This is why I like my tank half-full...

[^iMp^]

Flowers!

This plant was sold as giant hygro, but I think it may be a siamensis variant. My photography skills are horrible and the digital camera is ancient, so I am a little disappointed--the flowers are actually quite purple (they turned out pale in the pictures).

The plant has been in bloom for over a week now and there are still many more unbloomed buds...so it'll be blooming for some time yet. Maybe I'll get a digital camera for christmas so I can take some better pictures.

^iMp^

[^iMp^]

And another...

[GulfCoastAquarian]

Wow, that is beautiful! How much light do you have over the plant?

[^iMp^]

65 watt power compact over a 20 gallon high. No reflector though--I figure since the water is shallow, 65 watt without the reflector is good enough. My glosso is growing in low (despite the shadows due to the emersed growth), so thats a good sign.

The tank's primary problem is lack of CO2 and high pH--I've been using excel instead of CO2 injection (too much surface agitation in the tank). Because of this, growth has been fairly slow in most of my plants. The exception is this one hygro, which is growing more than an inch a day (I need to cut it back soon--its about to run into the lights). The other plants in the tank aren't growing anywhere near this rate. The next most successful is the bacoba carolinia, which is about 4-5 inches out of the water at the moment--rate of growth too slow to ennumerate.

[Zurp]

IMP, can you post a shot of the full tank. I love the setup, what I can see from the limited view. I also enjoy the fact that you took the time to clean the glass before taking the picture... I hate when people have a nice setup and try to photograph through the condensation on the glass.

If you are going to get a digital camera, and you are camera savvy... try a "Fuji", "Kodak", or "Olympus". They all have cameras that have AUTO and MANUAL settings. You can set the shutter speeds, frame aperture diameter, physical zoom, image resolution, flash intensity... etc. I prefer "Kodak" because of the lenses they make, and adapters. However, "Olympic" has sharper images in less light. While the "Fuji" is a medium of the two. (I am referring to actual test photos.)

I would recommend getting a tripod and using the delay snapshot, because it will give 100% clear shots every time. Even the digital cameras seem to capture that "Button-Press Jitter" and they also exaggerate "Swaying Jitter" due to their need for a slightly longer exposure time (Fast moving objects get sliced, hard to explain.) The CCD requires a longer exposure time to collect an equal amount of light as a normal camera, which does it all at once. As a whole it is fast, the pixels are recorded sequentially from top to bottom, which can horizontally slice fast moving things, like fish. (If you play 3D games, this is the equivalent of the top half of the screen refreshes faster than the bottom, causing a slice in the screen. EG, your legs running right, but your upper torso has started turning left. EXAGGERATION)

[Zurp]

We have a lot of, "Lady Slippers", around here that I always liked. Will those grow in saturated soil? Bog Soil.

[^iMp^]

I'm not sure on the lady slippers--I think they might be protected in some states.

Regardless, I've always encountered them in damp (but not saturated) soil in the deciduous forest near my grandfather's home. I believe they are "active" in damp soil--I've only ever seen them in mid-spring, when the soil is moist.

I'm not camera-savvy...thats probably most of the problem. I'll try to convince my wife to take a full-tank shot tonight. Maybe I'll post it in the photo gallery section.

^iMp^

[GulfCoastAquarian]

That's why the Hygro looks so awesome, probably - it's emersed and has all the access to CO2 it could want! I might try planting a sprig of it in my new 5g terrarium.

[Nordic]

Hi little advice with the camera, try to not get a very dark and very bright spot in the same picture, i.e. i directly exposed bulb and a shadow etc...

Think of the camera as having a very limited range of coulours it can draw with, if you gave it large extremes it would try to fit them in, but obviously the gradient would be less smooth... also if it is possible to set the f-stop seperatly in your camera try the highest setting available.

[peterryan2001@hotmail.com]

Zurp,

I really don't mean to pick on you - I'm serious. I just keep running into your posts that are full of half-truths. I feel the obligation to correct what you are saying so that other people do not turn up with the same bad information that you are spreading.

Fuji and Kodak are second rate cameras. They are specifically designed for ease of use and low price - NOT features. Fuji produces better pictures than Kodak, but there are much better cameras on the market for similar prices. Fuji and Kodak usually lack manual controls - if you are looking for manual controls, Kodak would probably be the last choice of anyone who knows digital cameras. Fuji is better, but you have to spend more with Fuji to get useful manual features.

I've never heard of "Olympic" - last I knew "Olympic" was a paint company. Do you mean "Olympus" - because that is a camera company. Assuming you are talking about "Olympus" and not "Olympic", I have a couple comments about them, too. They do make great cameras, you are right. The only problem with Olympus is that you have to spend a lot to get a lot. They have good features, but the cameras are usually plagued with hardware malfunction. While some of their cameras feature innovative features, I would not recommend most of their cameras because they are not very user-friendly, or feature packed.

If you are looking for features, go for a Nikon, Canon, or a Sony - For around $300, you can get a lot of manual features, excellent color reproduction, and a decent resolution. If you are looking to spend less than $300, I would definitely consider Fuji. While they won't have as many manual control features, they do make great cameras for the price. My sister has a Fuji, and it produces very good images for the price.

Now for the biggest reason I had to respond: "CCD" is not "Digital Light Capturing Circuits". CCD is "Charge-Coupled Device". It isn't a light capturing circuit, it is an array of photocells - when light hits the cells, an electrical charge is produced. I'm not going to explain this entire process -

About your "button-press jitter" comment: Digital cameras operate on the same concept that regular cameras do - shutter speed, and F-ratio. They are actually less susceptable to movement because CCDs require much LESS light than most photographic films (making exposure times far shorter). Even low quality digital cameras are usually sensitive to F-2.8, and there is no film speed to worry about, so images are much less likely to come out poorly. Since digital cameras are able to automatically adjust their f-stop, film speed (ASA), and shutter speed, it makes them much better at capturing light than normal cameras. CCD cameras (digital cameras) are taking over astrophotography because they require much shorter exposure times, capture far more light, and are far more sensitive to low light situations. You have your analysis about the light capturing ability of digital cameras totally backward.

Once again, I do not mean to pick on you. You are saying these things as if you are an authority, but you aren't. Most of the things you have said so far are totally incorrect. Why don't you do some research before making bold statements that onlymake you look bad when you are wrong?

Peter

[Nordic]

He is not totaly incorrect, even with a digital camera I don't think there is any comaprison between a picture taken by hand and one taken on a tripod, especialy using the timer or other hands-off method of trigering the camera. Obviously the more light is available the less noticable the camera shake will be, and at some level you would have absolute bright crisp pictures (up to the point where you would start getting whitewash), geting the balance right is like learning water chemistry aint it...

I am sorry I didn't actualy read his post.... about the camera.

Anyway I don't want to get involved in your fights, at least not without popcorn.

[GulfCoastAquarian]

Originally Posted by peterryan2001@hotmail.com

Fuji and Kodak are second rate cameras.
Peter

Here are some pictures I took with my second rate Kodak camera...

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponjican/...aradise_01.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponjican/..._hygro_red.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponjican/photos/000_0006.jpg

[Anonymous]

Nordic,

You are right, he isn't TOTALLY wrong. However, shutter speed is a primary factor in determining whether a tripod is necessary, or not. If the camera is shooting at 1/60th of a second or less, a tripod would give a higher likelihood of getting a better picture. Over 1/125th of a second, a tripod isn't necessary for most people. It really depends on how steady your hand is. Otherwise, popcorn is a definite must -


GulfCoastAquarian,

It wasn't my intention to offend - your pictures look really good. My point was that Zurp was asserting himself as an authority, where he has no authority. I simply offered some different options. As I established in my previous post, if you want more manual features, there are brands, which place higher emphasis on manual adjustability. In my experience, Kodak and Fuji are not those companies - this isn't a bad thing either. Most people do not need or want all the features that companies like Nikon offer. That is where Kodak and Fuji excel. That is all I am saying. To some, lack of features and adjustability may translate into 'second rate'. I agree, this probably wasn't the best choice of words. So, I apologize for saying that Kodak is 'second rate' - that was a poor choice of words. Kodak just places more emphasis on being user-friendly, than being fully featured and manually controllable. That is a better way to say it -

Otherwise, props on the pictures - they look very good.

Thanks,

Peter

[GulfCoastAquarian]

No worries, man. I know the camera can take good pictures, I just wanted others to know that if all they had to spend on a camera was $250, they could still get quite a decent camera in a Kodak. I do wish for more manual adjustability so I'm planning on getting one of those new Canon EOS Rebel digital bodies to use with the lenses I've got for my Rebel 2000 SLR. Pretty sweet to be able to utilize the same lenses!

All this talk - and I think ^iMp^'s Hygro pictures look pretty darn good! Sorry to have hi-jacked the thread.

[Wasserpest]

I have to agree with Peter, in many ways... The manual settings and additional features that those brands offer make them more suitable to taking good pictures of close-ups and moving fish etc. With the "point-and-shoot brands" lucky shots are quite possible, but definitely harder to repeat.

But we got completely off topic here... so can we see that full-tank shot, overexposed or not? :mrgreen: