1

Practical Bud Observation, Measurement and Analysis

Observation

T he aim is to secure “good” pictures of “good” buds at least once a day, as far as
possible at the same time of day and under identical conditions each day.

A “good” bud is one to which the path geometry can be applied

without too many problems: a bud with a loose “segment”, for example, or
with obvious distortion of one sort or another will clearly not be selected
for observation, unless the imperfections can be dealt with in
some way. The Australian Oak at the top right can be rescued
by “image surgery.” In general a good bud, like the Scottish
Beech on the left, will have a relatively smooth profile – but
what “relatively smooth” actually means in practice is a
matter of judgement and experience: some buds, such as the
Maple from California at the bottom right, by nature have
“stepped” or otherwise somewhat sculpted profiles and some
of these can fall within our geometric “grasp”, so to say.
There are a few tricks we can apply to them at measurement
time.

A “good picture” of a bud is, essentially, one in which the bud’s profiles stand in
clear contrast to the background—and to the bud’s own, interior parts, for that matter—so
that they can be accurately located and measured. The picture above of the Beech is a
good one in this sense. The picture of the Oak is less good, but useable.
Shadows, both on the bud itself (as on the Oak to the right, which
has “lost” its lower left profile to a shadow) and cast by the bud on
the background such that they butt against the bud image, present
difficulties, and are to be avoided.
A sheet of glass behind the bud, but some distance in front of the
background, is useful in this respect: transparent things cannot
support shadows. The glass can
also help to station the bud at a
standard distance from the camera
lens, for focus and so on, and can bear both the scaling
marks needed for calibration, and a note of a bud’s
identity, either in felt-pen on the glass, or on a slip of
paper clipped to the sheet alongside (not behind!) the
bud. A bit of graph paper with the ID written on it
neatly meets both of these needs.
The glass also helps abate another nuisance: namely, back-scatter. This is specular light
scattered from the background on to the profile of the bud. It can over-ride the profile’s
 2
native colour, spoiling the contrast and making location of the profile uncertain. The
further the bud is from the background, the smaller the back-scatter.
As the glass becomes soiled in time, the sheet should be readily removable for cleaning—
and in this connection glass is to be preferred over plastic materials, as it resists
scratching.
The camera’s flash is convenient for standard illumination,
but if the source is built into the camera’s body, it is not often in
the best place to do the job we
want it to do, and can’t be
moved. Many cameras, if not
most, are not designed for close-
up flash-photography. And the
flash, even if it is well placed, is
generally far too bright. One can
in such a case either limit the
flash aperture with black electricians’ tape, or reduce the
light from a full aperture by overlaying it with layers of
white paper or finely-woven white cloth. Sometimes one
can “bounce” the light from a misplaced flash to where it
is needed using judiciously placed masks and reflective
surfaces. The rig sketched above worked quite well. Strips of Perspex can sometimes be
used to conduct the light, fibre-optic-fashion, from the flash source to the bud. The strips
can be (gently) heated and bent into shape by hand. See one result above.
In many cases, it will probably be easiest to provide an
alternative means of illumination. Two torch
(flashlight) bulbs flanking the lens of the camera, but
away from it to right and left far enough to ensure that
reflections of them in the glass are not seen by the
camera, will be found to work very nicely, eliminating
those shadows mentioned above. Of course, the bulbs
need a power supply. Some engineering is always
needed! Banks of LEDs can also be used.
Though silhouettes are possible, and work very well when only the profiles of
the buds are wanted, they do hide structural details of the buds that may be wanted for
study some day, so it is probably wisest to take the pictures with the buds frontally lit,
“full moon” style. Some buds so photographed do present measurement problems, but
these can usually be coped with fairly easily, so, in the interests of posterity, “full moon”
photos probably represent the best option. After all, the photos can only each be taken
once. It will gall if we one day find that we want to review structural information from
archived buds, and then find that we have prevented ourselves from obtaining it!
The background used in rigs to date has so far generally been either matt black
or matt white. If there are shadowed edges on the bud, it can be difficult to distinguish
these edges from a black background. If the background is white, the edge-shadows
cease to be a problem, but instead, the afore-mentioned problem of back-scatter can
become quite significant. Recent work has suggested that neither black nor white is
 3
necessarily the best choice. Buds have a dominant colour. It is probable that the best
background is one with a saturated version of the complement of the buds’ dominant
colour, or, at any rate, with a very different colour from the bud. Then a filter (either on
the camera lens, or in computer software) favouring the dominant colour should help to
“lift the bud clear” of its background. First attempts along these lines have shown
promise.
Digital cameras are the best choice for bud photography: after the initial
outlay, they cost next to nothing to run. There is essentially no processing delay, and the
pictures are in a form immediately suited to the computers on which most of the
measuring and other processing is likely to be done. Images can readily be transmitted
by wire to others. They can be compressed and conveniently archived. The resolution of
digital cameras, good as it now is, is still not as good as film cameras, but this does not
matter. Digital resolution is already better than it needs to be for the bud work. 640 by
480 is more than sufficient. Even a web cam will do at a pinch, and nowadays, very
small but good TV cameras are widely and cheaply available, along with interfaces to
computers, which will allow bud observation to be automated. Automatic observation is
as yet little developed, and holds much promise.
Many relatively inexpensive and otherwise entirely suitable digital cameras suffer from a
major deficiency from our point of view: they cannot, unassisted, get sufficiently close to
the buds. Only top-of-the-range—and most expensive—cameras seem to be able to do
this. This generally means that an extra lens needs to be attached, somehow, over the
original lens of such cameras. Some come with rings for the purpose. Most do not. This
is a moment for the amateur engineer!
Lenses have been attached successfully with dental wax, of all things. Frames have been
fashioned in various ways and in various materials and secured to their cameras by
various means. However the extra lens is attached, it must be perfectly stable in use.
And if the new lens is not a fully-corrected camera lens in its own right (one might try a
simple hand magnifying lens, for example), there will be trying problems with optical
distortion, chromatic aberration, and so on. Optical distortion is liable to compromise
bud measurement, especially if the bud cannot be held in one place in the field of view
from picture to picture. An attempt is being made to address the problem of optical
distortion in the software, and it may eventually succeed, but, all things considered, it is
best to get hold of a properly manufactured camera lens, if one can.

The attitude (tilt) and whereabouts of the bud in

the image frame are not of too much concern (given a good
lens), if they fall within reasonable limits, say about thirty
degrees tilt either way, and the inner three quarters of the
frame area – unless it is wished directly to compare one
image with another, in which case attempts should be made
to standardise both. This is a fairly tricky affair, to which
we will return in a moment, in connection with another,
more important, matter.
 4

By far and away the most essential thing to

keep constant from photo to photo of a bud is its
aspect. In one sense, it does not much matter which aspect
is selected at the outset, but it is vital that that aspect, once
chosen, is rigorously preserved. As far as is practically
possible, the bud must always have the same orientation
around its long axis with respect to the camera.
Experience suggests that for usefully consistent and valid
results the aspect should be held to within at most plus or
minus two degrees.
Of the various tricks and devices that can be deployed to help preserve aspect, probably
the most effective is simple practise. As will be seen fairly immediately when sessions
are attempted, a great many circumstances intrude themselves on practical photography!
One deals with them, one by one, each on its merits, as best one can, and over time, one
establishes working, and workable, habits. In due course, the camera will come to be
presented to each bud in the same way each time almost automatically. It is actually
rather remarkable how precisely the procedures come to be repeated, without conscious
effort. It says much for our unconscious faculties!
It is possible to attach a “cross peg” permanently to the
stem of a bud (not to the bud itself), that engages in some
suitable way with an attachment to the camera lens- barrel or
body, so as to keep the orientation of camera to bud precisely
constant. This is tricky, and is not as permanent as one would
like, but, when it works, it works very well. The cross peg (a
match stick serves well!) takes care of the other, less important,
orientations at the same time. The cross peg can be wired in
place if the stem is a woody one, or it can be “super glued”.
But the wire eventually works loose—and the super glue may
murder the bud!
Strapping a bud with thin wire to a slide of Perspex has been tried, with
some success. The slide is dropped into a receptacle on the camera
for the photograph. There was some anxiety about confining the bud
in such a gross fashion, but, in the event, the buds seemed not to mind
too greatly! However, the wire bonds do obscure the profiles where
they cross them, which can interfere with measurement, and the bud
can and does squirm in its bonds.
As may have been gathered, this constant orientation business
presents us with a difficult, technical problem, to which no wholly
satisfactory solution has yet been found, other than human
adaptability in the field. There is room for ingenuity here. If anyone
finds a good solution, please let us all know what it is! Lawrence
 5
Edwards has tried yet a different tack: he took five or six pictures per bud per session,
and either averaged the measurements from them all, and found the  of this “composite”
bud, or averaged the individual  values. He said this yielded good, reliable and
consistent results, “the best he’d managed.”

We end this section on photography and observation with a remark about

daylight. Why do we prefer not to use it? The main reason is its variability. Direct
sunlight is simply too bright; daylight generally creates unpredictable shadows; it is not
available at night – and so on. Our bud measurements are best served by controlled,
constant and favourable lighting conditions, and, as part of achieving them, we actually
need to exclude ambient light by enclosing the bud in a nearly light-tight shell for the
moment of photography.

Graham Calderwood
November 2002
Aberdeen, Scotland