240 Inwall Construction (Image Intense) - Page 9

weatherson · #**201** 12/06/2007, 07:31 PM

orangekush4: Hey Kevin. Thanks.

matt & pam: I don't know if the horizontal growth increases but it definitely continues to grow in that direction quite well.

tcmfish, melev, Hop, purebullet417, Bax, spleen93, skey44, Lunchbucket, NanoGurl, erics3000, Lordhelmet: Thank you very much for the kind words.

Brad: Canon Digital Rebel (6mp) and Canon 100mm lens.

Joseph.

ReefWaters · #**202** 12/07/2007, 12:06 AM

Joseph, the pictures are unbelievable. You have a keen eye and the talent to capture some amazing images.

Is there any chance you could share some of your camera settings with me?

Are you shooting completely manual or are you leaving some things in auto? I'm shooting a similar camera. Olympus E500 (8mp). I have a 14-45mm lens as well as a 45-150mm lens. I just cant seem to get a decent shot half the time. And I cant for life of me get the shots I want to get. Any advice?

spleen93 · #**203** 12/07/2007, 02:57 AM

I'm not Joseph but as a completely unsolicited opinion, I'd get a macro lens - it makes taking the type of shots that Joseph is taking a whole lot easier.

This might be a good choice ... nice large aperture to help with depth of field and to help increase shutter speed to stop action.

Of course, after that, it requires skill ... obviously, Joseph has quite the eye.

Spleen

weatherson · #**204** 12/07/2007, 03:31 AM

ReefWaters: Thanks but you'd be much better to ask photography questions from the experts in the photography forum. I am the first to admit that my knowledge is limited at best.

But... what I typically do is to shoot in the AV mode or Aperture Priority. This allows you to manually adjust the aperture, while the camera automatically adjusts the shutter speed. This also allows you to adjust the depth of field based on your aperture setting. What you are changing manually is the "F stop". The lower the F stop number, the larger the aperture or opening which lets in more light and also creates a shorter depth of field or "in focus" area. With more light entering the camera, it then can, depending on the amount of light available, automatically speed up the shutter speed. The higher the F stop setting, the smaller the aperture and the opposite results. It's finding the ideal setting for your desired effect that takes some practice to master (not that I have).

I also do occasionally alter the exposure bias down a click or two due the the intense lighting and resulting contrast in the tank. This results in a slightly darker image but some slight Photoshop manipulations can allow you to brighten up the darker areas while keeping the originally bright areas intact. "Blown out" bright areas are often encountered and I have found this post shot adjustment, done judiciously, to be helpful on occasion. There seems to be better results when you brighten darker areas rather than attempting to darken brighter, washed out areas.

Last of all, every shot determines whether I shoot in manual or automatic focus mode. Typically though, my coral shots are manually done. I also shoot most often with a tripod and a remote shutter control for steadiness. This alone can make a huge difference in the quality of images.

Here's a chart of all the pertinent settings of this last series of photos. It may be easier print it and then go back to the photos for reference. The photo numbers on the chart coincide with the photos from the top to bottom. I hope this helps and thanks for the kind words.

Joseph.

weatherson · #**205** 12/07/2007, 03:48 AM

Also, I couldn't agree more with Spleen. My Canon 100mm makes me look much better than I am. For these types of aquarium shots, a good quality macro lens is almost mandatory, in my opinion.

Joseph.

jnarowe · #**206** 12/07/2007, 10:17 AM

You crack me up Joseph.

spleen93 · #**207** 12/08/2007, 03:11 AM

Joseph - only you would have a chart ready showing all of your camera settings from the last roll of shots.

Spleen

weatherson · #**208** 12/08/2007, 03:18 AM

Well... it wasn't exactly "ready" as I had to create it. I blame it all on ReefWaters.

Joseph.

anothermineral · #**209** 12/08/2007, 08:37 PM

Joseph,

What type of gel material/thickness do you use in your canopy and how much is the spacing between it and the MHs?

Thanks

msuzuki126 · #**210** 12/08/2007, 09:58 PM

Those pictures are incredible.

weatherson · #**211** 12/09/2007, 04:31 PM

anothermineral: The four shield panels are 3/16" thick acrylic and are 1.5" from the 250W MH's and 2.25" from the 400W MH's. That is a distance to the pendants bottoms, not the bulbs themselves.

Matt: Thank you very much.

Joseph.

tfp · #**212** 12/12/2007, 05:22 PM

joe, anytime i need a little "pick me up" or motivation i come back to this thread

. i think we both started around the same time but based on your results, i've still got a lot to learn my friend

.

just curious, what are you keeping your water param's at these days?

happy holidays,
tim

weatherson · #**213** 12/15/2007, 12:20 AM

Tim,

Thanks for the words of encouragement. While this tank is only 4-years old this last September, my previous 65-gallon tank was up for over 8-years prior to that. So... while it looks like I'm a rookie...

Seriously, thanks for the kind words but what I recall of your tank, you have nothing to feel envious of. By the way... how's that frag doing? Still alive and growing?

What I'd like to keep my tank at and what the corals and clams demand are in a constant fight.

With several fans and plenty of room air movement induced evaporation to provide as much Kalkwasser input as well as pushing my dual-chamber calcium reactor hard, I struggle to keep my calcium levels in the ideal levels. I also do monthly, 50-gallon water changes of IO salt. Then there's the Seachem buffer along with ESV Magnesium additions. Established SPS corals are really what I have striven for but this is taxing, to say the least. Here are my current parameters as of today:

Temp: 76-degrees
pH: 8.1 (night) to 8.4 (day)
ORP: ~350
Mag.: 1280
Alk: 8.0 dKH
Calcium: 375 ppm

Despite the depressed levels though, the corals continue to grow at an alarming rate (seriously, you can see daily growth). I suppose those go hand-in-hand so perhaps if the levels were ideal, the corals would grow so fast as to pin the fish to the glass before they were aware of the pending doom.

Joseph.

jnarowe · #**214** 12/15/2007, 12:42 AM

At least it's not caking on your glass!

matt & pam · #**215** 12/15/2007, 07:17 AM

Joseph,
Are you adjusting Ca/Mg in the IO replacement water? I found my IO to have starting calcium of 300 and Mg 1000 when mixed to 1.025.

weatherson · #**216** 12/15/2007, 05:36 PM

Matt,

Usually yes but not always as when I'm short on time. But then I always monitor the tank closer after these water changes and adjust there accordingly. Definitely not the ideal approach as this lessens stability but sometimes life demands deviation from this ideal.

By the way... That comment I made regarding water changes and the use of Instant Ocean was a brain fade back to years gone by.

I've been using Reef Crystals for a couple of years now. What's next... I start forgetting how to find my own house?

Anyway, I've found Reef Crystals to be considerably higher in basic levels compared to IO and thus, doesn't require as much adjustment on my part. Here's my last batch (every batch varies slightly) of water-change Reef Crystals salt water tested with Salifert test kits and a calibrated refractometer for salinity:

SG: 1.026
Temp: 76-degrees
pH: 7.8
Mag.: 1200
Alk.: 15.7 dKH
Calcium: 470

These numbers are after at least 12-hours of mixing/aeration.

Joseph.

jnarowe · #**217** 12/15/2007, 05:54 PM

hehehe...I know how you feel!

Those are pretty high numbers for Alk and Ca...that's not bumped? I'll have to add RC to my next round of tests.

That Mg is too low. From all that I have gleened about captive reef keeping, having the Mg in the range of 1400 - 1500 seems to provide the best results. Are you bumping that before adding it to the tank?

weatherson · #**218** 12/15/2007, 06:22 PM

Jonathan,

If you are asking if those numbers represent the saltwater after I've done adjustments, then no, they are not "bumped". Those are straight out of the bag prior to me adjusting for tank addition. With Reef Crystals, I mostly only have to deal with pH and magnesium. Both are relatively simple to get in line with buffer (Seachem) and liquid magnesium (ESV). Although, any elevated levels are welcome to compensate for in-tank water deficiencies.

As to magnesium levels... natural saltwater is typically 1280 ppm. I always strive for 1300 ppm as a nice round number.

As with most everything reef related, I feel stability is the most important goal rather than constantly striving to reach some latest and greatest ideal peak number... to within reason.

Obviously, if I were to do more and/or larger amount water-changes, my in-tank levels would be better. But I am content with my current 50-gallon/month regime. While it may come across that I am extremely worried of these levels, it really doesn't bother me to the point of sleepless nights but I would like to have better levels. As it is, my corals are growing extremely well and show good coloration so perhaps retarding them isn't such a bad thing. Now... if I were to some day upgrade to a much larger tank, I may be talking a different story all together.

Joseph.

melev · #**219** 12/15/2007, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jnarowe
That Mg is too low. From all that I have gleened about captive reef keeping, having the Mg in the range of 1400 - 1500 seems to provide the best results.

Where have you heard that? 1400 is my personal goal, but I know it is higher than necessary.

jnarowe · #**220** 12/15/2007, 06:35 PM

Well, you regimen proves out to work better than most. No argument from me.

I read quite a bit regarding pH and in short it appears that the combined pH of two masses of water is not the average of the two. According to RHF, it's much more complicated than that. I did some basic testing along that line and found those conclusions to be true. I don't even bother with pH when working with my water.

Concerning magnesium, I may be remembering incorrectly, but I thought that in the case of captive reefs, higher than 1300 had a stabilizing effect.

What is Seachem's buffer made of? I have a bizarre story about buffer from a different company but this is not the place. Nonetheless, I am very leary of commercially produced buffers.

I still am interested why you tank is sucking the elements out so fast with that kind of water going in and your other methods of maintaining it. Seems unusual, like maybe there is a giant calcifying worm growing under the rockwork??? j/k Joseph!

jnarowe · #**221** 12/15/2007, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by melev
Where have you heard that? 1400 is my personal goal, but I know it is higher than necessary.

I am sorry I cannot pinpoint how or where I exactly heard that. That's a position I have developed from reading about various successful tanks, where they keep there numbers, and various articles I have read on captive water chemistry. I hate to quote one source or article and make some claim anyway...we have enough of that on RC.

I have been keeping mine at 1450 since day one, and with little effort since both my salt and Ca media are very strong in Mg. Recently I have read some interesting stuff about having it at 1500+ will knock down certain nuisances as well. That came about from my researching my dino problem. I did temporarily bump it up to above 1500 and that is when the dinos receded, but I am not convinced that was the deciding factor. Too many variables to come to any conclusion there.

weatherson · #**222** 12/15/2007, 07:07 PM

If I recall correctly, the super high levels of magnesium were in an effort to eradicate the evil Bryopsis algae. But, as far as I know, that is just until the algae has been eradicated and then normal levels are striven for.

Joseph.

weatherson · #**223** 12/15/2007, 07:13 PM

Here's a good reference that I use provided by Randy Holmes-Farley from one of his many excellent reef chemistry articles...

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-05/rhf/index.php

Joseph.

jnarowe · #**224** 12/15/2007, 07:19 PM

hmmmm...I thought Randy had recommended a higher Mg level. I either confused him with someone else or read it wrong. So this may bring up another question then. Would my having Mg above 1400 be a causitive factor in coraline growth? Maybe someone following this thread an answer that. I have been mystified by the coraline growth in my tank.

Thanks Joseph.

chris wright · #**225** 12/15/2007, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by weatherson
Here's a good reference that I use provided by Randy Holmes-Farley from one of his many excellent reef chemistry articles...

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-05/rhf/index.php

Joseph.

I'd seen this chart a while ago, and I always try to keep within these ranges that Randy has recommended.

I can just keep my alk at 2.5meq/l, would like to get it a little higher, and magnesium above 1250ppm. I agree that stability is the key. Since I like the Seachem Reef salt, I use the Seachem test kits, and never have a problem.

I too have heard that keeping mag levels high, will help with a bryopsis problem, but I dont think I would run at elevated levels all the time. I read in one of the TOTM articles that elevated levels of trace elements can be toxic, so I now keep my levels set within the above parameters, just in case

Cheers

Chris