Astilbe cultivar flowers photographed in visible light (left), ultraviolet light (middle), and infrared light (right).
In visible light the flowers appear a deep pink colour.
In ultraviolet light the tonality of the flowers appears to be pretty similar to their tonality in visible light.
In infrared light the flowers appear brighter, with very little variation in tone between the different parts of the flowers.
Comparison of the flower of Campanula persicifolia 'Telham Beauty' photographed in visible light (left), ultraviolet light (middle), and infrared light (right).
In visible light the flower appears a light violet colour with a white three lobed stigma in the centre.
In ultraviolet light the flower still appears pale, but the stigma is much darker.
In infrared light the flower's tonality is similar to that in visible light. The stalk and leaf appears brighter.
Epilobium palustre (Marsh willowherb) photographed in visible light (left), ultraviolet light (middle), and infrared light (right).
In visible light the flowers appear pale pink with darker pink veins. The pollen in the centre of the flowers is pale yellow.
In ultraviolet light the vein patterns on the petals appear lighter than the petals. The centre of the flower exhibits a dark nectar guide.
In infrared the flowers have a similar tonality to their appearance in visible light. The veining on the petals is still visible, but not quite as pronounced. The seed pod, stalk and leaves appear much brighter.
Comparison of Jacobaea vulgaris (Common Ragwort) flowers photographed in visible light (top), ultraviolet light (middle), and infrared light (bottom).
In visible light the plant has bright yellow flower heads with slightly darker centres.
In ultraviolet light the centres are much darker.
In infrared light the centres of the flower heads appear brighter, as does the foliage.
Comparison of Lobelia cultivar flowers photographed in visible light (top), ultraviolet light (middle), and infrared light (bottom). The flower on the right is missing its top left lobe.
In visible light the flowers are a deep red.
In UV light the flowers appear much darker. Areas of damage on the petals show up quite visibly.
In IR light the flowers appear brighter, as does the foliage in the background. The damage on the petals is very difficult to make out.
Oxalis tetraphylla (Four-leaved Pink Sorrel) photographed in visible light (top), ultraviolet light (middle), and infrared light (bottom).
In visible light the plant has pink flowers with a green centre. The flowers are quite strongly veined, with the veins leading in towards the centre of the flower. The leaves appear green with a darker, red-green coloured area at the base of each leaf.
In ultraviolet light the centres of the flowers are quite bright, with a much darker centre. The veining present in visible light is also visible in ultraviolet. The leaves are a single tone.
In infrared light the flowers have little variation in tone. The same veining present in visible and ultraviolet light is visible, but only just. The leaves are a single tone, and also appear brighter than they do in visible or UV light.
Gladiolus × hortulanus 'Priscilla' flower photographed in visible light (top), ultraviolet (middle), and infrared (bottom).
In visible light the flower is pale pink with a yellow centre and deeper pink edges.
In ultraviolet light the area near the edge of the petals appears quite dark. The centre of the flower (roughly corresponding to the pale yellow area in visible light) also appears dark.
In infrared light the flower does not have much difference in tone across its petals, appearing very plain.
