My humble 5.5g

[yardboy]

plus it's illegal to shoot hens, only toms are fair game.

[lilredneckman]

plus it's illegal to shoot hens, only toms are fair game.

Yes but if it was that close to my house i would shoot it anyways.

[ealshabaan]

what kind of bulb do you use in your light, are they the original bulb?! can i know please form where and for how much did you buy it?

[Audioadict]

Wow!! Diane, your tank is SO cool. I love it. I wish i had read this earlier. Keep up with your excellent work.

Your dogs are cute too.

[ealshabaan]

hello there,

 

believe me, after i saw your tank, i decided to for 5.5g just like yours. here is the link for my 5.5g setup:

http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/index.php?...p;#entry1432802

 

so, i am deciding on putting gobies in there, just like yours!

 

my question is about your gobies:

 

did you buy them as a mated pairs, or each one individually?

 

what is the difference between male and female gobies ?

 

what is your cleanup crew, crabs, snails.. ??

[klarion]

Boris,

 

Oops, didn't mean to give the wrong impression! I definitely agree that the 3rd pic is better...but, particularly in the ruler one, it's not nearly as sharp as the original. Misalignment on the ruler gradations and pixelation on the edge of the Lupe...Don't know if this can be tweaked further or not?

 

But in general, your advice has certainly improved things! One question--how come, when I select "Width = 9" ", I get a 7" pic on my monitor? (Also on my son's monitor--he has a 22" flat screen...). Just curious.

 

 

 

Now, for those who tune in for pics (remember, I don't have room for any new stuff!)...

 

My florida morphs behave so differently! The greens have yet to divide, but they get huge. Compare to the orange, which started out as one polyp:

 

 

My zoas, which should be oranger, but probably need a brighter light:

 

 

My entry in the last photo contest (can't get enough of these "faces!" ):

 

 

Better yet, go here, and click to enlarge (pretty please!):

 

http://www.nano-reef.com/gallery/showphoto...mp;ppuser=16186

 

--Diane

 

 

Hello Diane,

 

I thought a bit about some of those photo issues and it's more difficult to say what the problem is, but...there are a couple of thoughts:

 

In general, every lens (no matter how well designed) distorts an image in one way or another simply due to the fact that light has to pass through multiple lenses and pieces of glass and/or plastic. Using a loupe is an ingenious solution to the problem of Macro Images, but the loupe, no doubt, distorts the image in addition to the lens its self. So, it may be that the pictures are already imperfect when they hit the sensor.

 

There can be barrel distortion ( ) [where straight lines are rendered bowed out] or pincushion distortion )( or chromatic aberration [that's when different wavelengths of light do not focus on the same plane]. All of this distortion changes the clarity of our images--usually for the worst. That fact alone sent me on a quest to become a better photographer and to gain an addiction to purchasing macro lenses for my camera.

 

I'm wondering what camera you're using and lens (since your thread is soo long and I can't remember where you mentioned it). I would like to know also what is your camera's initial image resolution or how many mega pixels it has.

 

I think that the last batch of images from your camera is great and the pictures you take are amazing and so is your tank. It would be lovely to see more of it when you have the time.

[klarion]

One question--how come, when I select "Width = 9" ", I get a 7" pic on my monitor? (Also on my son's monitor--he has a 22" flat screen...). Just curious.

 

My first thought on this is to ask you for the camera's resolution, but your image size on the screen may as well be related to the screen settings. I measured some images on my screen too and they all appear smaller by a little bit than the resolution in Inches that I set. I'm going to make an adjustment and post my images at 8" on the forums just to be sure not to loose extra quality.

 

Also, I'll ask around and see what more I can find on this issue.

My best,

Boris

[c est ma]

Okay, "response" post :

 

Me thinks Diane is not one to shoot the creatures of the forest.

 

+1

 

 

 

plus it's illegal to shoot hens, only toms are fair game.

 

I did not know that. I have seen a parade of turkeys crossing the back field, toms displaying just like you imagine them...uber cool, even if their resurgence is probably all due to DNR restocking efforts...We often have to stop for turkeys crossing the road...

 

what kind of bulb do you use in your light, are they the original bulb?! can i know please form where and for how much did you buy it?

 

Well, what a coincidence! I just replaced my bulb (too late, as usual) so I have the info handy. The bulb is part number:

 

Part#:RCU02025

 

at this site:

 

http://www.marineandreef.com/shoppro/power...eLampsCUSA.html

 

And the fixture is:

 

Single Satellite 20 inch

 

At this page (or any number of other merchants):

 

http://www.marineandreef.com/shoppro/power_satellite.html

 

 

 

Wow!! Diane, your tank is SO cool. I love it. I wish i had read this earlier. Keep up with your excellent work.

Your dogs are cute too.

 

Thank you!!

 

 

hello there,

 

believe me, after i saw your tank, i decided to for 5.5g just like yours. here is the link for my 5.5g setup:

http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/index.php?...p;#entry1432802

 

so, i am deciding on putting gobies in there, just like yours!

 

my question is about your gobies:

 

did you buy them as a mated pairs, or each one individually?

 

what is the difference between male and female gobies ?

 

what is your cleanup crew, crabs, snails.. ??

 

Thank you! I will be following your thread just as soon as I catch up with the replies I owe to other N-R peeps.

 

I hope you won't mind if I refer you to this post of my thread, which lists all my goby thread links. Somewhere in those threads are the answers to all your questions and then some! The short answer is that I bought them individually--they are protogynous hermaphrodites and if you get 2 you will likely end up with a pair...but a fuller explanation lies somewhere in the referenced threads:

 

http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/index.php?...t&p=1242654

 

As to CUC, I have Trochus, ceriths, a Nassarius, a Turbo, an emerald, 2 hermits (2 diff. species) and I'm sure some things I'm forgetting...

 

I would caution you, though, that two fish, even tiny ones such as these, really ARE too big a bioload for a simple 5.5 like mine (skimmerless, fugeless). What that means is that you will spend a LOT of time cleaning. It does not seem to affect the happiness of the residents, at least if you like softies and some of the hardier lps & sps. I am currently in the process of setting up a "custom" fuge compliments of Weetie.

 

 

 

Boris (Klarion), thank you so much for your continual input on my picture questions! I well understand the distortion that can come from too many lenses, as a sometime telescope user...I'm sure you're right about that, but my only frustration is when my forum posted pics look so much worse than my originals. Wouldn't I notice the distortion in the originals as well, if that were the main problem? My cam is a very simple (and obsolete) 3.1 meg point-&-shoot. I'm not at all concerned with having perfect pics, just hate to lose whatever quality was there in the first place. Well, I think I will take this discussion to PM, now, since it probably bores eveyone else! Thanks again!

 

 

 

Pics to follow in next post.

 

--Diane

[c est ma]

Talking with Boris in his thread (highly recommended!), about Xenia, made me want to post a couple of vids of mine doing their thing. (Don't worry, they're short--20 & 40 seconds!) These are of the same colony over time and in different places in the tank:

 

(4/11/07)

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6149868495249436968

 

(1/6/08)

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5366417485445823972

 

 

In further photo news ()--I doubt if anyone is as fascinated by gastropod radulas as I am, but I still like to try to catch shots of them in action (Trochus here):

 

 

 

 

And here's a very cool vid (even if I do say so myself! ) of the same thing:

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2818583296939874264

 

 

Okay, now some quick shots I took yesterday (without the benefit of Klarion's latest advice, sorry to say). Thursday I went to my favorite lfs (~1.5 hrs away) for SW, DT's, etc., and "sight seeing." I had vowed some time ago to not add a single thing to my already crowded tank. So of course I came home with a new ric... Stupid me! It is an orange, but different than the one I already have--this one has bigger tentacles and a violet/purple disk and fringing tentacle color. It looked very small in the dealer's 75g, but turned out to be larger than expected in my tank, natch...

 

In "QT:"

 

 

When first placed in tank...I tried it here and there, but when it started really sliming on me I just dumped it "temporarily" in the very center:

 

 

 

A while later--it spread out a bit...:

 

 

I'd really LIKE to put it on the substrate in the right hand corner, next to the yellow ric (see fts's in following post), but then I'd have to find some other place for the Porites/plate rock. That rock has two of my coolest hitchers ever on it, but they don't especially have a lot of immediate eye-impact like the rics do. Plus, they WOULD be on opposite sides of the rock, so that I can't turn it sideways, which would make more room in that corner, without losing sight of one or the other.

 

Rest of "today's pics" in next post.

 

--Diane

[c est ma]

Continuing...

 

I know I've posted pics that probably look just like this to everyone else, but I just never get tired of my little hitcher Porites--it looks so lush when fully open and swaying in the current:

 

 

The baby plate gets more definition all the time, but is sure taking its sweet time detaching!:

 

 

The old blue shroom:

 

 

And green zoas--not the best pic, but I haven't posted one of them in a long time:

 

 

Trochus:

 

 

Another impulse purchase! Just after first hearing about these guys from a fellow N-R'er, I found them at the lfs--"chestnut" turbos. Quite striking looking, if maybe a bit unnatural...Anyway, thought I'd try a small one (not so clear--it was in the back of the tank):

 

 

And a couple of fts's du jour. Forgot that I'd caused the gsp to close up by accidentally pinching it with the forceps while removing algae! And in the 1st pic, the green zoas had been closed by the scavenging emerald...:

 

 

 

This concludes your unrequested update. Please return to normal programming.

 

--Diane

[Rehype]

Those are really great pics Diane! Im still trying to get better at taking macro shots. I really love your tank!It looks fantastic.

[doctorhannibal]

Awsome thread as you are Dianne, I luv it! This is my favorite thread.. truly inspiring!

 

Keep up the good work, love & care for animals.

[arwndsh]

Diane,

 

I noticed you said your plate was taking a long time to detach. i recently came across a rock with two plate generating sites (score ) and the larger of the two that only recently detached (cause I accidently broke it when moving) is about the size of a quarter. The smaller one is still atached and is about the size of a dime. I'm hoping the site I accidently broke with continue to produce plates.

 

I recently upgraded to a 5.5g and I hope it turns out half as well as yours has. Your tank is awesome.

[yardboy]

Great shots Diane. And by the way, viewing pics of your tank IS part of my regular programming!

I've got an old Fungia that is calving. Has been for several years, but I've noticed that as it gets older, the babies grow slower on it. The two left came off a site that had produced three or so before them, but they've been on there for over a year now, with no seeming desire to detach. The only one I've lost was a really small one that probably detached too early, probably because I accidentally dropped it.

You know it's time for you to start a prop tank. Set one up the same size or smaller than your 5.5, get some eggcrate and make a rack. Start some frags of your gorgeous zoanthids, ,maybe split a recordia. Then, when you get the urge to spend money at the lfs, just "windowshop" in your prop tank! For me it seems to help the "wants" when I go to an lfs!

Yep, I'm crazy.

[spanko]

All hail the Ricordia Queen :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[klarion]

All hail the Ricordia Queen

 

+1. I like looking at pics from your tank. It's just so natural looking.

[sil80guy]

Your reef looks really great.

Im new to these forums and your 5 gallon reef was awe inspiring, and I can't wait to get started on my first nano reef.

[lilredneckman]

All hail the Ricordia Queen :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

bowdown to the ricordia queen! :bowdown:

 

Sweet looking rics Diane

[monkeytrumpets]

Great pics, as always. I love dropping by your thread, and I'm always amazed at how happy everything looks in your tank. It looks like your porites are growing nicely, and I'm anxious to see how the baby plate fares. Hopefully it will detach soon!

 

In regards to your photo "woes" I remember a conversation I had with a friend of mine who is an avid photographer. I know absolutely nothing about digital photography, but iirc, he said he stays away from .jpg format because the quality of the photos will degrade as they are accessed, edited, saved, etc. I could be completely full of crap here, but I thought I would pass along what I'd (thought I'd) heard. Perhaps working with a different filetype would make a difference?

[yardboy]

In regards to your photo "woes" I remember a conversation I had with a friend of mine who is an avid photographer. I know absolutely nothing about digital photography, but iirc, he said he stays away from .jpg format because the quality of the photos will degrade as they are accessed, edited, saved, etc. I could be completely full of crap here, but I thought I would pass along what I'd (thought I'd) heard. Perhaps working with a different filetype would make a difference?

 

Hmm, I wonder why that would be. I bought my camera because I was told that 1) you could shoot in manual, which I never do, and 2) because it can save in RAW format, which I never do either. Duhhhh. Maybe I should read the manual.

[Fade2White12]

Hey Diane,

 

I wish my thread got as much attention as yours I'm glad to see I had an impact on your impulse purchase, although a somewhat minor one.

 

BTW, I completely adore your tank and this thread. I'll have to sit down and read it from the very beginning

[monkeytrumpets]

Hmm, I wonder why that would be. I bought my camera because I was told that 1) you could shoot in manual, which I never do, and 2) because it can save in RAW format, which I never do either. Duhhhh. Maybe I should read the manual.

Yeah I do remember he said he shot almost entirely in RAW format (although I really don't know what file type that would be. .bmp maybe?) I imagine it's a memory hog, but when he's shooting wedding photos, I imagine he's less concerned about file size. I dunno, I thought it sounded kinda crazy myself. I'd never heard of Jpegs degrading prior to talking to him.

[klarion]

Great pics, as always. I love dropping by your thread, and I'm always amazed at how happy everything looks in your tank. It looks like your porites are growing nicely, and I'm anxious to see how the baby plate fares. Hopefully it will detach soon!

 

In regards to your photo "woes" I remember a conversation I had with a friend of mine who is an avid photographer. I know absolutely nothing about digital photography, but iirc, he said he stays away from .jpg format because the quality of the photos will degrade as they are accessed, edited, saved, etc. I could be completely full of crap here, but I thought I would pass along what I'd (thought I'd) heard. Perhaps working with a different filetype would make a difference?

 

It's true that everytime you access a .jpg file, it degrades. That's because the information contained in the file is compressed and thus altered every time the file is saved. They are popular formats because they make file sizes smaller, but you pay the price with quality.

 

If you wish to retain quality in jpgs, try using your editing software's proprietary file (like .psd for photoshop) to store the images and only compress them as a copy to post on the net , etc.

[klarion]

Yeah I do remember he said he shot almost entirely in RAW format (although I really don't know what file type that would be. .bmp maybe?) I imagine it's a memory hog, but when he's shooting wedding photos, I imagine he's less concerned about file size. I dunno, I thought it sounded kinda crazy myself. I'd never heard of Jpegs degrading prior to talking to him.

 

Most proffessionals shoot in RAW or RAW+Jpg because RAW files contain the most information and have all the data from the sensor without much alteration (as opposed to jpgs, which are compressed and altered according to a camera's software presets). Pros like having the highest resolution and freedom to change the picture anyway they like without being constrained by the camera's software.

 

Now, RAW files are saved usually with a .raw extension (99 percent sure), and you'll need a program to convert raw files to other formats (.bmp, jpg, psd, tiff, etc.) For most users that is really impractical, and camera software is good enough to make beautiful pictures, but since we're talking....

 

PS. sorry about the spelling.

[monkeytrumpets]

It's true that everytime you access a .jpg file, it degrades. That's because the information contained in the file is compressed and thus altered every time the file is saved. They are popular formats because they make file sizes smaller, but you pay the price with quality.

 

If you wish to retain quality in jpgs, try using your editing software's proprietary file (like .psd for photoshop) to store the images and only compress them as a copy to post on the net , etc.

Most proffessionals shoot in RAW or RAW+Jpg because RAW files contain the most information and have all the data from the sensor without much alteration (as opposed to jpgs, which are compressed and altered according to a camera's software presets). Pros like having the highest resolution and freedom to change the picture anyway they like without being constrained by the camera's software.

 

Now, RAW files are saved usually with a .raw extension (99 percent sure), and you'll need a program to convert raw files to other formats (.bmp, jpg, psd, tiff, etc.) For most users that is really impractical, and camera software is good enough to make beautiful pictures, but since we're talking....

 

PS. sorry about the spelling.

That makes much more sense. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I hate having only my own speculation to go by, and those were much easier to understand explanations than the ones I got.

 

P.S. sorry for the thread hijack Diane.