Was I too mean here?

[Justin74]

No not mean, there were a couple snide comments. And definately was a little rain over the little parade But, you had a very valid point. To me, those bulbs couldnt portray a blue coral more unrealistically. But then again 20k is far from realistic and I know youve ran those in the past which is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I remember a while back you stated matter of factly that your shots had no actinic, but then you were using a 20k bulb! Which kinda made me chuckle to be honest, as there aint a whole lot of difference between the two other than the peaks of white in the 20k spectrum.

And on the topic of ethics.... When has there ever been an established sense of ethics in this hobby? This industry reaks of scruples and unethical practices. Pic any online "botique" vendor and I'll show you an ethical dilemma.

Bottom line though, when he takes his corals out of the tank there blue, as would be the case with yours, I know . So then it comes down to viewing pleasure, doesnt it?

Oh crap, I hope I dont sound too mean!!:lol: hehe, Karl, your a good man, when you talk I listen and I respect your input as its obviously backed by experience. Doug's right though about forum talk, I'll be the first to say that as Im all gesture and expressions, and I **** alot of people off :lol:


-Justin

 

[mpoletti]

So, who is going to PM him and see if we can get a couple of frags here in Sacramento. I have been looking for a nice blue milli for about four months.

 

[Unarce]

I've tried different 20K bulbs in the past, but always with an HQI ballast, hoping they wouldn't be as blue as advertised. I've used the Radium, Megachrome Blue, and Phoenix, and none had the 450nm spike of the Reeflux 10k. At the most, I'd be a grey pot. There's also a huge difference in the way 20k bulbs and actinics accentuate pigments, with actinics just being short of the UV/blacklight effect.

Generally, though, most people can tell what's real and what isn't, because of the background color or neon. Not so much with the Reeflux 10k, which has two huge spikes that balance the bulb, possibly warranting CoralVue to name it a 10k bulb.

 

[Maximus]

Man, you were an ***!!

 

[Unarce]

Oh, just wait until I start rippin' a new one for you know who.

 

[Avalanche Wolf]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9228051#post9228051 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Unarce
Thanks, guys!

I don't try to pretend that I know more than anyone. I really don't know jack****, though.

I'll try not to say anymore.

MORE MORE I SAY !!! You schooled me for sure ! A lot of great information presented there , thanks for the write up !

 

[tacocat]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9231227#post9231227 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Justin74
I remember a while back you stated matter of factly that your shots had no actinic, but then you were using a 20k bulb! Which kinda made me chuckle to be honest, as there aint a whole lot of difference between the two other than the peaks of white in the 20k spectrum.

Justin,

I'm going to have to disagree somewhat. I started using 20K bulbs. I think the 20K makes your tank look like it's deeper than it really is. It also brings out more reds and greens. Believe it or not, acro colors look better under 10K to 14K, while LPS look best under 20K.

Still, the primary reason I use 20K....................................

micro and macroalgae have a harder time growing under it versus 10K and or 14K. Over time and through personal observation, I have noticed that:

1. Many 20K users don't complain about algae problems, even ones with bad husbandry

2. Many people report a corresponding jump in algae growth when their bulbs shift towards yellow.

 

[Reefugee]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9231227#post9231227 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Justin74
But then again 20k is far from realistic and I know youve ran those in the past which is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I would argue that 20K is probably more realistic than 14K or 10K. All the following pictures were taken from 40ft - 100ft underwater without any actinic supplement.

 

[Unarce]

Originally posted by Avalanche Wolf
MORE MORE I SAY !!! You schooled me for sure ! A lot of great information presented there , thanks for the write up !

Thank you, Avalanche!

 

[Unarce]

Originally posted by Reefugee
I would argue that 20K is probably more realistic than 14K or 10K. All the following pictures were taken from 40ft - 100ft underwater without any actinic supplement.

I was a very strong advocate of blue lighting at one time, because of similar pictures. The flaw in my thinking though, was the actual depth that most of our corals are collected in. Very rarely do divers venture any deeper than 30 feet, and most are collected at around 10 feet.

At this depth, they're pretty much exposed to full-spectrum lighting. The argument that DaddyJax brought on about the photosynthetic absorption peaks, was also one of my personal favorite arguments when I was using bluer lights, was supposedly done in the 70's. The belief now is that the absorption of light by zooxanthellae is much broader than originally thought.

 

[Justin74]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9233199#post9233199 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tacocat
Justin,

I'm going to have to disagree somewhat. I started using 20K bulbs. I think the 20K makes your tank look like it's deeper than it really is. It also brings out more reds and greens. Believe it or not, acro colors look better under 10K to 14K, while LPS look best under 20K.

Still, the primary reason I use 20K....................................

micro and macroalgae have a harder time growing under it versus 10K and or 14K. Over time and through personal observation, I have noticed that:

1. Many 20K users don't complain about algae problems, even ones with bad husbandry

2. Many people report a corresponding jump in algae growth when their bulbs shift towards yellow.

tacocat:Im not quite sure on exactly what your disagreeing with here My thoughts and statement was theres not that much difference between 20k and actinic, in fact some actinic bulbs are rated at 22k.

Minh: a perfect example of what's relative. I see those pictures that you took a perfect example and rendering of 14k light. My 20k to me does not look like that, as the pictures seem to have more of a tinge of green to them than a purplish blue light. Another thing is I dont notice the flourescing and vivid coloration quite as much in pictures as those as we see in our tanks.

I think that's it :strange:

-Justin

 

[tacocat]

J-Seven,

I'm disagreeing on whether the actinic punch on 20K is realistic or not. There is quite a bit of difference between 20K and actinic lighitng. Heck, it hurts my eyes to look at actinic lighting. As far as actinic goes, there is a big time difference between PC/T-5 and VHO actinic. That's another topic.

In my setup, my eyes percieve it as realistic. My tank is Starphire and I'm using Ushio 20K DE on magnetic HQI ballasts. The color rendition is pretty white.

OTOH, one of my buddies has AB 20K on Icecaps, that tank looks seriously blue.

Karl (you angry person), you lose quite a bit of red and yellow wavelenghts even at 5 ft. I'd bet a 95 CRI bulb would look awesome on a 5 ft deep tank.

Anyway, it would seem that Reeflux bulbs excite blue pigments.

 

[Justin74]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9234309#post9234309 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tacocat
J-Seven,

I'm disagreeing on whether the actinic punch on 20K is realistic or not. There is quite a bit of difference between 20K and actinic lighitng. Heck, it hurts my eyes to look at actinic lighting. As far as actinic goes, there is a big time difference between PC/T-5 and VHO actinic. That's another topic.

In my setup, my eyes percieve it as realistic. My tank is Starphire and I'm using Ushio 20K DE on magnetic HQI ballasts. The color rendition is pretty white.

OTOH, one of my buddies has AB 20K on Icecaps, that tank looks seriously blue.

Karl (you angry person), you lose quite a bit of red and yellow wavelenghts even at 5 ft. I'd bet a 95 CRI bulb would look awesome on a 5 ft deep tank.

Anyway, it would seem that Reeflux bulbs excite blue pigments.

But your disagreeing with something that I never said
I merely stated that 20k is far from realistic, in liue of discussing the reality of the Reeflux bulbs. Comparing apples and oranges, just like you state yourself in regards to the difference of actinics when compared to PC, T5, and VHO. I keep hearing how theres ALOT of differences so far by you and Karl, but other than one makes your eyes hurt Ive yet to hear one. But you dont have to post both color index's(unless you want to for everyone else ), as Im quite familiar with the color indexes of 20k's and actinic bulbs, hence my bold statement of there not being alot of differences. To make a statement that there are alot of differences is to say that every actinic bulb is the same and every 20k is the same as well, once that was established then the differences would be definitive and could be measured and compared, but as it stands, it's not..

-Justin

 

[tacocat]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9234440#post9234440 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Justin74
I merely stated that 20k is far from realistic,

This is what I was disagreeing with. I used to believe this was true, but not so anymore. I now disagree with the blanket statement that 20K bulbs produces an unrealistic looking reef tank.

After taking a while to contemplate it, I think 20K bulbs are great to replicate a reef at 5ft or deeper. I also noticed a few things as well, my Ponape bridsnest and rings around the mouths of Pavona Maldevensis actually flouresce more when they are under overhangs, regardless of bulb Kelvin.

If you are trying to replicate a shallow water environment, then 20K represents a poor choice. If you want to replicate a deeper, darker enviornment, 20K isn't a bad choice.

 

[Justin74]

I pretty much completely agree with you. And it sounds as though I may just not be conveying exactly what I mean to you. I dont think 20k make for an unrealistic reef tank. But can overenhance true coloration unrealisticly if this were not the case many wouldnt ask for a picture with a flash or under 10k(save the RF ) so my point I was trying to make was to say no actinic w/ a picture thats under 20k seems moot to me, as they can overenhance true coloration just as reeflux can overenhance the blues on just about every blue coral Ive seen under one.

But hey this aint about me and my opinions, This is about how MEAN Karl is remember?? :lol2:


Back in your court K man, heheh


-Justin

 

[Unarce]

I would agree with Hector in that there's a pretty clear distinction between actinics and 20k. Especially with many of them being so different, not to mention how inaccurate the kelvin ratings that lighting companies market bulbs under. Like how a Phoenix 14k is as blue as an XM 20k, and the Giesemann 14.5k is as white as the Ushio 10k.

When I do comment about 'too blue' tanks, I try not to blanket them as 20k users. 9 times out of 10, they have a 20k bulb with lots of actinic, but many hobbyists overdrive Radiums or Helios to get a crisp blue-white look. Many even supplement with daylight fluorescents.

 

[Unarce]

Originally posted by tacocat
Karl (you angry person), you lose quite a bit of red and yellow wavelenghts even at 5 ft.

I once thought that was the case, too, until I came across this chart.

The depth chart would seem pretty accurate if applied to Minh's pictures.

 

[tacocat]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9236211#post9236211 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Justin74
I pretty much completely agree with you. And it sounds as though I may just not be conveying exactly what I mean to you. I dont think 20k make for an unrealistic reef tank. But can overenhance true coloration unrealisticly if this were not the case many wouldnt ask for a picture with a flash or under 10k(save the RF ) so my point I was trying to make was to say no actinic w/ a picture thats under 20k seems moot to me, as they can overenhance true coloration just as reeflux can overenhance the blues on just about every blue coral Ive seen under one.

But hey this aint about me and my opinions, This is about how MEAN Karl is remember?? :lol2:


Back in your court K man, heheh


-Justin

Cool and agree.

Now Reefermadness - I think people aren't so concerned about the the bulbs enhancing color so much as they are concenred about photoshop enhancing the color, hence the flash requests to show true color composition.

Karl is MEAN. This is a well established fact. Did you see how he treated people at that Regional Frag Swap thingee? I saw him drill a hole in the bottom of the skimmer he donated.

 

[tacocat]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9237257#post9237257 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Unarce
I once thought that was the case, too, until I came across this chart.

The depth chart would seem pretty accurate if applied to Minh's pictures.

Even at 5 feet, there is a noticeable drop off of the violet and red spectrums. Also effecting light penetration are waves and floatsam.

IME, the spectrum drop off is greater.

 

[bookfish]

Having spent MANY hours underwater, at various depths, I can tell you that most corals in the wild (yes there are exceptions) show very few of the colors we prize in our tanks. Even at 15-20 feet, you'd be lucky to see the blue tips on a mille if you weren't looking very carefully. That said, there are some corals (blue and pink montis particuliarly but some stags also) that show amazing color in the wild. Looking at corals in their natural environment feels like looking at a tank under 6700K!-Jim