Simpson & Barnes - Curtis25-3

PHOTOGRAPHY AND CONTEMPORARY BOTANICAL
ILLUSTRATION
Niki Simpson and Peter G. Barnes
Summary. New applications for photography in the scientific illustration of

plants are offered by digital image manipulation, but have, to date, been little
exploited. The evolving role of photography in botanical illustration is dis-
cussed, with particular emphasis on recently developed techniques of digitally
created composite illustrations, their benefits and the potential of such images
for further development. The technique is seen as a natural development of the
composite watercolour or line illustrations that are familiar to all botanists.
The tradition of botanical illustration can be traced back through

many centuries, and has been comprehensively discussed elsewhere,
for example, in Blunt and Stearn (1994). Watercolour and line
illustrations of plants most often show a single specimen. However,
there is also a long tradition of composite illustrations which include
various details, such as enlargements, sections and dissections, on the
same page. A range of examples can be seen in Sowerby’s English
Botany, the composite colour lithographs in Miyabe & Kudo (1986),
and the detailed line-drawings in Ross-Craig’s Drawings of British Plants
(1948–73) will be familiar to most British botanists. The coloured
plates of Curtis’s Botanical Magazine have, since 1935, been accompa-
nied by separate composite line drawings showing details and dissect-
ions. Many different techniques have been used, from pen and ink
line drawings to watercolour, gouache and oil paints and, with the
advent of printing, additional processes have been developed in order
to represent these original works in the printed medium. These print-
ing techniques range from woodcuts through wood and copper
engravings, lithographs to the contemporary techniques of half-tone,
full-colour, and most recently of all digital, printing; the three last, of
course, being equally appropriate for the reproduction of drawings and
paintings as well as photographs. In other words, botanical illustration
has, since its beginnings, kept pace with technological change.
THE USE OF PHOTOGRAPHY FOR BOTANICAL ILLUSTRATION

By comparison the technology of photography is a relatively recent
development, but like botanical illustration, it too has evolved. Since
its beginnings in the early 1800s, photographs have featured plants
prominently as subject matter and, increasingly, since photographs
258 © The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 2008.
have become more available, botanical artists working direct from
dried pressed herbarium material have used photographs as visual
aids. Similarly many contemporary artists painting fresh material take
their own photographs as a quick record and precaution against
the plant suddenly wilting or losing colour, before there is time to
get those features recorded on paper.
A surprising number of interesting and beautiful examples of
early botanical photographs exist, and these show the evolution of
photographic 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 laying
the subject on light-sensitive material, the plant parts were arranged
and 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, with
the veining in leaves.
Indeed the first book produced entirely by photographic methods
appeared in parts from 1843, and was a botanical work, reproduced
by the cyanotype (blueprint) process invented by Sir John Herschel.
Entitled British Algae – cyanotype impressions, it was created by Anna
Atkins (1799–1871) and consisted of over 200 plates of seaweeds.
Fox Talbot’s first photographic images, or ‘photogenic drawings’,
included the first photomicrographs as well as images of flowers
and leaves, both fresh and dried herbarium material. ‘…the object
which would take the most skilful artist days or weeks of labour to trace or
copy, 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 this
time, used both Fox Talbot’s techniques and, later, daguerreotypes.
Several of Llewellyn’s surviving early images show plants, and
Fox Talbot considered him to be the first botanical photographer.
(Leggat, 1997).
The advantages of the speed of capture and of the accuracy
and detail of the images were readily apparent, but there was, even
then, 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 daguerreotyped
plate is … infinitely more accurate in its representation than any painting by
© The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 2008. 259
human hands. If we examine the work of ordinary art, by means of a powerful
microscope, 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 shade
and the gradations of both linear and aerial perspective are those of truth itself
in the supremeness of its perfection’.
The new techniques of photography naturally led to the develop-
ment of new printing processes by which photographs could be
reproduced. 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. These
were colour illustrations and were ‘printed from photographs of fronds
collected and grouped by himself’ and he was of the opinion that ‘the best
drawing is frequently but a poor imitation of Nature. By bringing the marvel-
lous and beautiful process of photography into requisition, it has been possible
to copy the very lines of Nature herself.’
In both these methods, the photography involved composition
of the plant material and resulted in excellent illustrations, though
again these had limitations as botanical descriptions. In the latter
the photography was, of course, monochrome and the colour was
added manually by the lithographer, and was hence not realistic by
today’s standards.
Early photography, being monochrome, was, in terms of the
colour information about a plant, a retrograde step. However, the
turn 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 Coventry’s Wild Flowers of Kashmir (1923–30)
which contains illustrations which are ‘reproductions from direct colour
photographs of freshly gathered specimens taken on Lumière’s autochrome plates’.
The plant material was photographed laid on a (mostly) white back-
ground, and in the reproduction of the images, the background
around the plant has been partially cut away giving a slightly shaded
background immediately around the specimen. Interestingly, some
images include both flower and fruit within a single plate, though
this of course was only possible for plants where both parts occur
at 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
of plant structure with close-up photography has a direct bearing
on botanical illustration. Information about the whole plant is gen-
erally absent and colour is lacking, but the attention to the fine
detail of plant structure and symmetry is directly relevant to modern
anatomical photography of sections, dissections and of small diag-
nostic parts.
The exhibition of Lilian Snelling’s botanical art at the Royal
Botanic Garden in Edinburgh, in 2007, showed examples of the
use of photography within a botanical institution in the first half
of the 20th century. Robert Moyes Adam, photographer at the
Garden between 1914 and 1949, created close-up photographs
specifically of anatomical parts, dissections and herbarium specimens
for its Director, Sir Isaac Bayley Balfour, and sometimes of the actual
plants 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 found
in more recent literature. In The Art of Botanical Illustration (Blunt
and Stearn, 1994) there is a an emphasis on the merit of artwork
over photography and significantly, the term ‘photography’ is not
included in its index, though there is a very brief discussion in his
chapter on the twentieth century where Stearn notes that colour
photography is increasingly important and the work of Blossfeldt
gets the briefest of mentions.
A year later, Saunders (1995), in her selection of examples of
botanical illustrations held in the V&A in London, mentions the
use 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 important
series of photographic field guides, the first of which was Wildflowers
of Britain, published in 1977. Yet with Brent Elliott (1996) we find
the first mention of the future importance of digital imagery
specifically for botanical illustration. In assessing Phillips’ work,
Elliott viewed it as ‘pioneering the photographic counterpart to the artist’s
composite plate’. He was aware then that image manipulation was
becoming a reality and, with foresight, he goes on to state boldly
that ‘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
details of a plant. For these purposes, photographs are, of course,
excellent and are now the mainstay of most botanical field guides.
So it can be seen that, although photography was developed in the
first half of the 19th century, and enthusiastically taken up well
before the end of that century, it has seldom featured significantly
in the corpus of formal, scientific botanical plant portraiture.
There are various reasons for this, one often put forward being
the notion that a photograph merely records one individual which
may or not be representative of a population. By contrast, it has
been said that a good artist can convey an accurate, generalised
impression of a plant in a way that a photograph can not. Whilst
there may be some truth in this, it is not an insuperable problem,
provided attention is given to selecting material characteristic of
the plant being illustrated. Phillips’ view (1977) is that ‘a photograph
gives a better instant ‘feel’ of a specimen’ but one suspects that an elitist
feeling that photography is ‘cheating’ compared to drawing and
painting may also be a factor. The main, well documented, reasons
that underlie the continuation of botanical painting to the present
day are summed up by Saunders (1995): ‘…photography is even now
unable to fulfil all the needs of the botanist; botanical draughtsmanship sur-
vives as a distinct discipline because it has the flexibility to focus, analyze
and dissect its subject, and to combine disparate parts in a clearly intelligible
design’. Since this is largely still the current opinion amongst bota-
nists and botanical artists alike, these aspects deserve more atten-
tion, but we must first consider the arrival of contemporary digital
photography and what we mean by ‘digitally created composite
images’.
CONTEMPORARY DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY

The truly exciting step forward, enabling the creation of sophisti-
cated composite images, has been the arrival and rapid development
of digital imaging technology over recent years. The conventional
film camera has been replaced by a digital camera and a memory
card replaces the silver halide film.
Photography, by enabling a significantly increased amount of
visual data capture, and by the objective nature of such data ac-
quisition, has always had great potential for use in botanical illustra-
tion, but has not been fully exploited, at least in published botanical
work. We believe that the techniques discussed here offer valuable
new possibilities for the future of botanical illustration.
Fig. 1. Pimpinella saxifraga L. Scanner composition by Liz McDonnell/Natural England.
We are aware of various approaches to the use of digital imaging
in the field of botanical illustration. Perhaps the most basic approach
is the use of a slide scanner simply to convert a transparency into
an 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 parts
then 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 the
same scale and in constant lighting conditions. The only manipula-
tion is the arrangement of the plant parts on the scanner bed and
the single image file is considered the end-product (see Fig. 1). Done
with a good ‘eye’ for design, the result can be both attractive and
scientifically valid, but it is inevitably limited in the botanical detail
shown. Metzing (2004) has used a flatbed scanner effectively to
create detailed images of cactus flowers and points out some of the
advantages of scanning over photography with a camera and Kolt-
now (2005) shows how scanner images have been used to illustrate
species of Salvia.
This technique can then be further developed by manipulation
of the scanned image. Peterson (2005) terms such images as ‘scano-
graphs’. Plant parts are scanned separately, each isolated from its
background 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 the
limited size of the scanner bed is removed, and the options for
macro-photography and photomicrography extend the potential
much further. It is generally accepted that the output quality from
such cameras is now close to matching that of their film equivalents.
Just as with a scanner, the results can be assessed immediately, and
re-taken if necessary. In contrast to the use of a scanner, there is
no necessity to lay the material on a horizontal surface or for the
material to be limited in depth in order to fit under the scanner
lid. The fact that there is no film cost inevitably means that the
photographer feels freer to take more photographs, increasing the
likelihood of achieving high quality results.
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 when
the individual photographs are placed adjacent to one another,
or on a background of the same colour, the resulting composite
gives an apparently seamless overall background. A look at the
images created by Godet (1984) using a black background by is
recommended.
Lüth’s 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 APPROACH TO DIGITAL COMPOSITE IMAGES

What we mean by the term ‘digitally created composite illustration’
is this: a digitally created plant portrait showing the diagnostic and
characteristic 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 and
with all the component parts shown without confusing or obscuring
shadows. An important consideration is that the majority of parts
are completely isolated from any background, and hence are sepa-
rately moveable and scalable. The illustration is largely, but not
necessarily completely, based on digital photography, since digital
versions of other illustrative material can readily be included.
Additional information, such as any textual component of title
block, 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-PROCESSING
One of the major advantages of digital imaging is the relative ease
with which images can be edited using a wide range of highly
sophisticated 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 the
possibilities for further adjustment to a new level. In turn, this en-
ables a new approach to image creation, most notably in the creation
of composite images. Above all, plant parts captured at different
times of the year can each be isolated from their photographic
Fig. 2. Linum usitatissimum L. A: lower portion of stem including root system; B: top portion of stem
with 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 of
fruiting stem; U: seeds. Created by N. Simpson.
backgrounds and juxtaposed within a single composition, just as in
a traditional botanical plate.
A further advantage is the possibility of incorporating digital
versions of other illustrative media within a composite illustration,
resulting in works of digital mixed media. Any combination of
photographs, manipulated photographs, photomicrographs, scan-
ning electron micrographs, digital line drawings and artwork created
using 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 raw
materials.
An incidental benefit of digital images arises from their use of
‘metadata’. This is textual data about the image, and actually stored
within the image itself. Metadata may include useful camera-gener-
ated (EXIF) data such as date, exposure and lens details, but also
many user-editable fields, including title, caption, copyright informa-
tion, the incorporation of GPS data (geoencoding), and many others
which are of potential value to botanists, as well as artists.
FOCUS: THE THIRD DIMENSION

The manipulation of digital images allows some special ‘effects’
which 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 found
in botanical painting. To this end ‘image-stacking’ can be a valuable
technique in certain circumstances.
Anyone who has taken close-up photographs, regardless of sub-
ject, is quickly aware of the very limited depth of focus. Stopping
down the lens aperture increases the depth of focus, but only to a
limited extent, and soon leads to a degraded image because of the
effects of diffraction at small apertures. Photography through the
light microscope, even at very low powers, exacerbates the effect,
especially as there is no option to ‘stop-down’ for increased depth
of 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 power
photomicrographs of a nettle flower, Urtica dioica; the first (fig. 3 a)
being a single photograph and the second (fig. 3 b) being an image
Fig. 3. Male flower of Urtica dioica L. (a. above) single image; (b. below) stacked image of 8 frames.
Created by Peter Barnes.
derived from a stack of 18 frames. The minute depth of focus in
the photomicrograph is all too obvious; the stacked image gives an
impressive improvement. The technique must be used with some
care, as it is easy to introduce artefacts or, if too few image frames
are used, to have an out of focus zone or zones. Nevertheless, it is
a very powerful technique, and one which allows the photographer
to emulate the ‘infinite’ depth of focus achieved by a watercolour
illustrator. McCormack (2006) discusses image-stacking in greater
detail.
ISOLATION OF PARTS AND SHADOWS

Shadows can be confusing and may obscure important detail.
For clarity as well as ease of isolating the plant from its background,
shadows need to be reduced to a minimum. The aim in photo-
graphing the parts is to reduce both the shadows cast on the plant
parts and those cast by the plant on to the backdrop. This can be
achieved by photographing material in even and diffused lighting,
such as the natural light of a bright day, but taking care to avoid
photography in strong sunlight, unless a diffuser is used.
SCALES, JOINING AND MENDING

Photographs incorporating scales to show the size of plants or
their anatomical parts have been used for many years, whether by
using an object of known size, such as a coin, ×1, or scale bars,
all of which are well used conventions. For readily scalable digital
composite illustrations, scale bars are preferable, so that at whatever
size the image is viewed, the scale bar is always automatically and
accurately rescaled. Very large subjects can be photographed in
sections and the resulting photographs ‘stitched’ together, with
great accuracy, to produce a single large, high quality image.
Many watercolour illustrators carefully ‘mend’ damaged parts of
the plant specimen in the course of their work. This is also possible
with digital images, which offer the possibility of also saving an
un-retouched copy of the photograph. Simpson (2005) shows
an example of mending directly from photographs, using the ex-
ample of a Lathraea clandestina leaf, while graphic artists, such as
Steve Buchanan working in the US, have created highly realistic
computer-generated plant illustrations, which serve to show the exten-
sive scope available for such mending of parts, should the situation
require it.
LAYERING
Overlap 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 illustrations
of Ross-Craig (1948–73) for example, show this convention. It is
equally valuable to the digital illustrator, who has the additional
possibility of re-arranging, and even reversing, the overlap, such
that the part hidden underneath can be brought in front. See Fig. 5,
where overlap is used effectively to show a range of autumn colours
in Liquidambar leaves.
COLOUR
Colour is traditionally considered, by botanists, to be secondary to
plant structure as a distinguishing feature for the purpose of
identification and hence the importance of detailed line drawings.
Nevertheless, the accurate recording of colour has always been an
important feature and indeed, it is noteworthy that Curtis’s Botanical
Magazine has employed coloured illustrations since its establishment
in 1787, and Desmond (1987) confirms that plates were coloured
by hand until 1949.
Compared to watercolour painting, photography can provide
greater and more reproducible colour accuracy. A far greater
amount of colour information can be very quickly recorded, as the
image is made, than is possible for an artist to either observe or
portray in a painting, whether painted at the time or later from a
colour chart reference.
Simpson (2005) showed the use of a ‘colour key’ within digital
composite illustrations, to give colour references for the notable
parts. This can be useful for illustrating cultivars, where colour can
be diagnostic and to accompany herbarium specimens where colour
may be lost on drying. For the colour recording in the examples
shown, the colour-reference used was the RHS Colour Chart (1995
edition) which was created as a standard reference for recording
colour in cultivated plants. Examples of a colour key can be seen
in fig. 2 (Linum) and fig. 4 (Arum).
The accuracy with which colour is recorded in the illustrations
is dependent on having a fully colour-calibrated system, from
the computer used for editing, to the subsequent processes of
printing or, indeed, any computer on which the image may be
viewed.
Fig. 4. Composite images of Liquidambar styraciflua L. (above) and Arum maculatum L. (below),
Created by Niki Simpson.
BACKGROUNDS
There are two types of background to note; the background against
which the plant parts are photographed and the background against
which the final composition is compiled. For the former, the
conventional background for close-up photography has been black.
Most often this is black cloth, usually velvet for its light absorbing
qualities. Using black overcomes the problem of confusing shadows
cast on the background and dramatic results can be obtained, es-
pecially for showing up pale and delicate plant parts, photographed
at 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 found
by the authors to be best, though white parts photographed against
a white background make no more sense than very dark parts against
a black background. For very pale or translucent parts a neutral
mid-tone background is suggested.
For the background on which to compile the component parts
into the digital composite, the convention of a white background
is borrowed from traditional botanical artwork, with the end result
that the plant parts are portrayed positively against white, which is
after all how we perceive plants and how we instinctively expect to
see them in illustrations. The use of isolated photographic parts
displayed on a white background has been much used by the pub-
lisher, Dorling Kindersley, in educational publications, but never
taken to what we see as its logical development, as a full botanical
composite.
FLEXIBILITY
Digital techniques allow the easy rearrangement of the component
images 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 card
or a horizontal rectangle for viewing on a monitor. Individual image
components can be omitted, perhaps for a children’s book, or new
components added as material becomes available. Indeed as improved
parts become available, they can be substituted, and the redundant
part simply deleted at the touch of a button. Of immense benefit
to the artist, is the fact that if a mistake is found, corrections do
not entail starting the entire illustration all over again.
The technique is thus highly versatile, offering a flexibility that
is simply not available to the watercolour artist. For example, Simp-
son (2007a) shows the re-arrangement of parts to create a horizontal
format version of an illustration, the use of individual parts at vari-
ous scales, as well as how the information content of an illustration
can be increased, by including a colour key, ‘time bar’ and symbols
designed specifically for use in this type of digital composite
illustration.
Flexibility is one thing: it would be a mistake to suppose that it
is a simple matter to produce a high-quality end-product. It requires
considerable observation and attention to detail, much planning
and research before starting, the eye of a botanist for selection of
appropriate material, the eye of an artist to achieve an effective
and attractive arrangement on the page, together with a competent
photographic technique to produce satisfactory raw materials from
which to start. Equally, it is by no means a rapid technique; the
arrangement must be on the one hand botanically coherent and
logical so that the image is both comprehensive and representative
and, on the other aesthetically pleasing. The composite digital
image may take as much time as, or more than, the equivalent
watercolour illustration. (See Appendix for an idea of the time and
effort involved).
To date, few examples of composite digital botanical images have
been published, but examples are given by Simpson (2005), Simpson
(2007a), Simpson (2007b), Knees et al. (2007), and the latest work
on the bryophytes of Germany by Lüth, fascicle 3 (2006) and fascicle
4 (2007). Bailes (2006) and Sander (2007) include early examples
created in 2004 and 2005, of Ilex aquifolium (page 12) and the hybrid
larch, Larix × marschlinsii, (plate 4) respectively.
DRAWBACKS
As with most techniques, there are some limitations and it is worth
setting out the drawbacks of which we are aware. There will be
situations in which photography-based work, for some reason,
cannot adequately either capture or portray the required botanical
information, for example, where illustrations are to be created from
herbarium specimens. Good material is essential: it must be fresh and
complete and above all typical of the taxon to be illustrated; it should
also be reasonably photogenic. A limited amount of mending can
be achieved, but largely incomplete or wilted material can not be
‘revived’ as it might be by a watercolourist, so careful selection and
preparation of material is all the more important.
Generally speaking dissections are done simply so that parts can
be viewed with a handlens or examined under a stereomicroscope,
but producing results that are good enough for close-up photography
or photomicrography, takes dissection to higher levels of planning,
precision, patience, as well as speed, so that photography of the
plant part is achieved before discolouration sets in.
Some may suspect that talk of ‘manipulating images’ might lead
to the introduction of falsehoods or other artefacts. This is of course
quite possible, but no more so, and perhaps even less so, than with
drawing or painting. In either case, one has to take the accuracy
of the image on trust, though it is difficult to see any advantage to
be gained by deliberately mis-representing the subject. The illustra-
tion of Linum usitatissimum (fig. 2) demonstrates the extent to which
the visual photographic truth of a plant can be digitally recorded
and depicted, where the only manipulation has been the isolation
of parts from their backgrounds.
More likely is the inadvertent omission or mis-representation of
some detail. Hairy surfaces are notoriously difficult to represent in
line drawings or paintings and may pose a problem in photography
too. When digitally isolating an image from its background, it is not
easy to retain an accurate representation of hairs overlapping the
margin of a leaf or petal, for example. In general, it can be done,
but it requires great care with lighting, background, and subsequent
manipulation. In a few instances it may be necessary to photograph
difficult image components against a darker, rather than a white
background and for that part to retain its own individual background
within the composite. (see example of part H in fig. 2, Linum).
Equipment costs are in a different league from those of the wa-
tercolour illustrator. A good digital camera, preferably a digital
single-lens reflex type with appropriate lenses and remote release
cable, a sturdy tripod and/or a copying stand are the essentials.
Add to that a fast computer with plenty of memory, together with
a high quality, preferably calibrated, monitor and appropriate
graphics software packages, capacious back-up facilities, and the
costs become significant. With the desirability of periodic hardware
and software upgrades, as well as associated IT support, mainte-
nance and security, cost is a major deterrent to freelance digital il-
lustration work.
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 portion
of fruiting stem. Created by N. Simpson.
APPLICATION TO FIELD WORK
Digital photography has brought considerable opportunities to
field botany, especially in allowing many hundreds of photographs
to be taken, capturing images of plant habits and habitats, as well
as of anatomical close-up details of plants. Colour and form infor-
mation can be recorded which otherwise would be lost on pressing
and drying the material as herbarium specimens. While it can be
seen that the techniques we have mentioned are more appropriate
to the studio or laboratory than to the field, an effective record can
be 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 lighting
conditions, non-photogenic specimen, etc.) to photograph all the
required diagnostic features on the spot, there is no reason why any
such ‘elusive’ features should not be measured and sketched, and
on return to base be redrawn (with reference to the herbarium
specimen in the usual manner), scanned and then incorporated in
the final digital composite illustration along with the photographic
parts.
TAKING IT FURTHER
The compositing technique described here is highly appropriate
to printed output, whether in the form of book or journal illustra-
tions, greetings cards, fine art prints, etc. However, it is even better
suited to on-line viewing and publication and this opens up further
exciting possibilities in the form of interactivity. Some initial steps
in 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 potential
for the increased accessibility of botanical detail. In an appropriate
software environment, provided the original image components are
of sufficiently high resolution, ‘virtual magnifiers’ or localised zoom
tools are readily added, allowing viewing of the image and hence
plant 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 a
new level. Envisaged links might lead, for example, to further images
and related data, and to other relevant material on the internet.
CONCLUSIONS
The 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 is
not really new at all. It is simply an evolutionary step in botanical
illustration, and also in botanical photography. In bringing both
disciplines together, this new type of botanical illustration aims to
combine the best of the tried and tested conventions of traditional
illustration with the latest photographic and image processing tech-
nologies available, to produce highly detailed digital illustrations
which 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 used
for the description of new taxa and also to supplement herbarium
specimens. Indeed, the attainable detail and accuracy is such that
the results may be referred to as ‘image specimens’.
While this type of illustration cannot be said to be pure invention
in 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 twentieth
century. It has affected and refined our vision, but it is, itself, still only a
mechanism, a mirror for the mind.’ In the twenty-first century, the digital
illustrator 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 an
increase in the quantity and quality of visual data captured. At the
same time, digital imaging technology allows a significant advance
in the communication of those data, in the form of visual scientific
plant descriptions.
With this first publication in the Curtis’s Botanical Magazine of a
digitally created composite plant portrait, the authors are aware
that the results will be judged in part by the print quality of a digital
illustration converted for printing by the traditional 4-colour method,
and, for those able to view the published article on-line, by the
clarity of the much-reduced resolution of the digital file. It should
be borne in mind that the original high resolution image is a very
large file (approx. 49MB TIFF) and can be printed at up to A2 size
or viewed on a high quality monitor, on which the displayed image
can be enlarged to reveal detail not discernible in smaller versions.
We make no apology for any less than perfect results in trialling
these images at this stage, as this type of digitally created image
looks to the future; to digital printing, interactivity and global access
by a worldwide audience.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. We would like to thank the staff at both the Linnean
Society library and the RHS Lindley Library (Wisley) for their help and, for
permission to use her image, Liz McDonnell/Natural England for the scanner
composition of Pimpinella saxifraga.
We would also like to acknowledge the Queen Elizabeth Scholarship Trust for
funding training for Niki’s original 2003–2004 experimental digital botanical
art project, without which this work would not have been developed.
REFERENCES
Bailes, C. (2006). Hollies for Gardeners. Timber Press, Portland.

Blossfeldt, K. (1935). Art Forms in Nature, Zwemmer, London.
Blunt, W. & Stearn, W.T. (1994). The Art of Botanical Illustration. New Edition.
Antique Collectors’ Club, London.
Clebsch, B. (2005). Subtle Salvias for Summertime Shade. Pacific Horticulture
66(3): 22–26.
Coventry, B.O. (1923-30). Wild Flowers of Kashmir. Series I – III.W. Thacker &
Co., London.
Desmond, Ray. (1987). A Celebration of Flowers. 200 years of Curtis’s Botanical
Magazine. Collingridge, London
Elliott, Brent. (1996). A question of image. The Garden. 121(8): 486–489.
Godet, J.-D. & Neumann-Neudamm, J. (1984). Blüten – der einheimischen Baum-
und Straucharten. Arboris-Verlag, Bern.
Heath, F.G. (1878). 4th edition. The Fern Paradise. George Routledge, London.
Heath, F.G. (1877). The Fern World. Sampson Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington,
London.
Knees, S.G. Laser, S., Miller, A.G. & Patzelt, A. (2007). A new species of Barleria
(Acanthaceae) from Oman. Edinburgh Journal of Botany 64(1): 107–112.
Koltnow, J. (2005). A different kind of illustration: using a scanner to create
flower images. Pacific Horticulture 66(3): 22–26.
Leggat, Robert (1997). John Dillwyn Llewellyn. In http://www.rleggat.com/
photohistory/history/llewelyn.htm [accessed October 2007].
Lüth, Michael. Bildatlas der Moose Deutschlands. Fascicle 1(2004 to fascicle
4(2007). http://www.milueth.de/Moose/Bildatlas/atlas%20engl.htm. [ac-
cessed November 2007].
McCormack, John, (2006). Beatific vision. RPS Journal. 146(7): 326–329.
McEwen, R. (1988). Autobiographical Fragment, in Rory McEwen, 1932-1982
The botanical paintings. Royal Botanic Gardens Edinburgh.
Metzing, D. (2004). A quick and easy method for documenting flower charac-
ters. Haseltonia. Yearbook of the Cactus and Succulent Society of America. 10: 30–37.
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. Alexander’s 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: 174–192. Tallinn. (in Estonian followed by an English summary).
Saunders, G. (1995). Picturing Plants. Zwemmer in association with the Victoria
and Albert Museum, London.
Simpson, N. (2005). Botanical illustration goes digital. The Plantsman n.s. 4(4):
208–215.
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 Tulip
Yearbook 2007-2008. in association with the Royal Horticultural Society.
Talbot, H.F. (1839). Some Account of the Art of Photogenic Drawing. Philosophical
Magazine 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.
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 suitable
background and in such a way as to reduce shadows to a minimum.
4. Either take careful measurement notes or incorporate a scale into the
photographs 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 full
original 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 the
optimum combination and emphasis to the illustration.
13. Re-visit the plant at later dates to capture details which occur at different
times of the year and incorporate these later parts into the composition.
14. Enhance the clarity of any parts with digital artwork if necessary and
digitise 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. Letter
or 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, provenance
details such as accession number, collection number, map location, etc.
17. These stages complete the creation of the actual composite image, but
there are a few more very important stages: the image needs to be checked
thoroughly by both botanist and artist, any metadata required needs to
be added in the image file and then lastly, the final version needs to be
named, dated and saved. Most important of all is to create a back-up
copy of the file.

Simpson & Barnes - Curtis25-3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Simpson & Barnes - Curtis25-3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHOTOGRAPHY AND CONTEMPORARY BOTANICAL

Niki Simpson and Peter G. Barnes

Summary. New applications for photography in the scientific illustration of

The tradition of botanical illustration can be traced back through

THE USE OF PHOTOGRAPHY FOR BOTANICAL ILLUSTRATION

CONTEMPORARY DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY

OUR APPROACH TO DIGITAL COMPOSITE IMAGES

FOCUS: THE THIRD DIMENSION

ISOLATION OF PARTS AND SHADOWS

SCALES, JOINING AND MENDING

Bailes, C. (2006). Hollies for Gardeners. Timber Press, Portland.

You might also like