Thanks again hoovb and Phil. I guess the true identity of this lovely rose will escape me. Unlike in temperate climates, most florist roses sold here are actually field grown. They are planted by local farmers (family-owned farms) in wide and open areas, under significant elevations (mountainous areas) as the microclimate in elevated areas is cooler (still tropical though). The owners of these small family-owned farms really don't know and don't care about the exact rose names. They choose rose plants which grow well own-root, which survive the local climate and soil, and which yield the highest number of cut flowers. They don't grow on greenhouses so they choose well for the lowest cost. These type of roses are usually sold here at wet markets, in parks and even along frequented church sidewalks by small sidewalk vendors. Some florist roses are from large commercial greenhouse companies and are easily identified by their very large bud size, very large leaf size and very long, thick stems. These larger roses are generically called 'Holland' Roses here as contrasted to the 'American' Roses from the local farmers which are much smaller. These so-called 'Holland'/Greenhouse roses are expensive (5 to 10 times more expensive) and so are only sold at specialty flower shops at upscale malls. Even then, upscale flower shops don't know the exact name of the roses other than the generic 'color + Holland rose' pseudo-name. Exact names are only available if you are privy to the company who grows them or know someone who works there and have access to the exact rose names. How I wish the pictures at helpmefind can help but there is just way too much inconsistency from one photo to the other. Color for one, usually varies a lot due to camera limitations and settings as well as due to the fact that those who post them tend to overprocess their images resulting to exaggerated colors and sheen (probably for that website 'appeal'). This doesn't include the fact that colors can vary under extreme lighting conditions (too dark or too bright an environment when capturing the photo). Add to this the fact that computer monitors need to be calibrated and most of those who do post photos and postprocess them don't bother to do so as the site isn't a photography website. tropical

Jean, I'll be 67 in August, never imagined you were older. I don't know if my back problems are severe, but they are definitely slowing me down, am supposed to go to therapy. I struggled to plant some things in pretty big pots which was all I could manage plus 6 bare root roses, last year 2 cherry trees twice because the first ones died in the freeze. I used to work in computers, but these home computers are a whole 'nuther animal, and I try not to mess with anything I don't absolutely have to or want some new software really badly because too much can go wrong fast no matter what they say. I had a setback with my back just hauling my printer (big) home from the shop and hooking it up again where things are really tight under my table. I don't know about calibrating monitors either because I don't want to. Since I got on the net in 97, I'm on my second one, set them all up myself, wasn't into the hardware end of things, and I've learned to do graphics and can do more than someone who majored in it, but I got burned out on it. Then I took up photography seriously, always had a camera, my father got me a film one with the mysterious numbers. I also set them on auto until I discovered a photography forum. They taught me everything I know to the point I've won money on some of my photos but am too old to go professional (plus couldn't take the stress of it), but there is still much to learn and practice. Now with my revived interest in gardening, I've not been able to get out and take many photos, don't mind really. So don't feel bad. I didn't know squat most of my life about cameras. The best of it is I've been able to help and encourage my gdaughter with hers, and she has a long life ahead of her and is thinking of going professional. For college graduation I bought her a better camera than I have, newer model, and it was bandied about why didn't I take the new one and give her mine. I'm happy with mine, that's why. The only thing better about hers is that it has a huge screen. But it takes 10 mp photos, and I don't want them that big, don't have enough memory right now. So it goes. I don't know about patents on lilies, but that one is so striking you could try to propagate enough to sell them. I read a post on here last year where a girl did that and sold them out of the back of her pickup, people snapped them up like crazy, and she made $800, don't know how many plants. Then she lost the mother plant. I hope she was able to find a suitable replacement. Some plants are so unique you can't really replace them. So many have the same name and don't look the same at all, same with roses. I'd better quit bugging you with my chatter. I only pick a few threads here and there that interest me, can't keep up with too many and don't alway chatter so much.

Or because you trusted what you saw online vs. a chip in your hand and a sample in your own space, you missed out on a legitimate contender for a pretty gold. Because you have zero information about the quality of the actual photo, the camera used, the lighting or how the file was saved for the web - or even if the paint color was correctly identified. I can't say it enough, that there is absolutely nothing about viewing color on a monitor that is trustworthy or useful. Anything's possible of course but I think tell ten or so photos I looked at that all told the same story...were likely telling a similar story. I need all the help I can get and online research is the second tool in the toolbox after my fandecks. I look for multiple photos of any color I'm considering and use them to help me narrow down my options, since I'm not inclined to put up a million samples, especially since I'm now paying $10 a sample (!!!) Once my options are a bit narrower, I go to tool 3, start sampling. Unfortunately I can't commit to every chip... I'm now on my fourth gold sample...$40 down the drain already, and I haven't even lifted up a roller, all from small chips I thought looked perfectly nice in the space. I have an unfortunate combo of good color sensitivity and pickiness with low prediction of how a paint chip will translate to an entire room. And laziness over painting, which I detest.

You know, Linelle, Apple used to be like that--just set the gamma and white point and you were in a decent place,as long as you weren't doing prepress or something, but that Apple is long gone, alas. It died before Steve Jobs did. I'm sure yours is good enough, but don't be too surprised in threads where everyone is complaining about, say, a pink cast to tile, and you can't see it. These days it seems like every copy of the OS they use for imaging has different settings. I see wildly different colors on the same machine models. On the other hand, with the emphasis shifting to mobile, proper calibration is a very low priority in most situations.