plants. I anticipate all my flowers looking like the ones in the catalogs, but you know as I do, they just won't.

Actually many times you can get a flower/ flowers that look as good or better than the catalog. All of my flower photos are not enhanced, just cropped if necessary. You need the camera & the lighting to do it. For example the tulip on the valentine thread and the hibiscus for Zuzu I put up are neither enhanced or sharpened. ☺

This is a "raw" shot un-enhanced except that it's real size is !600 x 1200 pixels, and it was automatically sized down when uploaded to 'Dave's'.

Beautiful!

Most of us are alert to the places that enhance the photos and, when in doubt, we can refer to Plant Files for the truth.

Thanks pirl, You have some beautiful Dahlia shots as well,

Yes, we gardeners are alert to those phonies and since many of us here are adept with cameras and photography we can spot an enhanced photo most of the time...

I agree, there are too many catalogs but hey... if it is'int gardening catalogs it's pharmacies or supermarkets or... etc etc. ☺

one of the reasons i like to look at the PF pictures is that often you can see a variety of "real life" appearances of plants, which gives a clearer idea of the possibilities that you might end up with.

True, but I have also seen some enhanced photos in PF. Luckily, not too many.

I stopped buying daylilies because of all the games they play with the colors.

Not to mention that (like hostas) there is very little variation in the 'new' introductions compared to the existing.

Water Can is shooting in raw and managinging the photos difficult? You are shooting a macro lens.....correct? Very nice, I have debated buying a nikon D3 and a 105mm macro for gardening....I have a F60 (oversees model) and a 70-200 2.8 that set me back a grand, and also have a coolpix 8700, but I am ready to step up.... I want to photograph wildlife as well.

shooting in the raw may not be difficult, but it sounds a little uncomfortable this time of year (especially in Vermont!)

I been thinking of doing the polar bear plunge in my pond! LOL

This message was edited Feb 16, 2008 7:55 PM

I have 5 hard drives onboard With 2gigs ram & a 3.2 Pentium 4 so I can manage it without a problem. But the photo is not in RAW format, (it's in JPG). I meant that it was unaltered from any photo editing program. No macro was used for the shot, I can get that close with my normal lens set to macro mode. Nikon D300 is a nice one but at almost $2Gs without a lens I have a hard time justifying the expense. Wildlife is fun but it takes a lot of patience, when I try for wildlife I use a multiple exposure setting because the opportunity is 'fleeting'. ☺

Nice shot, WC. I think it was a D3 that was mentioned - even more $$$! I am lusting for the D300.

Even More $$$?!!! Jezz! I'll have to win the lotto for that one! ☺

It's about $5K!!

Forget it, my DW would divorce me after she puts me in the insane asylum! - Actually I might even check myself in and save her the trouble after buying something like that! I could justify it only if I was in the business, although even businesses try to keep the overhead down.
- But if you 'got it like that' go for it! ☺

Wish I did!

I am a poor working sap like all others, but I would use it, with carvings, duck study, gardening and all. Whats money, I usually live pretty frugal. But this is one time I won't.....Victor, I'll lend it to you when you need it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good for you! And I just might take you up on the offer!

Thought about selling your carvings? DG will have an auction soon.

Yes I have sold many over the years, Just sold a pair of woodduck decoys for 1000.00, Carving is my early retirement plan, or if I get hurt, which has happen many times, but I seem to heal quick, I know I can't set tile forever, but the carving stuff has really been taking off, so I have a little problem...............................................when do I retire to carving?????????????????? Its a tough call.

But a nice 'problem' to have!