# New piece of wood



## jerseyjay (Jan 25, 2004)

55->75 transition is coming up soon. I want to first finish the fishroom and then at the end aquascape another tank.

This is the wood I picked for my next project. I might pick some smaller pieces for side support but this would be main focal point.

Which position would you prefer in 75 ?

1.









2.









3. 









4.


----------



## cactusdoug (Feb 17, 2004)

Nice piece of wood.

I like position #1 myself, I like the arch effect.

I think it looks more balanced.

I can see it with some nice Jave ferns growing on the lower left and upper right, where the V of the intersecting branches are.

And I would use it alone with no other wood.

My 2 cents

Doug


----------



## ryuken168 (Feb 5, 2004)

*Nice*

Nice piece of wood, where and what type?

The 1st picture looks the best. Love to see pictures of the fish room of yours.

Ken


----------



## Wheeler (Feb 8, 2004)

Yep-- 1st picture


----------



## dennis (Mar 1, 2004)

Nice looking wood. I like hte first two positions best. I think the first would go well with either a mound or concave type of scape but the second could look cool with a triangle scape witht he highest plants on the left and the branch sticking out to the right. It all depends though. What type of scape were you going for?


----------



## Bert H (Mar 2, 2004)

Jay,
Here's a thought. If you take pic 1 and were to push the left side that sticks up down, perhaps using a stone to wedge under the thick part of the wood, then the branches on the right would arch up and to the right in a sweep. Just a different perspective.


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

I agree, #1. That placement looks like it gives you more space around the wood for other things.

Best,
Phil


----------



## Sir_BlackhOle (Jan 25, 2004)

Number one is my favorite also!


----------



## Steve Pituch (Jan 25, 2004)

I like picture number one. Nice piece of wood.

Steve


----------



## IUnknown (Feb 24, 2004)

#1 landslide. The rest look like something dead on its back.


----------



## jerseyjay (Jan 25, 2004)

I do enjoy #1 placement but I'm not a big fan of branches which are going down without use of vertical space, especially in tall tanks. I think this is one of the problems why "lots of aquascapers" in US are not as successful as they would like to be, because they do NOT use vertical space. They just place simple piece of wood w/o any side branches which take 1/3 of bottom level and 2/3 are filled with misc plants. Tank has "flat" look and looks useless. There are of course exceptions where this flat piece of wood has many side shots on the same level and those could be arranged on the mount.

If this piece had that branch going up, I wouldn't think twice. I will try to find something additional for this setup to fill vertical space.

*Vertical space is the key to successful aquascaping IMO. *


----------



## tsunami (Jan 24, 2004)

Going against the host of the lot, I much prefer position #3 because of the upward sweep of the branches (which makes an excellent focal area, IMO). Position #1, as Jay said, has branches that sweep downward --and will be harder to aquascape effectively around for the reasons he stated.

Position #3 seems to be what Amano would like best as well...










Carlos


----------



## Dave B (Feb 20, 2004)

I agree with Carlos. #3 will give you more surface area to plant on and below the wood. You could even prop up the front to get a more dramatic swoop from the wood. I think you will have a killer composition regardlessly. It's a nice piece.


----------



## jerseyjay (Jan 25, 2004)

I was talking to Ghazanfar today and liked #3 as well but gave a wonderful tip. Cut the long branch, flip it horizontally and attach it.

Here is the final picture. This is what I'm doing.










VS.


----------



## Wheeler (Feb 8, 2004)

So, the obvious question from our end is "why did you ask us if you know so much about it?" Further, use of vertical space can take many forms. It could just as easily be empty water as full of plants-- I'm not totally sure where you're going with that. You have a vision for this tank, and we all have different ones based on what you gave us. If I had that wood, I would situate it in a similar position to the first diagram, and attach epiphytes if I needed vertical relief. A 75g is not all that tall so you won't have that much space vertically to work with anyhow. A ruler for scale might have also been nice...

I'm certainly *not* trying to be a jerk, so *please* don't be offended. I generally don't ask questions like this because others won't have the same perspective on the situation that I would, and certainly not the same taste. I usually prefer simple 'scapes with lots of space above the plants.

On the real, I think the reason we mostly all like #1 at first glance is because is brings our eye from the middle of the tank to the front via the long branch. Instant creation of depth.

Were I to plan on using low growing plants (which I immediately envisioned), I would certainly choose #1. Had I planned on using a ton of stems, ala Luis or the Dutch, I may have decided differently.

Anyway, that's just IMHO... 

DB is on the way, btw...


----------



## jerseyjay (Jan 25, 2004)

Wheeler said:


> "why did you ask us if you know so much about it?"


Because this is an aquascape section of the forum and having such topic would be beneficial not only to me but other members who are seeking advise. I was hoping to receive more detail feedbacks from repliers with why and where response.



> Further, use of vertical space can take many forms. It could just as easily be empty water as full of plants-- I'm not totally sure where you're going with that.


This is obvious. 
The main object in this discussion is wood and how to use wood properly. Some aquascapers use the wood in counterproductive way, were it could be used efficiently, and others use the wood which doesn't fit at all in given tank. 
The question here is: How to use, not What to use.



> You have a vision for this tank, and we all have different ones based on what you gave us. If I had that wood, I would situate it in a similar position to the first diagram, and attach epiphytes if I needed vertical relief.


IMHO this is the problem. 
People are trying to cover up their gaps with plants instead of investing in "proper" wood/rock. Look at Amano work. Most of his tanks, where vertical space is used to its full potential, have branches sticking up and they go down if different design is set up.



> I'm certainly *not* trying to be a jerk, so *please* don't be offended. I generally don't ask questions like this because others won't have the same perspective on the situation that I would, and certainly not the same taste.


Of course. Everyone is entitledd to their opinion :wink:



> DB is on the way, btw


Thanks


----------



## Wheeler (Feb 8, 2004)

Most of Amano's woodwork is situated in such a position that the branches lean (lead the eye) toward the front glass-- Not neccessarily up. "Up" tends to be more interesting because that makes it easier to see in situations where the plants could cover it up. In tanks with lots of vertical plant strokes like stems, he'll situate them in a vertical situation. It varies when he uses other types of plants or simple layouts. I think that's what you meant above?

Amano fills in his vertical gaps with plants as much as anyone. I still don't understand what you're getting at :? I usually arrange the wood/rock first before I even think about plant selection. If I need something to cover up ugly stem bases or give some middle/vertical relief, I'll make it happen with the plants or more wood/rock. 

At any rate, you're last example is my favorite now. Nice fix!


----------



## United21Soccer (Mar 15, 2004)

Number one did stick out to me the most, but number three would be my second pick......


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 22, 2004)

Jay,

I like the renovation, that's a great piece of wood! How are you planning on using it in the aquascape? What type of plants around it etc....


----------



## ryuken168 (Feb 5, 2004)

I still like the way the branch facing down on the 1st picture. I enjoy the arch look more. I would build up the substrate and use rocks to achieve the height.
I don't buy the driftwood to fit the tank, I buy the tank size that works with the driftwood or rocks. So I guest I design in a different way.

Ken


----------



## cactusdoug (Feb 17, 2004)

I agree ryuken168,

I guess I'm one of those dumb Americans that can't design a decent aquascape. LOL (just kidding, don't flame me)

CD


----------



## jerseyjay (Jan 25, 2004)

ryuken168 said:


> I still like the way the branch facing down on the 1st picture. I enjoy the arch look more. I would build up the substrate and use rocks to achieve the height.


You could do that.

I prefer to achieve the height automatically with the branch facing up. IMO with branch facing down (in this scenario) no matter what you do with the wood, you will end up with horizontal/flat/going down theme.



> I don't buy the driftwood to fit the tank, I buy the tank size that works with the driftwood or rocks. So I guest I design in a different way.


Well. You still had to buy/find that piece of wood prior to buying the tank, didn't you :lol:

I didn't buy the tank to fit my driftwood. I already had Lake Malawi setup in 75G and planted in 55G. Those two will be switched.

Will keep you updated with the progress.

Thanks for your opinions :wink:


----------



## Sue (Mar 19, 2004)

I thought #3. If I came across a piece of wood like that in a pond it would be how it sat on the bottom. Heavy side down, branches up. If it were in a stream it would be on it's side with branches sort of braceing it against the water movement.

That's actually a cool piece of wood. You can change position and make it look very different.


----------



## aquoi (Mar 21, 2004)

I don't like this piece of driftwood, lacks energy and all the positions do not end up with a composition I like. I would combine it with another piece of driftwood to create 2 distinct spaces of ratio 5:3, then fine tune the composition with plants.


----------



## Daemonfly (Mar 21, 2004)

I liked 1 & 3/4 (both are same position), but depends on what you might do plant-wise on the driftwood.

The #1 ver. 2 is an interesting way to fix the branch direction :lol:


----------



## jerseyjay (Jan 25, 2004)

aquoi said:


> I don't like this piece of driftwood, lacks energy and all the positions do not end up with a composition I like. I would combine it with another piece of driftwood to create 2 distinct spaces of ratio 5:3, then fine tune the composition with plants.


Lacks energy ? There are not many SINGLE pieces of wood, especially available locally on East Coast, which would be attractive as stand alone. You just have to add more to them.

I plan on completing this setup with 2 or 4 additional pieces.


----------



## vinz (Feb 19, 2004)

Adding more wood would be the way I'd go. All three positions including the modified #1 looks unbalanced.

What's the styrofoam around the wood for? Are they marking out the walls of your 75G tank?


----------



## jerseyjay (Jan 25, 2004)

vinz said:


> Adding more wood would be the way I'd go. All three positions including the modified #1 looks unbalanced.


Sure, I should be adding more wood into this setup. This was just an example of "decent" piece. Nice, balanced and standalone pieces are very hard to come by locally.



> What's the styrofoam around the wood for? Are they marking out the walls of your 75G tank?


No. This is more like 20Gallon. I wanted to make invisible wall and cover busy surrounding so viewer could concentrate on wood.


----------

