Reefer1225
New member
Prediction : This thread will be closed if this continues. Let's get back to LED tanks 1 year or longer pics
It's time, let's see those SPS tanks using LEDs 1 year or longer
- Thread starter cthedaytrader
- Start date
- Status
bigbuckdown
New member
This seems like more of a thread on whos footballs are bigger LMAO... Who cares. Start a thread on a debate on LEDs vs t5 vs mh. This was to show pics of LEDs for a year of use my goodness. I for one wanted to see some pics on others LED system and you guys are ruining it over who is right and who is wrong. This dumb argument wont settle anything but you have to write another post because you guys heads are so heated you cant stop. Does reef central have a waaaaaaahbulance thread cause you all should be in it LMFAO
MedRed
Active member
Your viewing angles are completely different than what Ehsan's tank shows... and the fact that it's a different camera does nothing more than provide the correct explanation for why I could tell the two pics were not equitable.
Yes, I'm well aware of that and already ran it if you reread carefully:
Pskiller doesn't work. As I said, you can tell the difference because the "red" zoas (center) from the editted pic are showing as brown in your uneditted pic.
Yes, but if you saw a nice LED pic, you'd say they did a lot of post work - much like what you're trying to do with Ehsan's tank.
With Ehsan's tank I was stating that the pics were not equitable... which is true. I assumed photoshop for the differences but it was a different camera. My iphone will make pictures look different than my point and shoot which will be different from my DSLR. Quality aside if I posted two pictures that were of different origin with grossly diffrent color results, you'd be asking questions yourself... as you did with the simple nuances of the touched up photos in my original string of pics.
Not asking about praising or blasting... In my hurry to post and get to Vivid I confused that pic as the same coral in your top down pic.
Ooh!. Getting personal again.
I have had TMC LED strips about 5 years ago.
I had first generation Aquaillumination led's about 3 years ago.
I have had Pacific Sun 200W Anniversary edition led's over my smaller tank (8ft) for, probably 15+ months.
I have had more experience than most with LED's.
I don't read car magazines..... anymore! :lol2:
Mo
I apologize for that statement.
This isn't about quarreling. This is a debate with real merits. I'm not an advocate of sticking one's head in the sand.
3 years ago the debate on LEDs was about PAR. I didn't buy into that argument as the data proved otherwise and proceeded to invest in LEDs. Even when the Radions came out, there were many detractors crying that the PAR was so much less than other LED fixtures. My corals responded to that with better color and better growth.
With all of the people that I convinced to go LED, to go AI, to go Radion, in my days of advocacy (and I was a BIG advocate) I feel it's necessary that adopters see both sides of the coin and weigh the facts. LEDs have a lot of pluses, and I've posted many times about missing some of them. One of their minuses is that they aren't as good as traditional lighting for coral coloration.
It cost me over $1,000 in losses to sell off my LED fixtures as well as another $800 to pick up and equip my new fixture. If I can present the facts so that someone else doesn't have the same experience and have to lose money or be stuck with LEDs, I'm A-OK with that. Some people are fine with the color LEDs produce. I'm saying that if LEDs are good for some people, there is still a "better" as far as color is concerned.
I'm off to the movies.
karsseboom
New member
The good argument medred has is that he is not some guy with no prior experience on LEDs. He has tried 2 major LEDs units and come to the conclusion based on his coral colors and growth that mh/t5 are better. It look real bad when a prior led advocate come out and admits thing are better with mh/t5. The one thing that bothers me about the whole thing is that most the newer reefers are buying LEDs and coming on here and arguing there lighting with very experienced people. I'm seeing a pattern with people just Coming into the hobby not knowing any better and getting sucked into the latest and greatest LEDs cause they don't remember the old time and all they know is what's te big rave.
Another thing I noticed was people comparing a led lit tank using zeovit. All zeovit tanks have those nice candy colors, trust me it not the LEDs people. Take a look at the zeo forums and you will see some of the most amazing colors.
Another thing I noticed was people comparing a led lit tank using zeovit. All zeovit tanks have those nice candy colors, trust me it not the LEDs people. Take a look at the zeo forums and you will see some of the most amazing colors.
Wow this thread seems to have gone a little of the direction the OP wanted. I think he just want to see tanks with leds that have been on along time. That being said I do have to chime in as I have been following this thread and from my own personal experience is T5 blows led out of the water for color and growth. I had a 210 running a 4 foot ati 6 bulb sunpower over the tank. This is a 6 foot tank that is 29 inches tall with an inch sand bed. I a purple and orange cap frags on the sand bed. These where maybe 1.5-2 inch frags. Under the t5 which was 9 inches above the water line. These frags grew amazingly and the colour was amazing. I decided to jump on the led bandwagon. The first fixtures I bought were three 60w mix of cool white and royal blue with 80 degree optics.. The growth stopped and the corals browned out. The only way I could get them to color up was to move the corals up to the near top. Even after changing out the fixtures to 108 w led fixtures with a mix of colors they never really grew and in order to keep the colour the sps had to be high up. My point is even with a smaller size t5 fixture I was able to grow coral anywhere in the tank with out worry and no issue with colours and with leds I had to really pay attention to placement. You can argue all you want, all I am is saying my own personal experience. I believe the best is a combo of T5 and LED which is what I am shooting for over my next tank. Heck Check out the new David Saxby he is using both.
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2195651&highlight=david+saxby
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2195651&highlight=david+saxby
bullitr
broke but happy
I used led to save money, I have descent results and very happy with it
But Metal halide is still best go ask Ching Chai
If you want to argue then argue with the master !!!!
T5 produce good color but still missing something
To me if I have the money I will use metal halide with LEDs just like the master.
But Metal halide is still best go ask Ching Chai
If you want to argue then argue with the master !!!!
T5 produce good color but still missing something
To me if I have the money I will use metal halide with LEDs just like the master.
gromero
New member
wait... the pic you originally posted was the color adjusted pic. I didn't realize that. The latest string of pics were all the original pics that were unmodified. I posted those for purpose of removing the difference of color correction with the original string of pics.
Here's a clean copy. This shows EXIF manipulation because the file is resized, but there are no photoshop tags. no crop, no rotate, no color change.
I may have missed that with MO. I apologize for my statement and take it back. I'd definitely like to see pics of said frag tank and what the frags look like that have been under LED for a time vs the same pieces under MH and/or T5 for a time.
And most people do post photos with post work done. That is not something deplorable unless the colors are really blown out. You can see with my original string of pics with post work on both sets of LEDs vs MH+T5 that the MH still looks better and that LEDs will require more post work to still not look as good.
I really do have to run to Vivid. I may not be back until after a movie I'm going to. It still remains that corals look better under traditional lighting than they do under LEDs. As many lawyer tactics have been used to take the focus away from that point, it's still the reality.
As I was trying to explain to you earlier, that you clearly do not understand, is that a photo that has not been "manipulated/altered/photoshopped" is completely irrelevant.
Is the photo you have posted a true representation of what your eyes see because it is straight out of the camera? No.
What exposure/white balance did you use with your 7D? Auto, or just custom straight to RAW. Why do you think this is the best representation of true colours? It's not.
MedRed
Active member
I just used the auto setting with AWB. It's not the best representation of my tank. I have a lot of challenges with photographing my tank as most of the SPS is captured from the underside or darkside. Everything in the foreground of the front pillar isn't receiving direct light from the fixture. That's why I have zoas there and so high up. It looks like that pillar is in the middle of the tank, but it curves towards the glass with mere inches of space between it and the glass... just enough to get my mag float by.
I'm not opposed to post work on photos. I am opposed to blowing colors out in order to portray something that's not there.
In my tank, I'm more concerned with the colors with LED and the colors after LED. That's what I'm comparing.
you are arguing one thing and I am arguing another.
gromero
New member
No. I'm trying to explain to you that the two photo's of the same coral are from two different camera's and have therefore been processed differently giving a different look. Whether they have a photoshop tag or not is irrelevant .
Which one is a true representation of how the coral really looks, who knows? But what we can say is the coral looks very nice.
Which one is a true representation of how the coral really looks, who knows? But what we can say is the coral looks very nice.
- Status
