4 ms·

As a gardener, who is constantly taking photos of my plants and tagging them, I noticed the same pattern while generating stats on all the tags collected over

by op03 5y ago

As a gardener, who is constantly taking photos of my plants and tagging them, I noticed the same pattern while generating stats on all the tags collected over time. The frequency of photos would increase when there was flowering, fruiting, growth spurts, interesting leaf growth etc but the plant would get totally ignored for long periods if its neighbour was doing something more interesting or if it was struck by diseases/bugs, wilting, dying etc. I also realized my least photographed subjects are weeds. Even though a lot of time is spent looking for them and managing them and just being gobsmaked at how unbelievably good they are at surviving whatever the universe throws at them. I have a dumb script that generates a periodic report on all the tags to tell me which plant/tag hasnt been clicked for a while. It hasnt really made me a more disciplined but I feel its constantly reminding me of what I getting bored off and where my interests lie.

stinos 5y ago
I also realized my least photographed subjects are weeds That probably depends on your definition of weeds then, yours seems quite strict? Almost meaing 'pest' perhaps? Here in Western Europe, especially in previous generations, the term tends to get used for pretty much everything which is bascially just a native wild plant. It's ok if it's short grass or when you can buy it in a store, but otherwise the label is 'weed'. And I'm really not exaggerating here. As such if you want to take photgraphs of plants outdoors those 'weeds' are the targets. Even the most common ones tend to be rather beautiful.
- op03 5y ago
  Thats interesting :) I like the perspective. Yup I was taught to think of them as pests, especially when then get close too or tangled up with some of the more "delicate" plants. Another issue is whenever curiosity spikes, its not that easy to identify them or get more info about them by simple googling or looking at books (my botanical technical vocabulary isnt that great) so they remain these mysterious unidentified unknowns. But yeah totally agree they are beautiful in their own way and are constantly surprising me.

by op03 5y ago

stinos 5y ago

I also realized my least photographed subjects are weeds That probably depends on your definition of weeds then, yours seems quite strict? Almost meaing 'pest' perhaps? Here in Western Europe, especially in previous generations, the term tends to get used for pretty much everything which is bascially just a native wild plant. It's ok if it's short grass or when you can buy it in a store, but otherwise the label is 'weed'. And I'm really not exaggerating here. As such if you want to take photgraphs of plants outdoors those 'weeds' are the targets. Even the most common ones tend to be rather beautiful.

op03 5y ago
Thats interesting :) I like the perspective. Yup I was taught to think of them as pests, especially when then get close too or tangled up with some of the more "delicate" plants. Another issue is whenever curiosity spikes, its not that easy to identify them or get more info about them by simple googling or looking at books (my botanical technical vocabulary isnt that great) so they remain these mysterious unidentified unknowns. But yeah totally agree they are beautiful in their own way and are constantly surprising me.