The Importance of Photoperiod and Colors

[kev apsley]

Who has seen a vast improvement in coloration since cutting back on your photoperiod? How long was your photperiod prior to cutting back and what is the length now?

Who has seen a vast improvement in coloration since increasing the length of your photoperiod? How long was the photoperiod prior to increasing it and what is the length of it now?

 

[kev apsley]

^

 

[trido]

My SPS colored up a bit when I cut my MH's from 9 down to 7 hours.
At the time I was running reeflux 12k 400's

 

[mpoletti]

I have never ran my tank more than 6.5 hours on each ballast.

 

[rxx2]

At 6 hours, colors were very light and bleached looking. Improving since I cut back to 4 hours.

 

[Eagleeyez5]

Well with mine, I increased the intensity by changing out 250 watt MH with the new 400 watt 20ks.....

I have not noticed a difference in color, but I have noticed a difference in growth. Things slowed for the first little while, and then exploded with growth. Now that the corals are well adjusted to the new lights, I also increased the photo period by an hour. There was still no change in color, but growth has increased.

IMO Alk {being perfect and stable}, and an average{7-9} light cycle {and obviously good Actinics} will bring the best colors out of your corals.

Granted this is only from 'my' experience, but I did not notice a difference when I went to 9 hours instead of 7.

 

[Eagleeyez5]

I think it is a great poll, but maybe add two more selections,

Same photo time, but more Watts made a huge difference

Same photo time, but LESS watts made a huge difference

 

[Merfin70]

Yes, I'd be interest in some commentary on changes in Watts or just watts vs. photoperiod. I run a 150w over my tank. Shouldn't I have a longer photoperiod than someone running a 250w or a 400w over a similar depth tank?

 

[kev apsley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14282390#post14282390 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Eagleeyez5
I think it is a great poll, but maybe add two more selections,

Same photo time, but more Watts made a huge difference

Same photo time, but LESS watts made a huge difference

good points, sorry I missed those in my thinking

 

[Emster]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14282955#post14282955 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Merfin70
Yes, I'd be interest in some commentary on changes in Watts or just watts vs. photoperiod. I run a 150w over my tank. Shouldn't I have a longer photoperiod than someone running a 250w or a 400w over a similar depth tank?

Yes IMO very much so. The lower the watts the longer the photo period. Also the lower the K value the shorter the photo period.

 

[dots]

Depends on type of lighting and quality......this will have an effect of the factor of quantiity.

Is this where I mention lighting is only 1/3rd of the equation?

 

[Stanley-Reefer]

I have 2 150s and 2 pc 96 w over my 90 runs 12 hours total--actinics on at 0800, MH on 0900, MH off 1900, actinics off 2000

Same for my 3 250s and 4 96s in the 175.

Color and growth is good on over 55 SPS colonies between the two systems. Is that too long?

 

[kev apsley]

this is sorta the trend I personally was hoping to see, the early numbers show that when people cut back on their lighting schedule their colors began to pop..it will be interesting to see if that continues, hopefully we can get a lot more voting to establish an even more defining trend

 

[kev apsley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14284291#post14284291 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dots
Depends on type of lighting and quality......this will have an effect of the factor of quantiity.

Is this where I mention lighting is only 1/3rd of the equation?

very true! I was more or less making the presumption that the people voting had more than sufficient lighting, maybe too much lighting dare we say, where they needed a lot less of a photoperoid to reach full saturation

 

[Kip]

if you are running purigen, carbon, GFO, dosing carbon sources... or any other form of nutrient reducing/water clarifying methods... its a good idea to shave some time off of your photoperiod... particularly with the higher wattage and lower kelvin bulbs mentioned above.

i'll throw in reflectors too.... now that i am running 3D reflectors i currently dont feel i need as long of a photoperiod.

lotsa variables.

 

[serpentman]

I noticed improved colors when I bumped down from 400W 20K's to 250W 20K's.

 

[ros_sco]

My corals changed for the better when I went from 10 hours to 8 hours.

 

[wishntoboutside]

same photo period but switched salts and thing went nuts

 

[sfsuphysics]

the overall time of light increased, but that was due to the addition of t5s, and the time the intense lighting reduced from 9h to 5.5h and my colors exploded on me.. but then again the bulbs changed, and the flow changed, and there can be any number of reasons.

However I do believe the current "all halide" light is on, light is off, theory is one of those outdated ones.

 

[kev apsley]

call me crazy but I definitely see a trend developing here