FunkieReefJunkie
Member
Some twenty years ago colors of coral were not like what is now offered. They were more subdued. What changes have occurred? New colonies from different reefs? New methods of inducing unusual colors?
The difference in coral color now than twenty years ago.
- Thread starter FunkieReefJunkie
- Start date
kfisc
Well-known member
I'm not sure if I can correlate much from personal experience, but assuming this is true, better lighting and technology in general? I'd also like to think that with the contraction of the hobby, there may be fewer but much more dedicated and well-informed reef keepers.
This does remind me of discovering the nasty practice among scam dealers of using dyes, which I'm sure still goes on.
This does remind me of discovering the nasty practice among scam dealers of using dyes, which I'm sure still goes on.
vlangel
Premium Member
Preference in lighting is somewhat in the eye of the beholder too. I am an older reefer and when I got into the hobby, our options were power compact fluorescent, VHO fluorescent and metal halide or a combination. We generally tried to simulate a morning look and then high noon conditions of an ocean reef. There definitely was not the 'pop' of color that LEDs produce but we were happy because even those of us that snorkel or scuba dive do not typically see that 'pop' of color in nature.
I personally still kind of prefer a more natural look so I use more white light than a lot of reefers. There's no right or wrong, but just different preferences.
I personally still kind of prefer a more natural look so I use more white light than a lot of reefers. There's no right or wrong, but just different preferences.
FunkieReefJunkie
Member
I’ve noticed some heavy grafting getting unusual combinations. I too did metal halides way back. It looked more natural. The fad at the time I was active was the coveted blue Oregon tort. Now it’s a rainbow of corals with ridiculous names. Lol. I’ve never seen any of my corals glow before using those heavy actinic LEDs.
The way I understand it is not only lighting, but also nutrients. Back in the day it was a sin to attempt to keep SPS with nitrates and phosphates in a tank. Those low nutrients, from what I understand, caused the more pastel colorations. Now it’s reccomended to keep nitrates at 5-10 and phosphate somewhere around .03 or even higher.
But I do think lighting has a ton to do with it. I still run metal halide and corals color up way differently than when I get them in LED. Most coral, especially soft bodied LPS, often look very bleached in my tank than when I get them from LED tanks where they look healthy.
I also lean towards a more natural look during the day time but do have blue LED strips to add a slight pop of color
But I do think lighting has a ton to do with it. I still run metal halide and corals color up way differently than when I get them in LED. Most coral, especially soft bodied LPS, often look very bleached in my tank than when I get them from LED tanks where they look healthy.
I also lean towards a more natural look during the day time but do have blue LED strips to add a slight pop of color
Kevin Guthrie
Member
Yeah, the popularity of neon corals coincided with the availability of LED fixtures. Prior to them the best you could do was actinic fluorescents and 20k metal halides; neon colors pop way more under UV LEDs.
Big E
Premium Member
What's happening now is the lip stick on a pig era.
More colorful corals is due largely to a wider range of selection of corals. More collection areas offered more diverse and colorful species.
Aussie corals were huge with some new corals like Strawberry shortcake, ect.
There have also been other new additions like more zoa species, mushrooms, varied colors of LPS . These weren't available 15 years ago. None of that has anything to do with LEDs or any new tech. We have a lot more colorful corals to choose from.
The blue leds do help visually for more pop as supplemental lighting for some corals, but I have not seen one single coral that has been around for decades color up better due to tech or LEDs. It's all visual perspective and has migrated to vendors taking macro pictures under heavy blue lighting and photo shop tricks.
Phone pictures also perpetuate this myth. Use a DSLR set up right and you aren't going to see the tripe that shows up in countless threads now.
The nutrient numbers people target has not changed in 20 years. We didn't have the tech available to accurately measure these levels as we do now, so the misconception was that zero was a target. It never was...........plenty of people bleached and starved corals before under low nutrient conditions but we just didn't have the tools to measure low levels accurately like we do now. If a titration kit read zero the assumption from neophytes was that they had zero nutrients and this was far from the case.
More colorful corals is due largely to a wider range of selection of corals. More collection areas offered more diverse and colorful species.
Aussie corals were huge with some new corals like Strawberry shortcake, ect.
There have also been other new additions like more zoa species, mushrooms, varied colors of LPS . These weren't available 15 years ago. None of that has anything to do with LEDs or any new tech. We have a lot more colorful corals to choose from.
The blue leds do help visually for more pop as supplemental lighting for some corals, but I have not seen one single coral that has been around for decades color up better due to tech or LEDs. It's all visual perspective and has migrated to vendors taking macro pictures under heavy blue lighting and photo shop tricks.
Phone pictures also perpetuate this myth. Use a DSLR set up right and you aren't going to see the tripe that shows up in countless threads now.
The nutrient numbers people target has not changed in 20 years. We didn't have the tech available to accurately measure these levels as we do now, so the misconception was that zero was a target. It never was...........plenty of people bleached and starved corals before under low nutrient conditions but we just didn't have the tools to measure low levels accurately like we do now. If a titration kit read zero the assumption from neophytes was that they had zero nutrients and this was far from the case.
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
A lot of corals like zoanthids and palythoa for example were just as colourful 20 years ago, but we used two 03 Actinics and drowned them out with MHL. While I enjoy the kooky fluorescence of 440-450nm blue light, I prefer the shimmer and vibrance of full spectrum lighting. Yes, I'm in the over 50 club.
Collection stations are spread far and wide now, so new varieties are available. back when a orange to grapefruit sized colony was $40, it wasn't worth the extra effort to collect "rare" corals. Now that hobbyists are willing too pay $100 for one polys or $1000 for a 1" acropora frag, it's a different world.
The facilities where these corals are held before export in Indonesia have improved greatly as well. Twenty years ago, water quality, chemistry, temp and salinity was horrible. They used natural seawater that invariably had a high salinity due to evaporation. Fresh top-up water was of questionable quality.
Another factor is the eerie blue light we use. Most corals are partially bleached so the colours we see are not natural. Ultra low nutrient tanks and chemical additives that contain copper have contributed further to the pastel bleached coral trend.
Many of the coral images we see in the hobby are shot from the top with orange filters, macro lenses and intense photoshop adjustments. What we see is not necessarily what we get. A hyped name and high price tag is enough to convince hobbyists that what they have is "special".
I'm sure modern foods and supplements have some influence on coral colour. There are some tanks that are way over the top with gaudy Bill Cosby sweater colours. They look like blobs of gelato in the substrate. Not my aesthetic, but I'm over 50 like I said.
Collection stations are spread far and wide now, so new varieties are available. back when a orange to grapefruit sized colony was $40, it wasn't worth the extra effort to collect "rare" corals. Now that hobbyists are willing too pay $100 for one polys or $1000 for a 1" acropora frag, it's a different world.
The facilities where these corals are held before export in Indonesia have improved greatly as well. Twenty years ago, water quality, chemistry, temp and salinity was horrible. They used natural seawater that invariably had a high salinity due to evaporation. Fresh top-up water was of questionable quality.
Another factor is the eerie blue light we use. Most corals are partially bleached so the colours we see are not natural. Ultra low nutrient tanks and chemical additives that contain copper have contributed further to the pastel bleached coral trend.
Many of the coral images we see in the hobby are shot from the top with orange filters, macro lenses and intense photoshop adjustments. What we see is not necessarily what we get. A hyped name and high price tag is enough to convince hobbyists that what they have is "special".
I'm sure modern foods and supplements have some influence on coral colour. There are some tanks that are way over the top with gaudy Bill Cosby sweater colours. They look like blobs of gelato in the substrate. Not my aesthetic, but I'm over 50 like I said.
Yodeling
Premium Member
Honestly, I think the selection of corals has improved a lot as well. I've seen corals come and go in terms of popularity, and there is always that new "high end" acro that everybody has to have. Also, you no longer need a $5k DSLR setup to take good photos. People now can take some amazing pictures with their iphones and some $20 clip-on filters.
aaliize
New member
agree
Similar threads
