# Aquascaping, Photography, and Art.



## SnakeIce (May 9, 2005)

Due CAU member's photography presentation of their tanks being selected sections of their work that most evoke the mood or demonstrate the artistic idea I'm starting to wonder if the current emphasis on the full tank shot helps or hinders aspiring artists.

Artists that create in two dimensions often are encouraged to create detailed sketches that don't have finished edges. In fact those sketches may be the practice or inspiration for a full canvas work. With photographing a three dimensional creation there is opportunity to use the camera to frame things instead of demanding the Aquasketch to fill the tank.

I think there are examples of full canvas aquascapes, the winner of the last ADA competition comes to mind. Cirtainly ADA and AGA competitions demand a full tank shot, but is aquatic art most advanced by full tank shots?

Photo examples like the first post photos show the artistic intention exceedingly more than the full tank shot later given.
http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/forumapc/aquascaping/46154-trees-life.html

In that case the wider view reduces the impact.


----------



## redstrat (Apr 3, 2006)

I think the way CAU has presented their scapes or at least the few I've seen posted on APC usually are missing a full front pic untill someone asks for it. I feel this picture is vital when presenting a scape, and I understand why judges from the contests you mentioned require a full tank front shot. Think about it when you view a scape in person you walk up to it and see the whole thing before you get up close to see the details. presenting the scape as a series of narrowly focused photos of only portions of the scape are just that, portions of the scape and dont give the viewer a sense of the whole scape and the artistic idea or mood its attempting to convey. narrowly focused glimpses of an aquascape are just that a glimpse of the big picture, a close up of a detail. if a scape is solely dependant on micro views of segments of itself where is its focus? I understand working on smaller views can help an artist develop their skills but as far as creating a complete composition that gets all its details working together to express one idea, emotion, or whatever the greater goal is. Micro views are great for showing off a particular plant or some smaller detail but as far as being a scape of its own, I find that hard to settle with. I hope what i'm saying is comming though clear. 

If the artist is really stuck on micro views maybe they should take some time to try to focus on nano scapes to create a scape based on one focused idea.

that being said close up shots of only portions of a scape can be great too, but can not be used alone. They also can be great to show of a particular plant species or really any fine detail that would be lost in a full front pic.


----------



## SnakeIce (May 9, 2005)

The last photo is just a portion of the tank, but it is the majority of the tank so is hardly a micro view.

In creating the aquascape the person is an artist, should they stop being an artist when they pick up the camera? Saying only full tank shots are of any importance seems to imply that the artistry can't continue with the photography. Create the tank and give it to a robot programed to generate perfect full tank shots.

How many of us make aquascapes that a full tank shot would be rated high in a photography competition. That transition from three dimensions to two is really difficult to project when creating the aquascape in the first place. I think GWU's full tank in person would have as much impact as the partial tank photos he took, but the full tank photo doesn't have near the impact of the partial tank photos.

If the photographic artistic endeavor detracts from the effect of the aquascape, then photography should be used in such a way that it detracts the least from the original.

In my opinion GWU used photography in a way that kept as much of the original art's impact as possible.


----------



## SKSuser (Mar 20, 2006)

I believe this discussion boils down to how the individual views a tank.

Unlike Davis, I tend to immediately focus on a particular area of a tank. My work requires me to be very detail oriented, and it has become habit in other aspects of my life. When I first view my tanks at home, I sit as close as possible to see how individual things are doing. Then when I've had my fill, I will sit back and relax as I enjoy the tank as a whole.

As in person, so I am on the internet. When viewing a picture, my eye is caught by a pretty plant(or an out of place one), a school of fish whose motion was - by chance - *blurlessly* frozen at an interesting place in the tank, a well terraced stand of red. I often find myself wishing that I could zoom in on an area of a tank.
For me, GWU's style of photography has a more powerful impact, because I am zoomed in on areas of interest. True, it may not be the most accurate representation of the tank as a whole, but one must admit that GWU's photos are a perfect representation of his personal focus.

On the other hand, small area photography of a tank can cloud other viewers impression of a tank. I've seen GWU's thread several times and, quite honestly, the only thing I remember about it is that he's got harlequins and a stump in there. I can't remember his other plants, or what the other side of the tank looks like.

My focus has been forced to mesh with his focus, as there is nothing else to focus on. This can be damaging to our critique, which is usually the reason for posting your tank in the Aquascaping subforum. Perhaps closeup and small area photos belong in a different area. Perhaps they should be posted in the General Aquarium, or the Aquarium Photography subforums. However, this gets unwieldy when you have to go to 5 different subforums just to view all the pictures of a single tank.

ps, is blurlessly even a word?


----------



## SnakeIce (May 9, 2005)

SKSuser said:


> I believe this discussion boils down to how the individual views a tank.


Exactly if we were all in the room with any tank being discussed photos would be irrelevant to a critique of the tank.

Because we are not in the room with that tank the creator has chosen to let us look through the same view finder he did.

Mug shots are standard, yet hardly anyone requests those when you have glamour shots. Why is the Aquascape mug shot so important that it is requested every time?


----------



## redstrat (Apr 3, 2006)

I'm not totally against targeted views of a scape that only show one portion of the tank I just feel that the scape should work as a whole and be able to present itself in its entirety in at least one photo. I understand that the artist can chose to show the tank as they wish and more power to them for doing that. There has to be something said for a full tank shot though and a scape that can function as a whole as well as in its peices.


----------



## SKSuser (Mar 20, 2006)

> be able to present itself in its entirety in at least one photo


You'll get no argument from me on that one. The tank should compliment itself.

If one part of the tank is awesome, and the rest is junk then you have....... one of my tanks.


----------



## TWood (Dec 9, 2004)

The 'full frontal' shot of a tank is aquatic porn. Fluffed up imagery that has no relation to reality. Grotesque caricatures of nature with floodlights. Created by 'artists'? No. It's all a bunch of masturbation into a box of water.

What does the tank look like in the room it inhabits, and is it a welcome component of your environment? That's all that matters in real life. I think these beauty contests should be required to also show the photo of the entire room, taken at the same time the beauty shot is taken, to show the extremes that are required to get that beauty shot and how unnatural it is.


----------



## GWU (Jul 23, 2004)

Wow! what an interesting topic. Thank for all your comment to my layout and my photography, may be I can express my point of view of this presentation.

Is the aquascape can only present by the front view? My answer is no, as when I plan the layout, actually it is a three dimension, most of time I can enjoy the tank at different angle, observing which angle can present my idea better. Just like the Michelangelo's David Sculpture, we could find more and more detail in different angle. Since only the person come to my house would have chance to enjoy it in different angle, so a snap shot in different angle for me is a must.

Why we post the snap shot first before the front view? It depend, most of people like to see the front view, as they believe the front view would tell you the whole story. For our experience it is only a different style of presentation, like some of film may tell you the ending at the beginning, but some may let you think of it until the end. If too many good thing show up at the same time, people may lost focus and some of the detail would be ignored. A good presentation will guide the viewer towards your planned direction

For me, without the best viewing angle to support by just showing the front view, it will only tell you a part of the story. Just like a book missing some chapters, without any part of the book is not a complete story.

For sure people may interpret aquascape in different way, some just viewing as a picture, some just thinking of a planted tank, for me, it is to send you a message of the nature. We just interview with one of the Poland aquascaper Adam Paszczela and will be publish soon, some of his word really touch me. He said "We can to be better not only like an aquascapers but also like a person whose think about Nature."


----------



## Paul Higashikawa (Mar 18, 2004)

A simple question demands an equally simple answer.

*Why do we post the front shot?*

In contest, it is the required format. Judges want to see the tank in whole and the frontal shot is their best opportunity because they cannot view the tanks in person to appreciate 100% the artist's attempt. Frontal shot is the next best thing.

In other times, it is not necessary. You are free to post any angle shot you want CAU makes excellent use of that. By posting shots that show part of the tank without revealing the whole tank, it makes the viewers crave for more. A sort of anticipation build-up, if you will.


----------



## Anti-Pjerrot (Mar 12, 2006)

Its true - im going to try that out sometime. I never thought of using shots from different angles to strengthen my scapes before. I only went for the full shot and focused everything on this.


----------



## zQ. (Dec 15, 2006)

Anti-Pjerrot said:


> Its true - im going to try that out sometime. I never thought of using shots from different angles to strengthen my scapes before. I only went for the full shot and focused everything on this.


+1


----------



## TWood (Dec 9, 2004)

Paul Higashikawa said:


> A simple question demands an equally simple answer.
> 
> *Why do we post the front shot?*
> 
> In contest, it is the required format. Judges want to see the tank in whole and the frontal shot is their best opportunity because they cannot view the tanks in person to appreciate 100% the artist's attempt. Frontal shot is the next best thing.


The entire presentation is a fraud. I can fly a flower to the moon and take a nice closeup, but it's a lie.

Require full room photos that show -how- the photo was staged.


----------



## Paul Higashikawa (Mar 18, 2004)

hehe, if you put it that way, everything is fake and not real. That is just the way things are. People who dislike certain contest don't have to enter them at all. No one is forcing anybody to do anything.


----------



## Norbert Sabat (Jun 26, 2004)

Sometimes i think that aquascapers are more "philosophers" than creators and make "BIG" philosophy for glass of water . Sure, why not but .....somethimes our hobby is taken to much seriously. Is trully important how we present our work? Front view, angle? For me center view is best because i see all canvas, whole work, idea and perspective. In angle, closeup view i can see details but....front picture shows all (no mater is this forum presentation, contest or something differnt).

Peace, love and aquascaping :slywink:


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

Well, do you want to be a aquascaping artist or a photographer/artist? They are not one and the same. The art of photography is all in the one shot... its how you frame the shot, the exposure, the lighting. Its all in that ONE shot. An aquascape is is a living, breathing entity that evolves and changes and is viewed from multiple angles. The subject and the photographer may compliment each other if you know what I mean, but they are two different things. If you are judging an aquascape based on a photograph, you have to be able to see past the skills of the photography, and that is real hard to do. That is the biggest flaw in the AGA contest and even the ADA. People who are not real skilled photographers are at a real disadvantage in the contests, no matter how good their aquascape is.


----------



## houseofcards (Feb 16, 2005)

Robert I do agree with what you said, but let's face it this "edge" of the hobby is a virtual package. I mean Amano was a photographer first was he not and he introduced to us this "artistic" view of the hobby through his breathtaking photography in the Nature Aquarium Books. Without his photographic skills I doubt the following would have developed. So this part of the hobby is married to photograpy. This is not a put down of Amano, but rather the fact that a certain level of photographic skill is a necessity to communicate the beauty of these tanks. Add to it a name and the mystical illusion is complete. How often do you see really nice scapes on this site where the photography is lacking, but then someone puts up a picture of a single rock in a tank of hairgrass and it's genius and the accolades flow. 

For those of you who just want to scape, just do you thing, but dont expect to receive high praise unless you open a gallery or hold an "open-house".


----------



## Paul Higashikawa (Mar 18, 2004)

houseofcards said:


> This is not a put down of Amano, but rather the fact that a certain level of photographic skill is a necessity to communicate the beauty of these tanks. Add to it a name and the mystical illusion is complete. How often do you see really nice scapes on this site where the photography is lacking, but then someone puts up a picture of a single rock in a tank of hairgrass and it's genius and the accolades flow.
> 
> For those of you who just want to scape, just do you thing, but dont expect to receive high praise unless you open a gallery or hold an "open-house".


Ditto!!! A good layout cannot be complete without its own good photography to do it justice. This is what people who do not have a chance to come over to your own home to see the tanks have....it is their opportunity to enjoy how beautiful the tanks are made. A cliched phrase....*A picture speaks a thousand words* Definitely true in our hobby!


----------



## Little (Oct 18, 2005)

Hello,
I agree with Norbert Sabat.
The only way to admire a masterpiece for itself is to watch it for real (considering an aquascape or a painting or a sculpture), or to listen to it live (considering music).
I think that's the philosophy of the ADA Japan website which as removed pictures from the gallery, and telling people to come to Niigata...

A picture can also be made to hide some weakness...
A picture is always a distorsion of the reality...


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

> How often do you see really nice scapes on this site where the photography is lacking, but then someone puts up a picture of a single rock in a tank of hairgrass and it's genius and the accolades flow


Very true, and how often have we seen someone post a photo rather close up, a scene within an aquascape that looks really cool, and then they post a photo from further back where you can really see the whole aquascape, and it looks... well, awfull?

I don't want to take anything away from anybody. I love seeing really great looking photos, and seeing great looking aquascapes, and everything in between, but when you get to the point of very serious critique and calling something "art" you have to consider if the merit of your judgement is falling on the creation of the subject being photographed or the photography itself. Maybe it is all how you look at it. As soon as you call something "art" you are putting it on a pedestal that people want to knock down or find fault in.

Even at a much simpler level: I think to fully appreciate a planted aquarium aquascape without seeing it in person, you have to see photos from either multiple angles or a full frontal view, other wise you are not seeing the big picture. (hey, I made a pun!  )


----------



## SnakeIce (May 9, 2005)

Robert Hudson said:


> Even at a much simpler level: I think to fully appreciate a planted aquarium aquascape without seeing it in person, you have to see photos from either multiple angles *or* a full frontal view, other wise you are not seeing the big picture. (hey, I made a pun!  )


 bolding added.

I think we get closer to seeing what an aquascape is by seeing photos from multiple angles *AND* a full tank shot.


----------



## TWood (Dec 9, 2004)

Paul Higashikawa said:


> A good layout cannot be complete without its own good photography to do it justice.


Retch.

A totally corrupt self-serving and stupid view of this hobby enslaved to selling you **** you don't need.

Enjoy your tank without any photography to "do it justice".


----------



## SnakeIce (May 9, 2005)

TWood said:


> Retch.
> 
> A totally corrupt self-serving and stupid view of this hobby enslaved to selling you **** you don't need.
> 
> Enjoy your tank without any photography to "do it justice".


I can understand your reaction. Aquascaping is first about having a tank in your home to enjoy and it doesn't have to be shared with someone not able to personally see it for your enjoyment to be complete.

However Paul Higashikawa's comment is in the context of a forum designed to share aquascapes with people that cannot personally see the tank and therefor must rely on the photos to understand the vision of the artist. Further his comment is also in a thread that specifically includes the subject of photography as it relates to sharing an aquascape with someone not in the room with the tank.

Your response is out of context.


----------



## exterminator (Mar 26, 2005)

I agree, that photography and ability to share pictures with people who can understand and appreciate the beauty of aquascapes is a very important aspect of this hobby.

I personally never had any visitors at my house who could really understand the beauty of underwater plants. I usually hear comments like: 

"Wow. It's a lot of weed in the tank! Why don't you clean them out?"
"Why don't you put some cool stuff in your tank? A ship wreck or a pirate skeleton? It looks too plain without them."
"Why do you need so many plants? It's probably very hard to clean the tank."
:toimonst: 

It's not fun to watch a good movie alone .You need someone to share comments and opinion on it. The same applies to aquascaping.


----------



## TWood (Dec 9, 2004)

SnakeIce said:


> Your response is out of context.


What an idiotic statement.


----------



## messy_da_legend (Feb 18, 2006)

It's not totally out of context, but what good is this forum for sharing pictures and getting advice on layouts/plant placement/growth/algae etc, if you can't produce decent pictures for people to see? The quality of the photos has to be pretty good to get a good idea of the tank IMO. 

Tom


----------



## Jessie (Apr 23, 2007)

SnakeIce is not being idiotic. :|

I see both sides of the argument. My camera and I don't really see eye to eye, so the photos I post of my tank are hardly accurate to what it actually looks like in real life. I wish I could provide photos that shared more detail because the tank in person has much more oomph than the photos I have posted. But on the same token, I am not going to go out and buy a DSLR camera to photograph it (unless I have a massive chunk of change laying around that has no other purpose and that would entail a miracle). I think everyone on the forum understands that a photo of a tank is never going to present it's presence in real life, in its room, so once that understanding is made, there's room for forgiveness on less than professional photography. I have no intentions of entering contests, so there is another reason why a fancy camera is not needed.

Do I appreciate the amazing photos of tanks out there? Absolutely. A major emphasis of this _hobby_ is on visual appeal, and when it comes to sharing with hobbyists around the world, decent photography is the only way to do that.

As for the whole Aquascaping + Photography + Art concept, I really have no opinion. I don't see my tank as some epic metaphor of some distant land. I can't take it THAT seriously because this is a _hobby_ that I find relaxation and learning in. If I were to take it to the level of competition or anything deeper than that, I'd begin to lose my fun enjoyment and the point of having a tank would change for me. But that's just me. My tank is the focal point of my tiny little apartment and the conversation piece of my guests. I appreciate and adore the threads from [CAU] members who really feel passionate about the "scene" they have created and post segmented photos to capture particular traits of a tank. I'm not the Senske brothers or Oliver Knott and definitely not Amano, so I have nothing to sell or prove. The gentlemen listed before have a business venture in mind and that is their work. They have a reason and justification to invest in the "art" of it all. I don't. I'm a simple kid who loves a _hobby_ and loves to talk about it. I refuse to get uppity about my _hobby_ or call people names over it, either.


----------



## SnakeIce (May 9, 2005)

TWood,
It is evident that I did not state what this thread is about clearly enough. The basic question that I started with is:

How can we use Photography to more completely show an aquascape. 

I made an observation about a style of photography that didn't show the standard tank shot and asked if that was better than the standard tank shot in showing what a tank is. The answer seems to be that no one shot or angle can completely represent a tank. I felt the discussion leading to that was important as a way to get people to think about expanding the use of photography beyond the standard full tank shot.

-----------------------------------------------

The supposition that photography is worthless in helping you enjoy a tank in your home in person is not helpful to a discussion on how to use photography to better show what a tank is.


----------



## Paul Higashikawa (Mar 18, 2004)

Not really sure what made mr. tw's comment so strong, except I am sorry he felt it was necessary to express himself in such a way. That being said, it is a free country so everyone is entitled to his own opinions. However, I do think he might have misread/misinterpreted my view. Like what others have said, I was merely discussing based on the topic of this thread: Photography and aquascaping.
I also mentioned, yes, in forums such as APC, we all come from different areas and countries. We are not close neighbors and therefore have no way of seeing the tanks up close in person(well, I am one of the lucky few because I get to see the Senske's and Luis' tanks in person )

Therefore, my point was a photo or a series of photos is definitely the best(and perhaps the only) way for others to share one's aquascape *especially on-line*. Unless, you don't mind flying all the way to Japan, for instance, to see Amano's gallery in person; a dream I always harbor but never able to realize

When all is said and done, of course the most important thing is to enjoy your own creation because like what others said, there is nothing better than being able to just sit there, right in front of your tank; seeing the fish and inverts interact, watching the plants open up their leaves and sway in the gentle flow of the water, all at the end of your day's hard work. The hobby is truly a reward in itself in this way 
*Happy aquatic gardening to all(and also a wonderful upcoming X-mas!)*​


----------



## SnakeIce (May 9, 2005)

Jessie said:


> My camera and I don't really see eye to eye, so the photos I post of my tank are hardly accurate to what it actually looks like in real life. I wish I could provide photos that shared more detail because the tank in person has much more oomph than the photos I have posted. But on the same token, I am not going to go out and buy a DSLR camera to photograph it (unless I have a massive chunk of change laying around that has no other purpose and that would entail a miracle). I think everyone on the forum understands that a photo of a tank is never going to present it's presence in real life, in its room, so once that understanding is made, there's room for forgiveness on less than professional photography.


I fully understand where you are coming from on not having a camera that is capable of capturing the level of detail some cameras can.

There is also another element that is harder to define. Let me use my grandfather's photographic hobby as an example. He has a simple digital camera. It has a couple of settings, but he is doing good to make sure he has the right batteries to make it work. In other words the camera isn't that hot and his comprehension of the technology is not even equal to that, But the photos he takes have a consistent artistic quality without any cropping or editing that puts my efforts to shame. He has done 30 or 40 watercolor paintings and is quite good at the artistic side of things. The quality of the camera is not a factor in his ability to frame beautiful compositions.

If I could figure out and put into words what my grandfather is doing that makes his photographs that much better than mine I wouldn't struggle as much as I do.


----------



## Jessie (Apr 23, 2007)

I hear ya.

For me, if I cared, I'd take fancy segmented photos of my tank in a more artistic sense. It's not the quality of the camera that creates art, it's the person and skill behind it (you are absolutely right). I'm a "digital artist" that specializes in photo-manipulation (that sounds so cocky, I hate saying I'm an "artist") and everything boils down to my imagination trickling information down to my hand to create the pieces.

But for people like me that are not looking to inspire some childhood nostalgia from just showing a little portion of a tank, the clarity and detail of the photo is the goal.

To me, the tank _itself_ is an already-framed, beautiful composition. The camera is just a device to record a memory of it to share with others. I don't need my camera to frame a section of composition using moss and HC with token expensive shrimp. The tank is a breathing entity in itself. 
But again, this is just me. I'm here to have a blast doing something I love, talk to people who have that in common with me, ask questions, give advice, trade stuff, etc. I'm not here to inspire works of aquatic amazement.

That's where I differ from others that I admire, like Dave Chow, Cliff Hui, etc. They take photographs that are artistic in general; well-framed, immaculate exposure, etc. Photos that are easily National Geographic quality (IMO) and probably marketable for sale to those who don't even know what a Crystal Red Shrimp really is.

Or, how about guandarkness' "Oh...Cherry.." thread...this photo: http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q161/gavainchong8511/green.jpg
Is absolutely awesome, IMO. If I weren't in the hobby and had no idea what I was looking at, I would still appreciate this to be a great photo with wonderful colors and composition.

I still personally believe, however, that photographs of a tank are not complete without a full tank shot to represent its glory in entirety. I want to be able to imagine the whole thing in my living room, squint my eyes and admire the colors blending, etc.

I'm going to stop here before people start piping in to talk about how they can't believe we're talking about this.


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

> What an idiotic statement.


No, I agree with him. Your statements have a rather nasty tone to them Tom. This is the aquascaping forum after all. This always happens whenever this type of discussion comes up in any forum. Its happened on APD and others when ever someone starts talking about aquascaping as art, or of Amano as an artist, there is always someone that jumps in who seems offended or angry that a hobbyst considers themselves an artist. Relax big guy!



> and probably marketable for sale to those who don't even know what a Crystal Red Shrimp really is.


Absolutely. I published four photos from Norbert Sabat in a nice spread with my column in FAMA magazine a few mnths ago, and I have had photos published in the magazine from a few other people in this forum too. Jay luto has photos published in TFH magazine on a regular basis now.


----------



## messy_da_legend (Feb 18, 2006)

"Your statements have a rather nasty tone to them Tom"

If thats how they sounded then I'm sorry that's not how I meant it, just saying that if someone has a good aquascape and puts bad pictures on here, people will most likely dismiss it. 

Tom


----------



## TWood (Dec 9, 2004)

Um, I think I'm the Tom they are objecting to. 

Yeah, it was harsh, my apologies.

My core objection to the Amanoization of this hobby is that it seems to have the objective of convincing people that it requires large sums of money to enjoy. 

Also, the "money shot" fetish is a fraud. Worse, it requires.....large sums of money to produce.

Enjoy the tank for what it is.

-This- Tom


----------



## messy_da_legend (Feb 18, 2006)

TWood said:


> Um, I think I'm the Tom they are objecting to.


Ah... so it is


----------



## SnakeIce (May 9, 2005)

TWood said:


> Yeah, it was harsh, my apologies.


Apology accepted.



TWood said:


> Also, the "money shot" fetish is a fraud. Worse, it requires.....large sums of money to produce.
> 
> -This- Tom


Part of the question starting this involves admission that a tank shot is fraudulent in that it does not adequately represent the tank.

How would you use a professional photographer offering his services free of charge to *let us see* your tank via photos so that the collected group of photos becomes less fraudulent than the "money shot" fetish. Describe where and how close in terms of the length of the aquarium the camera would be in the various shots taken.


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

Thanks everyone for bringing this back around to a civil conversation. It's real easy to get people excited when this sort of discussion starts up. *ALL* opinions are welcome, if presented politely. 

I started posting photos of my tanks without the benefit of any meaningful photography skills. My camera was pretty simple, and I didn't understand the few features it did have. Anyone who remembers these photos (and even my current photos) will be quick to agree. For me, seeing the incredible setup required to produce high-quality shots was quite revealing. It certainly made me feel better about my own tanks. The funny thing was that I had seen a few stunning photos taken of tanks that I had previously seen in person. IMHO, those tanks didn't look any better in person than mine did - they were just photographed better.

I don't think it's necessarily "fraud" to get the best shot possible, but I do think it's useful for people to understand how it's done. The really serious ones use strobes, hairdryers, backgrounds, and cameras that cost more than my car. They can easily spend an entire day doing a photo shoot of one tank. Their goals are clearly different than mine. That's ok. _They're only doing their best to capture the beauty that is actually there._ If they can do it better than me, then we all benefit. The more exposure (no pun intended) our hobby gets, the faster it will grow. When that happens, we all get more equipment, plant species, and aquarium styles to choose from.

It's the same thing with people. Almost anyone can be dolled up to look good for the cover of a magazine. Almost anyone can look trashy in the tabloids. Photography is an art in its own right.


----------



## TWood (Dec 9, 2004)

SnakeIce said:


> Part of the question starting this involves admission that a tank shot is fraudulent in that it does not adequately represent the tank.
> 
> How would you use a professional photographer offering his services free of charge to *let us see* your tank via photos so that the collected group of photos becomes less fraudulent than the "money shot" fetish. Describe where and how close in terms of the length of the aquarium the camera would be in the various shots taken.


When they make movies there are the 'documentary' shots that show the people and equipment on the set. It's always an army of people and a battalion of equipment just to film a single shot. Which is fine, movies are fiction.

If a tank is set up in a photographer's studio, I call that an immediate fraud. If it is set up in your home and is an unwelcome guest when lit for a photo, that's also a fraud. If you can use reasonably decent photography equipment, temporarily set up to take a nice shot of the tank (talking a camera on a tripod here) that displays its beauty, that's closer to genuine. Back up and show the tank as a welcome guest in the room, all the better.

The "money shot" is aquatic porn.


----------



## Martin (Mar 27, 2005)

Wonderful discussion, makes you think.
Not only about the whole philosophy, but also about thoughts on design, photography, angles..

In my opinion you can use whatever equipment you like to take your shot, as long as it isn't stationary over the tank.

Actually the idea of having a 'tank in room' shot in competitions, is a great idea. It would force some people to see their tank as part of the room, and not a place of work.

thanks for an thought inspiring thread.


----------



## Steven_Chong (Mar 17, 2005)

The way I see it if we were to rely on shots like CAU's, it would be like the photos were the art and the aquarium was just the subject matter, like any other still life you could put together.

However we are trying to see the aquarium as the art and the photos as a means of presenting the aquarium. In which case a full tank shot is important because we want to know what the whole aquarium does. You don't take partial shots of sculptures when you are trying to show the sculpture.


----------



## Robert Hudson (Feb 5, 2004)

> You don't take partial shots of sculptures when you are trying to show the sculpture.


Thats very true. You judge a puzzle by its entireity, not just by one piece, or one section.

This whole question about photography tricks.. lighting, exposure, doing the hair dryer on the water surface, using cotton to simulate an underwater waterfall, whatever.. its a double edged sword. It brings another facet to the hobby, but it is what it is: illusion. Its not real. It can only be seen thru the eye of the camera. From my perspective, that makes it photography art, not aquarium art. The aquarium in that case becomes just the subject, not the art itself. Its the nude model posing on the table. The model is not "art". So the planted aquarium is not art in this case, its just the subject. And to some people that cheapens the true appreciation of planted aquariums


----------



## Juan-Carlos (Aug 12, 2007)

Interesting thread - Reading each response evoked a different reaction on my part. I will avoid responding to individual replies, and just say this. 

Aquascaping and photography are both an art form on their own. At times, they go hand in hand creating the art of Aquarium photography. 

I understand that for some artist the ultimate goal for a setup is the final photograph. While these photographs might be stunning and prize worthy, the subject itself (the aquarium) MIGHT not be all that magnificent in person. The way the photographer envisioned the subject is the way the subject is seen on paper. 

Oh the other hand - many will create as amazing aquascape that is not done justice by photography.

Just think of this... Seeing a picture of Niagra falls could probably never amount to seeing it in person - but also keep in mind seeing an artistic perspective (in the form of a photograph) could open your eyes to something you had never even thought of even when standing in front of Niagra.

What ever your ultimate goal for a setup is, remember just do your thing. If your happy with what you've created, then it's all that really matters!! whether you wanted a kick butt photograph worthy of being published or a spectacular scape to be enjoyed in person... if your going for both, More power to you!!

Kindest Regards,
-Jc
Miami, Florida


----------

