# New Iwagumi @ ADG



## jsenske (Mar 15, 2004)

This is a new 75 gallon installation here at Gallery ADG. It definitely involved making the most of what rocks I had available. There were a number of spots I longed for a shape I simply did not have. I am sure we have all grown somewhat accustomed to this sort of compromise.


----------



## Paul Higashikawa (Mar 18, 2004)

If I am not mistaken, this tank was set up not too long ago when Oliver was here. Its look was very different then but nevertheless still very nice, especially when you see it in person. Now, the tank's new look appears to be more minimalistic with glosso all over. The rock arrangement is also different now. I can not wait to see it develop in another month!


----------



## dennis (Mar 1, 2004)

well its the aquascaping forum so here goes...

First even though they may not be wha tyou wanted, nice rocks. I would kill for somehting so nice I think the arrangment is pretty good but I see a few things that sort of stick out to me. I am not good at iwigumi though so take this with a grain of "substrate". 

i personally think something is off with the back, left corner. The bid rock in the middle of the arrangment seems to hide to much. I think the big one looks fine as/where it is but the 2 smaller ones behind it are distracting. while it is sometimes good to create tension I thnk in this case the tension does not work. I also see the arrangments as 4 groupings with straight lines seperating each rather than the 2 groupings one often sees. This is very noticable in the before planting photos. I would like to see more flow between the 2 on the left, drawing them into one large, bolder group. Also, the substrate at the front glass seems wierd being subtily higher on the right side. That slope is to subtle to be a design element.

Other than that though, I think a very nice layout with wonderful potential. Can't wait to see it filled in!


----------



## jsenske (Mar 15, 2004)

Yes I do need to fix the slpoe in the front. If you look at the first pic- you see there was no slpoe intended. That must have happened as I was filling the tank. I had people coming in the gallery just minutes after I finished planting and just snapped a quick shot to post. 

I do not disagree with your assessment of the arrangement, Dennis. I do think when the tank is viewed in person some of the perspective works a little better, but that's at leat part of the goal of an aquascape for me- to create a layout that presents well both in person and in the photo. I have not achieved this goal yet- at least not with great consistency. 
Thank you for your insights- especially regarding the tension component. Tension is a part of this arrangement and is yet another element I am yet to capture to the extent I seek. I was trying to create four groups in a sense- the two main groups are composed of two smaller groups. But the idea is for the Glossostigma to join the sub groups and give unify them moreso into a single group thus splitting/providing tension.


----------



## jsenske (Mar 15, 2004)

Here is the (more or less) completed tank. Just shot today, 9/10. I can't get over the speed and tightness with which the Glossostigma has grown- with absolutely ZERO algae issues. The rocks still look totally pristine with only shrimp and O-cats on the job. I've always wanted to do a tank like this, so I am pretty stoked it came together so easy. I attribute some measure of this tank's ease of execution to ADA substrate for sure. (I know there's a focusing issue on the left/right foreground corners- I going to shoot it again and try to adjust). 
The rock placement could be better- but I have in no way mastered stone-setting techniques. In many ways this tank was an exercise for me- not my area of expertise at this time, but a style that intrigues me nonetheless.


----------



## Gomer (Feb 2, 2004)

Very cool! Thanks for the update Jeff.


----------



## John P. (Nov 24, 2004)

I'm no expert, either, but I think the problem is that it looks like there are 4 rows of rocks in there.

Very nice nevertheless!


----------



## jsenske (Mar 15, 2004)

The four rows thing was my attempt at creating a strong channel of Glosso between each section. I did not want the rocks grouped too closely as to allow good growth all around the 2 main groups. Obviously I did not pull this off entirely- or I should say what I imagined and how it turned out were not quite the same. Stone placement is never easy. I have much to learn. I am glad I was able to achieve the tight carpet with minimal secondary issues, though. That may be the real accomplishment for me on this particular tank. 

Can't wait to try again. Here's a couple of close ups- just for fun. 

I am pretty handy with a camera, but I guess I am not saving or resizing these to post properly because these jpegs that post look pretty junky compared to my original TIFFS. I know there's some loss- but the color is way off/not starurated enough in these posts. Any advice on making them better would be great. My originals blow these jpegs away.


----------



## trckrunrmike (Jan 31, 2005)

Oh wow that glosso does grow fast. Mine haven't been growing that fast maybe 1 plantlet every 3 days. 

Why not copy the image into Photoshop and save it as a jpeg to the highest quality?


----------



## TWood (Dec 9, 2004)

Huh, so there's really no equipment at all in the tank?


----------



## AaronT (Apr 26, 2004)

TWood said:


> Huh, so there's really no equipment at all in the tank?


Not during the photo session there's not. That's a typical practice when sharing aquascapes to be critiqued.

I like the rock layout just fine Jeff. I feel it needs to have more of a rolling feel though. If you look at some of the Amano iwagumi scapes and a lot of others you'll notice that the substrate is sometimes halfway up the back of the tank. In my opinion it is this mountainesque effect that is so appealing about the iwagumi style. The #4 tank of the 2004 ADA Contest is quite possibly my favorite Iwagumi tank of all time. It's like a trip up in the mountains in the summer with specs of snow still lingering here and there.

Also, I don't believe it's the fact that there are 4 rows of rocks that makes it look a tad contrived. I think it's the number "4" itself. Isn't that a taboo number according to some Zen principle? Perhaps, if you remove one of the two middle "rows" it would look less balanced?


----------



## trckrunrmike (Jan 31, 2005)

4 the number, means death in chinese.


----------



## jsenske (Mar 15, 2004)

That's what I do, and they still lose quite a bit. Maybe needs a bit more saturation- it's mostly a color issue. 

The only equipment in this tank is one glass intake and one glass return. CO2 is provided by an in-line reactor, so even when the glass parts are in, it's very minimal/unobtrusive. I believe they show in the previous pic from day one post.

I was really seeking a more ruinous feel- not so much the classic 2 group composition, though a wider gap in the middle does suggest 2 groups. 

There was no deliberate attempt at 4 groups. That is more the visual result of 1. "looking" for two groups in the layout and 2. my own ineptitude at this particular style of aquascaping. I have suggested "death" with my unintentional creation of 4 groups of rocks. Looks like I better try again.


----------



## TWood (Dec 9, 2004)

TWood said:


> Huh, so there's really no equipment at all in the tank?





grandmasterofpool said:


> Not during the photo session there's not. That's a typical practice when sharing aquascapes to be critiqued.


Who made up that rule? I'd rather see real tanks in real operation in the real world.

TW


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Then fly from near the enge of the spiral galaxy to Houston and check it out for yourself. 

--Nikolay


----------



## TWood (Dec 9, 2004)

Gawd, are you insane? The only crappier place in Texas than Houston is Dall... um, never mind. :-&

TW


----------



## Paul Higashikawa (Mar 18, 2004)

TWood said:


> Gawd, are you insane? The only crappier place in Texas than Houston is Dall... um, never mind. :-&
> 
> TW


Let's not diss any city now. Every city has something good to offer.


----------



## turbomkt (Mar 31, 2004)

Have you thought about saving in RAW rather than TIFF and working with that? Another possibility might be RAW+JPEG (fine quality) if your camera supports it. I can't view the exif info on this computer to tell what you are using.

Maybe Jay Luto has some info that could help...


----------



## neilw (Nov 20, 2004)

Great tank Jeff.


----------



## jsenske (Mar 15, 2004)

turbo, I shoot in RAW- edit in CS2/CameraRaw- get s great looking 50MB TIFF file that I resize to around 640X360, then "Save for Web" at whatever level gets it to as close to 100KB as possible/JPEG. That file loses a lot and I am not sure why. Thanks for the advice, though. 

TW, sometimes I leave the filter parts in the shot, sometimes I don't. I was just trying to show the bare aquascape here- seemed to present a bit better without the glassware in there, but I get your point about seeing the whole functioning aquarium. They always suggest taking that stuff out for contest entries, so I though it appropriate for most aquarium photography- when it is not too difficult to remove. 

Your right- Houston is pretty lame overall, but it's where I live for now- just trying to make the most of it. You're in Austin, right? I don't need to tell you that Austin is awesome... great town. 

Thanks, neilw.


----------



## dennis (Mar 1, 2004)

Jeff, instead of saving at 100kb or less, upload larger pics to your personal album and then link to those in the post. That way is also nicer for us veiwing as we don't have to click on an attachment and we can see the photo without opening a new window and toggling back and forth If you need halp with that, let myself or anothe rmod know


----------



## jsenske (Mar 15, 2004)

dennis- Thanks- I want to try that. Really the originals are MUCH nicer on these shots- way better color and resolution. Could you possible shoot me a step by step for that? Thanks!


----------



## turbomkt (Mar 31, 2004)

I was hoping it would be an easy answer 

Have you tried any of the resizing actions that incrementally decrease the size? People have found that when you decrease size in 10% or less increments you'll have less loss. 

I'll look for one of the actions that does that.

--Mike


----------



## turbomkt (Mar 31, 2004)

Jeff,
Check this thread out.

--Mike


----------



## Nick (Jan 12, 2005)

Jeff,

Any chance you could share with us a little about your maintenance and fert regime in this tank? What lighting are you using on this, and what's the lighting period. Great tank by the way.

Nick


----------



## jsenske (Mar 15, 2004)

Nick- sure. It's quite easy because the tank is exactly 1 month old (as of 9/13). It required NO DOSING for the first 3 weeks, and at week 4 I started adding: 
a little ADA GREEN BRIGHTY STEP 1, about 8ml per day. (Recommended amount for this TANK SIZE [not the layout style, but the TANK SIZE] is 14ml/day). I am dialing it back because, again, the glosso looked very healthy and I wanted desparately to control algae on the rocks. 
This tanks sees almost 500watts of light for 4.5 hours each day so I was really anticipating an algae issue of some kind. But actually I can not tell you how easy this tank has been. And I HAVE tried this before with much struggle and strife. I ended up having the scrub the heck out of the rocks with much algae/health issues the glosso (I had to come in with liquid ferts alot sooner to combat color loss, stunted growth, etc.).

some BRIGHTY K- about the same amount

ECA (50 drops which = about half recommended dose for a tank this size) after the last 2 water changes (which have been about 25% every 5 days). All these minimalist/foreground-only layouts Amano does - he always lists the use of the ECA, whereas it is sort of randomly used on other layout styles (or I should say I don't see the consistent pattern with the use of ECA on other layout styles).

I think keeping the water column so lean really helped keep the rocks nice and clean. The glosso obviously has been getting what it needs from the substrate. It has yet to show signs of "needing" much water column ferts. I think too that it grew so fast and is such the nitrate sponge that rock-growth type algae could not get a foothold.

I did have a little green powdery algae on the glass the first 2 weeks- it would show up daily, actually. Came right off and eventually went away. Obviously during that time I was not dosing liquids which would have only made it worse I believe. The glosso stayed healthy, again, by getting nutrition from the substrate.


----------



## neilw (Nov 20, 2004)

Jeff are you using the ADA filter on this tank or do the lilly pipes fit conventional external filters?


----------



## Nick (Jan 12, 2005)

Thanks for the info Jeff. Are you finding it quite typical to go pretty lean on the water column ferts when using ADA substrate, even when you've got a lot of stem plants in there and so on? No problems with macros?

Thanks,
Nick


----------



## Mookka (Aug 29, 2005)

*Nice*

GREAT SETUP,

I really like the setup; do you or anyone else in here know where I can get some similar rock?


----------



## jsenske (Mar 15, 2004)

neilw- I am using EHEIM classics (2217, 2215) exclusively. The Lily Pipes fit them with no problem at all.


----------



## jsenske (Mar 15, 2004)

Nick said:


> Thanks for the info Jeff. Are you finding it quite typical to go pretty lean on the water column ferts when using ADA substrate, even when you've got a lot of stem plants in there and so on? No problems with macros?
> 
> Thanks,
> Nick


YES! Though in a new tank I have here with lots of stemmed plants, it showed signs of wanting macros after about 2 weeks. I started in w/ a 1/2 dose of BRIGHTY LIGHTS, and everything is thriving. In all, I do find keeping the water column lean- especially in the beginning- is really keeping algae at bay, and the plants are certainly growing very well. When I have tried to dose more "normally", I have run into minor algae outbreaks. But simply cutting back on liquid fert amounts seemed to get rid of it almost right away- especially as the plants keep on growing fast and healthy-- they starve out that algae very quickly.


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

This correlates well with what we've seen elsewhere, 2-3 week time frames.
That's also about how long it takes for the bacteria and the NH4 to dissipate.

I am going to try dosing from the first day and see hwo that goes with mulm also.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## cyndayco (Aug 30, 2005)

On the lily pipes: May I ask if they can also fit Fluval cannisters?


----------



## jsenske (Mar 15, 2004)

Yes- it's just a matter of matching to the hose diameters .Though with some tanks the arch does not make it over the rim if there's excessive trim or perimeter bracing. 

With the hose diameters I can help you match the Lily Pipes.


----------



## neilw (Nov 20, 2004)

jsenske said:


> neilw- I am using EHEIM classics (2217, 2215) exclusively. The Lily Pipes fit them with no problem at all.


thanks for the info


----------



## jerseyjay (Jan 25, 2004)

jsenske said:


> turbo, I shoot in RAW- edit in CS2/CameraRaw- get s great looking 50MB TIFF file that I resize to around 640X360, then "Save for Web" at whatever level gets it to as close to 100KB as possible/JPEG. That file loses a lot and I am not sure why.


Jeff,

I'm using similar workflow. Shoot in RAW and edit with Nikon Capture / CS2.

Color is way off indeed. I'm not sure what K bulbs you are using but by looking at the pictures it looks ~5K. Which is not what you normally use, right ? I would initially try to set correct White Balance. There is nothing more important in studio photography then getting WB as close as possible before editing. I'm assuming you know how to pre-set custom WB. Since you said that your TIFFs have correct WB, I would like to know what Color Settings are you using. Is your monitor calibrated ? Are you shooting in Adobe or SRGB ? Are you converting / assigning SRGB profile in PhotoShop ? Last but not least, I wouldn't follow "Save For Web ~100kb" rule. I would probably stick to JPEG ~80-85 quality instead of fixed KB value. Your tanks and aquascapes are top notch, I wouldn't care about bandwith and the size.

Let me know if you have any additional questions ?

BTW.

- Did you ever get D2X ? I bought mine in March and love it. 
- How is that tank doing, that you put together when I was there ?

Great work !


----------

