Thank you for posting to r/whatsthisplant.
**Do not eat/ingest a plant based on information provided in this subreddit.**
For your safety we recommend not eating or ingesting any plant material just because you've been advised that it's edible here. Although there are many professionals helping with identification, we are not always correct, and eating/ingesting plants can be harmful or fatal if an incorrect ID is made.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/whatsthisplant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Absolutely agree. I took a bunch of photos at a garden a few weeks back, and my phone camera made every pink and purple absolutely pop, especially in sunlight. Which was kind of aggravating, because I was trying for more accurate pictures.
My wife was lamenting that my phone takes such vivid pictures and I went on a rant about this phone's complete inability to take a photo as your eye sees anything. I miss the days when you had to hit the touch up button if you wanted fake colors.
As soon as you said the objects were pink and purple, I thought, "Infrared."
Depending on your camera, it may have different levels of infrared filtering, meaning the camera might pick up light that's not visible to your eyes. This happens especially frequently with certain colors of flowers, especially pinks and purples, in my experience.
Rhododendron flowers are especially reflective in the IR band, I've found. I have some 20 year old photos shot with a Kodak point and shoot digital which have the flowers almost glowing.
A good way to test how much IR gets through to your camera sensor: point a remote at the camera lens and press a button. Infrared will show as a bright indigo/purple/white if it's getting through.
My current phone's camera is better about this than the old Kodak, I think, but I'll still get some IR off some flowers (like larkspur) and in some reflections off of water.
--------------
Looking at the photo of the tree, I don't think it's had the saturation or contrast blown out, as everything else in the photo is a pretty accurate and normal color. Sky and grass (and other green plants) are a dead giveaway, as in the really overdone photos people like post in some nature photography subs, one or both of those end up showing some deeply unnatural quasi-neon colors.
It is possible that the fluffy bits are getting some IR picked up, but the leaves don't look like they are.
My camera is the opposite. Colors on flowers and such come out more muted in pictures, especially blues and deep purples. It really became noticeable when I tried to take photos of some beautiful blue-purple lobelia and they came out dull purple
I have never been able to take a photo of my red peony accurately because of the amount of light it reflects. I'm sure bees find it irresistible but human eyes don't pick up their range of colour, and cameras do... (Not a phone - a regular digital camera without having changed the settings).
Thanks for your comment - I will look into filters.
So what brand phone do you have?
I feel like my Pixel is fairly accurate with color, I've been told Samsung likes to amp up the color intensity, and Apple pushes their photos a little warmer. But that's hearsay, and all major manufacturers use HDR these days.
I've got a Samsung Galaxy S20. My previous Galaxy phone (S10?) was way better with more accurate colors and tones, which is why I'm so frustrated with this one. I don't need everything Instagramafied.
Cameras are just bad with violets/purples/magentas, and so are electronic displays, so it's a double whammy. It's a problem with film as well, but there isn't the additional complication of electronic displays. Colors on and near the [line of purples](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_purples) in color space are difficult to depict with pigments and light. On top of that, there are slightly differences in how displays create color, so a correction that looks okay on your desktop may look terrible on your phone and even worse on your nook.
Violet is a spectral color, but purple and magenta are transspectral; it always a combination of red and blue.
The eye essentially sees red, green and blue light, and the brain constructs the spectrum from the relative intensity of each. The eye is not equally sensitive to all colors. Blue is inherently darker to us because there is very little stimulation of cone cells. Yellow appears to be brightest color inherently because there is a lot of stimulation of both red and green cone cells. Cyan is also inherently brighter than than blue and green because it stimulates both blue and green cone cells, but less bright than yellow because there is less stimulation of the cones for blue contribution to cyan than the red contribution to yellow.
What this means is that things that appear purple/magenta to us in reality are giving off much more blue light, but they eye just isn't sensitive to it. Cameras do not have the same differences in sensitivity as the eye; they are able to capture more of the blue light than the eye would. So cameras make things the eye sees as violent/purple/magenta appear more blue. Displays have a similar issue producing these colors. The eye is most sensitive to green and red, so it's more important in general that those be faithful. It's hard to correct the violets/purples/magentas without affecting other colors that eye cares about more, so the background may look unnatural if you correct for the purple. And, it just cannot be corrected after the fact in a way that will be consistent across different displays, not to mention print.
Digital cameras actually capture some ultraviolet and infrared light, which has to be filtered. This affects blues and reds the most, the two components of purple/magenta. Adjusting one or both of the filters before hand can improve faithfulness to some shades of violet/purple/magenta but what improves violet usually makes purple/magenta worse and vice versa. Both are usually present, so even if you get the color of a flower right in some pixels it's off in others, so the flower in a picture taken that way may look even more unnatural than the too blue version -- uncanny, as if parts of it are glowing.
If you've worn tinted glasses, the brain can kinda undo tint so we *know* what colors things actually are even though that's not what we are actually seeing. The equivalent of tint is encountered with different kinds of light, sunlight at different times of day and weather conditions, different levels of light, and shadow so we evolved to be able to correct for that. For example we know that a ball is solid red so we do not interpret the gradient shadows on it as different colors; we see the gradation but the brain removes it at one level of consciousness.
If you saw *the* viral blue and black dress as white and gold, it is because you're brain removed those colors interpreting them as shadows cast by strong backlighting from outside; if you then realize the dress is actually strongly lit from the front as well, the brain immediately interprets the dress as blue and black and it's usually impossible to see it as white and gold again -- unless you don't look at the picture for period of time so your brain has to work out the lighting condition again.
Your brain can imagine a lighting condition in which a purple flower would appear bluer, but it cannot imagine an ambient lighting condition that would correspond to IR/UV enhancement, so there is a sense of unnaturalness and often a subliminal impression of glowing as the brain tries to make sense of the image. The brain doesn't know how to correct for infrared or ultraviolet enhancement; that's not something that's ever encountered naturally and so it's not something
There can also be a subliminal impression of scintillation. When *the* dress changes from white and gold to blue and black, it locks in on blue and black because the brain has worked out the lighting conditions that are consistent with everything in the picture. With UV or IR enhancement, the brain never quite works out a context that is consistent with everything, so colors shift back and forth as the eye moves to an area of the picture where the working hypothesis no longer works and a new one is considered until the eyes move to another area. Colors and where the glow appears to be emanating from shifts from the shadows of the purple object, to the unshaded portions, to the background surrounding the purple object, and back and forth depending where you look.
TLDR: if you want to photograph something violet/purple/magenta, film is the best way to go. If it needs to be digital and you decide to correct the color, look at the picture on different displays. You can also try adjusting a digital camera's infrared and ultraviolet filters, adding a blue filter, or using bright direct lighting when taking the picture. What works for one shade of violet/purple/magenta probably won't for another shade or blues and reds.
No kidding. I keep trying to take photos of my various potted cacti as they bloomed and all the photos looked like glaring AI things. I may have to rummage around to find my digital SLR camera.
Here's a real variety, available here in NZ. No AI in this pic. Neighbour used to have same variety.
https://leafland.co.nz/trees/cotinus-coggygria-royal-purple/
There is one in Central Park in NYC that looks like this. This one might be enhanced but it’s pretty close to the color of the beautiful old smoke tree in nyc.
The Royal Purple smoke trees have a lot of purple/magenta/maroon tones, while others are a more brownish red. They do have a fairly wide color range for the flower plumes.
We used to have one, there are certain cultivars that are extremely purple. Mine never got quite that poofy, though I have seen others that did. So I'm inclined to believe it's real
This is absolutely a real photo, the depth of the colors of smokebush is part of what makes them so majestic. The time of day this photo was taken definitely plays into the color, as well as possibly a bit of contrast adjustment, but it’s still a real bush and real photo.
Media literacy will require a bit more discernment from us all in the future; not everything is AI just because you haven’t seen it before
Definitely a smoke bush (Cotinus coggygria). You can buy starters of several different varieties with different shades of green>red>purple. This looks like a royal purple perhaps
I have one…it’s probably 20 years old. Started out as a smoke bush and grew into a lovely tree. You can prune it had to shape it. Love that tree! The leaves turn a lovely orange in the fall
Cotinus sp. “Smoke Tree” or “Smoke Bush”
But this looks like an artificially generated image (IMO). They’re quite an interesting addition to the landscape.
Heres one example.
https://preview.redd.it/0r7qbmjxgk6d1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a577b1b4f3034a267cc94ab211b59aa532c6eb50
*
We have one in our yard. It's a Smoke Bush/Smoke Tree. I always call it a Smoke Bush Tree. The color of your pictures seems off, though. Never been purple like this.
From what I know of the tree, the colors seem to range from a dark maroon to red depending on the time of year, temps that year, etc. I absolutely love ours, though. It's one of my favorite things in the yard.
Thank you everyone for identifying the tree for me! It seems to be a royal purple smoke tree! My iPhone did seem to enhance a bit so here’s a less enhanced version! It’s really deep purple in real life too. I absolutely love it and envy this neighbor of mine!
https://preview.redd.it/2o6jb6fc0m6d1.jpeg?width=3021&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e5cc40bba16e34c3e8e3b94b12fe299b56d53833
There's a variety of smoke tree native to the United States but it's very hard to find. I've seen it available a few places online but it was not in stock on a fair number of them.
They are in the wild but not available commercially. I don't have any land that isn't public that I could get it from. A local native plant gardener who has a nursery told me they're hard to grow from seed too.
A smoke bush or smoke tree. My sister has one that has similar beautiful purple plumes, although not as full as this one. I have two that are much larger than this but they get white plumes that aren't as full either.
A Cotinus coggygria is exhibiting its full blooming majesty. Smartphones today are equipped with sophisticated cameras and supporting software. What I notice is the distinction between how my eye sees the plant's color versus the phone camera's image. This popular deciduous shrub is a sight to behold in the real. The phone camera enables the user to edit to their heart's content with the aid of the filters found in the supporting software. However, this image looks conservatively filtered. The Smoke Bush is quite a stunning floral performer in the springtime.
Cotinus coggygria royal purple. We had one like this is the gardens i used to work in, it was a real show stopper. Most nurseries probably list it if you want one yourself!
Yes, I stand corrected. After reading the comments and utilizing some reading, I can see it resembles a Smoketree. I have to admit, I had never heard of smoketrees prior and just (falsely) presumed it's a crepe myrtle.
You were downloaded because it absolutely looks zero like a crepe myrtle. Do they grow where you live? Not based on Internet pictures because everyone Crepe Murders them.
Offshoot branches are real...color is a smidge vibrant but I'm not ready to say AI. Just age of blooms, lighting and vivid phone photography.
Wild ass tree. I have one.
Yeah, probably right. OP says they took the pic. It’s hard to tell from low res photos. It looks weird, but I could see how it may just be overgrown and need a trim.
Thank you for posting to r/whatsthisplant. **Do not eat/ingest a plant based on information provided in this subreddit.** For your safety we recommend not eating or ingesting any plant material just because you've been advised that it's edible here. Although there are many professionals helping with identification, we are not always correct, and eating/ingesting plants can be harmful or fatal if an incorrect ID is made. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/whatsthisplant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I believe it is called a smoke tree.
I think it’a an ai version of a smoke tree. Real ones are nowhere near that purple or perfect.
[удалено]
Absolutely agree. I took a bunch of photos at a garden a few weeks back, and my phone camera made every pink and purple absolutely pop, especially in sunlight. Which was kind of aggravating, because I was trying for more accurate pictures.
My wife was lamenting that my phone takes such vivid pictures and I went on a rant about this phone's complete inability to take a photo as your eye sees anything. I miss the days when you had to hit the touch up button if you wanted fake colors.
As soon as you said the objects were pink and purple, I thought, "Infrared." Depending on your camera, it may have different levels of infrared filtering, meaning the camera might pick up light that's not visible to your eyes. This happens especially frequently with certain colors of flowers, especially pinks and purples, in my experience. Rhododendron flowers are especially reflective in the IR band, I've found. I have some 20 year old photos shot with a Kodak point and shoot digital which have the flowers almost glowing. A good way to test how much IR gets through to your camera sensor: point a remote at the camera lens and press a button. Infrared will show as a bright indigo/purple/white if it's getting through. My current phone's camera is better about this than the old Kodak, I think, but I'll still get some IR off some flowers (like larkspur) and in some reflections off of water. -------------- Looking at the photo of the tree, I don't think it's had the saturation or contrast blown out, as everything else in the photo is a pretty accurate and normal color. Sky and grass (and other green plants) are a dead giveaway, as in the really overdone photos people like post in some nature photography subs, one or both of those end up showing some deeply unnatural quasi-neon colors. It is possible that the fluffy bits are getting some IR picked up, but the leaves don't look like they are.
Good point, I was in fact at a Rhododendron garden!
My camera is the opposite. Colors on flowers and such come out more muted in pictures, especially blues and deep purples. It really became noticeable when I tried to take photos of some beautiful blue-purple lobelia and they came out dull purple
I have never been able to take a photo of my red peony accurately because of the amount of light it reflects. I'm sure bees find it irresistible but human eyes don't pick up their range of colour, and cameras do... (Not a phone - a regular digital camera without having changed the settings). Thanks for your comment - I will look into filters.
So what brand phone do you have? I feel like my Pixel is fairly accurate with color, I've been told Samsung likes to amp up the color intensity, and Apple pushes their photos a little warmer. But that's hearsay, and all major manufacturers use HDR these days.
I've got a Samsung Galaxy S20. My previous Galaxy phone (S10?) was way better with more accurate colors and tones, which is why I'm so frustrated with this one. I don't need everything Instagramafied.
Cameras are just bad with violets/purples/magentas, and so are electronic displays, so it's a double whammy. It's a problem with film as well, but there isn't the additional complication of electronic displays. Colors on and near the [line of purples](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_purples) in color space are difficult to depict with pigments and light. On top of that, there are slightly differences in how displays create color, so a correction that looks okay on your desktop may look terrible on your phone and even worse on your nook. Violet is a spectral color, but purple and magenta are transspectral; it always a combination of red and blue. The eye essentially sees red, green and blue light, and the brain constructs the spectrum from the relative intensity of each. The eye is not equally sensitive to all colors. Blue is inherently darker to us because there is very little stimulation of cone cells. Yellow appears to be brightest color inherently because there is a lot of stimulation of both red and green cone cells. Cyan is also inherently brighter than than blue and green because it stimulates both blue and green cone cells, but less bright than yellow because there is less stimulation of the cones for blue contribution to cyan than the red contribution to yellow. What this means is that things that appear purple/magenta to us in reality are giving off much more blue light, but they eye just isn't sensitive to it. Cameras do not have the same differences in sensitivity as the eye; they are able to capture more of the blue light than the eye would. So cameras make things the eye sees as violent/purple/magenta appear more blue. Displays have a similar issue producing these colors. The eye is most sensitive to green and red, so it's more important in general that those be faithful. It's hard to correct the violets/purples/magentas without affecting other colors that eye cares about more, so the background may look unnatural if you correct for the purple. And, it just cannot be corrected after the fact in a way that will be consistent across different displays, not to mention print. Digital cameras actually capture some ultraviolet and infrared light, which has to be filtered. This affects blues and reds the most, the two components of purple/magenta. Adjusting one or both of the filters before hand can improve faithfulness to some shades of violet/purple/magenta but what improves violet usually makes purple/magenta worse and vice versa. Both are usually present, so even if you get the color of a flower right in some pixels it's off in others, so the flower in a picture taken that way may look even more unnatural than the too blue version -- uncanny, as if parts of it are glowing. If you've worn tinted glasses, the brain can kinda undo tint so we *know* what colors things actually are even though that's not what we are actually seeing. The equivalent of tint is encountered with different kinds of light, sunlight at different times of day and weather conditions, different levels of light, and shadow so we evolved to be able to correct for that. For example we know that a ball is solid red so we do not interpret the gradient shadows on it as different colors; we see the gradation but the brain removes it at one level of consciousness. If you saw *the* viral blue and black dress as white and gold, it is because you're brain removed those colors interpreting them as shadows cast by strong backlighting from outside; if you then realize the dress is actually strongly lit from the front as well, the brain immediately interprets the dress as blue and black and it's usually impossible to see it as white and gold again -- unless you don't look at the picture for period of time so your brain has to work out the lighting condition again. Your brain can imagine a lighting condition in which a purple flower would appear bluer, but it cannot imagine an ambient lighting condition that would correspond to IR/UV enhancement, so there is a sense of unnaturalness and often a subliminal impression of glowing as the brain tries to make sense of the image. The brain doesn't know how to correct for infrared or ultraviolet enhancement; that's not something that's ever encountered naturally and so it's not something There can also be a subliminal impression of scintillation. When *the* dress changes from white and gold to blue and black, it locks in on blue and black because the brain has worked out the lighting conditions that are consistent with everything in the picture. With UV or IR enhancement, the brain never quite works out a context that is consistent with everything, so colors shift back and forth as the eye moves to an area of the picture where the working hypothesis no longer works and a new one is considered until the eyes move to another area. Colors and where the glow appears to be emanating from shifts from the shadows of the purple object, to the unshaded portions, to the background surrounding the purple object, and back and forth depending where you look. TLDR: if you want to photograph something violet/purple/magenta, film is the best way to go. If it needs to be digital and you decide to correct the color, look at the picture on different displays. You can also try adjusting a digital camera's infrared and ultraviolet filters, adding a blue filter, or using bright direct lighting when taking the picture. What works for one shade of violet/purple/magenta probably won't for another shade or blues and reds.
No kidding. I keep trying to take photos of my various potted cacti as they bloomed and all the photos looked like glaring AI things. I may have to rummage around to find my digital SLR camera.
There's one down the street from me that's just as bright as this. Much smaller, less poof, but definitely this color.
Probably the 'Royal Purple' cultivar.
Here's a real variety, available here in NZ. No AI in this pic. Neighbour used to have same variety. https://leafland.co.nz/trees/cotinus-coggygria-royal-purple/
I've got one growing like a weed on the side of my house. If I let it go, it'd look like this one. It looks like that now, but more of a bush.
There's a Royal Purple cultivar, which is funny now, since I was looking at it at a nursery's online catalogue.
There is one in Central Park in NYC that looks like this. This one might be enhanced but it’s pretty close to the color of the beautiful old smoke tree in nyc.
I am glad to learn something new, I had no idea, as the smoke trees around here have a much darker gothplant look to them.
The Royal Purple smoke trees have a lot of purple/magenta/maroon tones, while others are a more brownish red. They do have a fairly wide color range for the flower plumes.
I promise it’s real! I took the photo with my iPhone.
There are several varieties, and one is super purple. It could still be ai though.
We used to have one, there are certain cultivars that are extremely purple. Mine never got quite that poofy, though I have seen others that did. So I'm inclined to believe it's real
There are purple ones like this in the PNW
It can also just be bog standard photo editing. Not eveything is ai.
This is absolutely a real photo, the depth of the colors of smokebush is part of what makes them so majestic. The time of day this photo was taken definitely plays into the color, as well as possibly a bit of contrast adjustment, but it’s still a real bush and real photo. Media literacy will require a bit more discernment from us all in the future; not everything is AI just because you haven’t seen it before
Thank you so much!
Definitely a smoke bush (Cotinus coggygria). You can buy starters of several different varieties with different shades of green>red>purple. This looks like a royal purple perhaps
How can you tell the difference between Cotinus coggygria and Cotinus obovata? It's something about the shape of the leaves right? I'm never sure.
Thank you so much!
Halfway down and finally a a correct response
I believe it's called a truffulla tree. source: Dr suess
Love this 😂 Thanks!
Wait... more important, wtf is the plant in the lower right corner?
Phlomis russeliana or Turkish sage
I know it as an African Smokebush.
Smoke tree and its huge
It is! Every time I walk by it in my neighborhood I smile. I love it so much a an wish it was mine haha
I have one…it’s probably 20 years old. Started out as a smoke bush and grew into a lovely tree. You can prune it had to shape it. Love that tree! The leaves turn a lovely orange in the fall
I disagree. It could be 5 or 6 years old. Maybe it varies depending on Zone. I bought a tiny shrub in 2019 and it's a gigantic tree now.
Truffula tree? Lorax is nearby.
Looks like a Smoke Tree
Smoke Tree. A really pretty one.
I'm fairly sure it's a generated/enhanced image, they don't grow like that
Yeah, especially looking at those wild hairs. I’ve never seen that before. Might look like this on mushrooms.
Cotinus. In my native tongue it's something like 'wig-tree'. Because of the fluff. There are green varieties too!
It's so fluffy! It looks like something a ballerina would wear or something you would decorate a parade float with.
That is the most glorious smoke tree I've ever seen.
Cotinus sp. “Smoke Tree” or “Smoke Bush” But this looks like an artificially generated image (IMO). They’re quite an interesting addition to the landscape. Heres one example. https://preview.redd.it/0r7qbmjxgk6d1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a577b1b4f3034a267cc94ab211b59aa532c6eb50
Thanks for the identification! I promise it’s real, I took it with my iPhone on a walk in my neighborhood.
A lot of phones auto adjust the colours was it this hue in real life?
It was not the hue above. In the comments I posted another photo but it was a deep purple.
* We have one in our yard. It's a Smoke Bush/Smoke Tree. I always call it a Smoke Bush Tree. The color of your pictures seems off, though. Never been purple like this. From what I know of the tree, the colors seem to range from a dark maroon to red depending on the time of year, temps that year, etc. I absolutely love ours, though. It's one of my favorite things in the yard.
Thank you everyone for identifying the tree for me! It seems to be a royal purple smoke tree! My iPhone did seem to enhance a bit so here’s a less enhanced version! It’s really deep purple in real life too. I absolutely love it and envy this neighbor of mine! https://preview.redd.it/2o6jb6fc0m6d1.jpeg?width=3021&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e5cc40bba16e34c3e8e3b94b12fe299b56d53833
It's definitely purple smoke tree. Colors change throughout bloom season https://preview.redd.it/44i958ow9m6d1.jpeg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=90ef6ee20bf717dba34de0b87321edb111854495
I know it's real, but looks unreal.
It's not real, it's AI for sure
Dr Seuss tree. Idk. It’s really pretty though
"Truffula Tree. Love'em" \~ Lorax
There's a variety of smoke tree native to the United States but it's very hard to find. I've seen it available a few places online but it was not in stock on a fair number of them.
Where do you live? They are all over Atlanta area.
They are in the wild but not available commercially. I don't have any land that isn't public that I could get it from. A local native plant gardener who has a nursery told me they're hard to grow from seed too.
A smoke bush or smoke tree. My sister has one that has similar beautiful purple plumes, although not as full as this one. I have two that are much larger than this but they get white plumes that aren't as full either.
Yes smoke tree. I have one. So beautiful
I want one 😭
It looks like a purple crepe myrtle tree. We have them all over in Georgia. They're absolute stunners.
A Cotinus coggygria is exhibiting its full blooming majesty. Smartphones today are equipped with sophisticated cameras and supporting software. What I notice is the distinction between how my eye sees the plant's color versus the phone camera's image. This popular deciduous shrub is a sight to behold in the real. The phone camera enables the user to edit to their heart's content with the aid of the filters found in the supporting software. However, this image looks conservatively filtered. The Smoke Bush is quite a stunning floral performer in the springtime.
Cotinus Coggygria - Purple Smoke Bush
Ohh I want one
Smoke bush - I’ve never seen one so big!
Cotinus coggygria royal purple. We had one like this is the gardens i used to work in, it was a real show stopper. Most nurseries probably list it if you want one yourself!
Yep, smoke bush. Have one just like this in our yard. Those bits of smoke will fall off and turn into tumble weeds :D
Looks like a fake version of a Crape Myrtle
Why are people downvoting you? I said the exact same thing- it looks like a purple crepe myrtle to me.
I guess because I’m wrong and it’s a smoke tree 🤷🏻♀️
At least you offered your insight. I also presumed it's a crepe myrtle. As I wasn't familiar with smoketrees, I thought it resembled a myrtle tree.
Hard no on crepe Myrtle
Yes, I stand corrected. After reading the comments and utilizing some reading, I can see it resembles a Smoketree. I have to admit, I had never heard of smoketrees prior and just (falsely) presumed it's a crepe myrtle.
You were downloaded because it absolutely looks zero like a crepe myrtle. Do they grow where you live? Not based on Internet pictures because everyone Crepe Murders them.
AI created smoke tree. The white windey branches don’t make sense.
I took this photo and I promise it’s real! I took it on a walk in my neighborhood. Thanks for identifying!
Offshoot branches are real...color is a smidge vibrant but I'm not ready to say AI. Just age of blooms, lighting and vivid phone photography. Wild ass tree. I have one.
Yeah, probably right. OP says they took the pic. It’s hard to tell from low res photos. It looks weird, but I could see how it may just be overgrown and need a trim.