Metal Halides Making a Come Back? Don’t call it a come back?

[Troylee]

Actually what is the "real" color? you cant say the color is wrong based on a color created from a mh artificial light source.
Only different...

If leds came first the mh color would be "wrong"...
Bit more about this morphology thing..

Distorted/mutant morphology in Acroporas radial and axial corallite structure.

Something I have noticing for a while now is the very unique/strange morphology in certain species of acropora when grown under LED only lighting, compared with corals grown under t5/led hybrid, MH and T5 only. Example- I notice with led only grown A. tenuis that the dimidiate (lip)of the...

www.reef2reef.com

Not really… a strawberry shortcake is a great example.. it’s pink and green in the ocean “true color” it’s the same under halides and the same under led’s.. here’s my problem with all this.. I have halides on my tank and under 14k everything is a certain color and under my reefbrites at night it’s completely different.. I don’t think they shift corals to a false color I think it just washes out everything! Next problem is under a orange lens it’s totally different and that’s how most people take their pics now..

 

[lbacha]

Fixed it for you.

You can't say they're growing deformed without showing what the corals' true form would have been. I'm willing to concede that how light spreads from an LED versus a Metal Halide may cause the coral to grow differently, but I will never agree that that results in a "deformed" coral. The coral in our tanks inherently grows differently no matter which lighting we use because no lighting directly mimics the properties of the sun, not even Metal Halide; even at depth, the light output, angle of light, and spectrum of light are vastly different within our tanks than it is on a natural reef. In fact, if you could clone a coral and set the clones in 5 different places on a natural reef, they would all grow differently due to their lighting circumstances at each location. So, deformed is definitely not the right word. Also, the colors in corals can't be artificial if they're created through their natural processes; again, we see many color combinations in nature from the same species of coral, and since the sunlight drowns out the fluorescence of corals in nature, we can never truly know what they look like until we get them under different artificial lights that accentuate certain pigmentation and fluorescence.

Flow also has a huge impact on growth form as well so that also negates the it’s just the different type of lights causing the coral to grow the way they do

 

[maroun.c]

I have run halides then halides and t5s and now halides and LEds over my display tank since 24 years.
Currently I run my 400 display with 3 halides and 4 radions and run 6 other tanks with LEds only. I feel growth in the DT is better and color rendition of halides with 14 k bulbs is better and allows for easier photography and a more realistic color being viewed... of course the phosphorescent u get with leds running full blues can be matched so I feel both complement each other.
From a cost perspective I feel the added heat of halides abd yearly bulbs is nowhere close to Leds prices and the need to upgrade or replace every 3-4 years but that's a very personal consideration and for others the heat might be a pain.
Electrical consumption believe it or.not is the same.if not less with halides vs LEDs when u consider the number of units u need to run to replace halides..

 

[JNalley]

Flow also has a huge impact on growth form as well so that also negates the it’s just the different type of lights causing the coral to grow the way they do

Yes, but in the context of this conversation about lighting, since we know corals grow toward and in response to light, I was simply willing to concede that they may grow differently under the two different forms. Flow will also have an impact on growth. But if we try to reduce the noise and keep it within the context of conversation, if we could create two completely identical tanks and we simply change the lighting so one is MH and one is LED, I'm willing to concede that the one under LED will grow differently from the one under MH specifically because of the way the light his the corals, which spectrums are more pronounced, etc. Doesn't mean that other things don't also factor in, just that I'm willing to agree there's a difference between the two.

 

[A. grandis]

Not really… a strawberry shortcake is a great example.. it’s pink and green in the ocean “true color” it’s the same under halides and the same under led’s.. here’s my problem with all this.. I have halides on my tank and under 14k everything is a certain color and under my reefbrites at night it’s completely different.. I don’t think they shift corals to a false color I think it just washes out everything! Next problem is under a orange lens it’s totally different and that’s how most people take their pics now..

Oh man... those orange lenses/ glasses... Those are real "fake colors". LOL! Kinda stupid to fool temselves through that, when what they look for is that blue tank under those LEDs in the first place! It contradicts their preferences. LOL!
Can't ANYONE in this world agree with that?

My definition for "real colors" is the formation of the pigments that comes with the coral from the ocean.
The only problem is that is that most people have no idea, cause most of the corals today are from under LEDs and that is the only reference they have when they buy the frags. Poor kids... not their faults. I understand that, of course. And if they like, they like...

 

[A. grandis]

I have run halides then halides and t5s and now halides and LEds over my display tank since 24 years.
Currently I run my 400 display with 3 halides and 4 radions and run 6 other tanks with LEds only. I feel growth in the DT is better and color rendition of halides with 14 k bulbs is better and allows for easier photography and a more realistic color being viewed... of course the phosphorescent u get with leds running full blues can be matched so I feel both complement each other.
From a cost perspective I feel the added heat of halides abd yearly bulbs is nowhere close to Leds prices and the need to upgrade or replace every 3-4 years but that's a very personal consideration and for others the heat might be a pain.
Electrical consumption believe it or.not is the same.if not less with halides vs LEDs when u consider the number of units u need to run to replace halides..

Yup, a little less with halides/T5s here in comparison to when I had LEDs.
Some people like the sun, some people like the shades, so...

 

[JNalley]

Oh man... those orange lenses/ glasses... Those are real "fake colors". LOL! Kinda stupid to fool temselves through that, when what they look for is that blue tank under those LEDs in the first place! It contradicts their preferences. LOL!
Can't ANYONE in this world agree with that?

My definition for "real colors" is the formation of the pigments that comes with the coral from the ocean.
The only problem is that is that most people have no idea, cause most of the corals today are from under LEDs and that is the only reference they have when they buy the frags. Poor kids... not their faults. I understand that, of course. And if they like, they like...

I think you're confusing visualization (the way our eyes perceive the way light reacts to pigment) and pigment itself.

Clip a coral from the ocean, bring it into your home and put it under metal halides and t5's, it will look very similar. Take that same coral, move it into a tank under blue heavy LEDs, it will look completely different, because the LEDs have filtered out the other wavelengths that drown out the fluorescence in favor of those that accentuate it. Here's the rub, you can add the missing colors back into the LEDs by way of adding white/yellow/red back into the spectrum, and it will look the same as it did in the ocean. The colors in blue-heavy tanks exist in the ocean, you simply cannot see them because they are drowned out by the full spectrum output of the sun. See the below chart:

The main chart is the intensity of the different wavelengths produced by the sun at the Earths surface encompassing everything from 350nm all the way up to 750nm. Each of the colored lined R, O, LG, G, B are the spectral output of the sun at depth (1m, 5m, etc) The pink line, which is my addition to the chart, is the human eyes sensitivity to specific wavelenghts. As you can see, our eyes are most sensitive yellow to red and less sensitive green to purple. The Ocean does a great job of filtering out the reds, but still leaves a ton of yellows for our eyes to pick up, even though blue is the most prominent spectrum at depth. This causes our eyes to filter out the natural fluorescence of the corals, because they're simply being drowned out by the ways in which our eyes perceive them.

Now, you bring up the orange and yellow filters, that filters out the stray blue-heavy light and allows for more of the reds and yellows to make their way back into our eye when viewing. Filters are used in Photography all the time, not just for corals, but for regular picture taking, as a way to accentuate certain spectrums that already exist.

 

[lbacha]

Yes, but in the context of this conversation about lighting, since we know corals grow toward and in response to light, I was simply willing to concede that they may grow differently under the two different forms. Flow will also have an impact on growth. But if we try to reduce the noise and keep it within the context of conversation, if we could create two completely identical tanks and we simply change the lighting so one is MH and one is LED, I'm willing to concede that the one under LED will grow differently from the one under MH specifically because of the way the light his the corals, which spectrums are more pronounced, etc. Doesn't mean that other things don't also factor in, just that I'm willing to agree there's a difference between the two.

I don’t think we can consider all MH and all Led to be the same either. I started with 6500k MH mogul based lamps with diy reflectors and VHO supplemental lights. Over the decades MH fixtures and bulbs were refined to what people are co

Oh man... those orange lenses/ glasses... Those are real "fake colors". LOL! Kinda stupid to fool temselves through that, when what they look for is that blue tank under those LEDs in the first place! It contradicts their preferences. LOL!
Can't ANYONE in this world agree with that?

My definition for "real colors" is the formation of the pigments that comes with the coral from the ocean.
The only problem is that is that most people have no idea, cause most of the corals today are from under LEDs and that is the only reference they have when they buy the frags. Poor kids... not their faults. I understand that, of course. And if they like, they like...

real vs fake colors is a loaded viewpoint. I have been diving real coral reefs since the mid 90’s and depth has a huge impact on our interpretation of color. I personally love snorkeling or diving shallow reefs as you get a much better understanding of the color of a coral under natural sunlight. Once you get below 30’ or so everything gets washed out as all the light spectrums other than blue start to get filtered out. Many corals never actually get lit by unfiltered sunlight as they live at deeper depths. I have always liked a bit more white in my lights but that is to mimic shallow water than more than what is natural for all coral. I do agree that UV and fluorescence is not something you will see while diving unless you provide it. We have been adding that to our reef tanks as long as I can remember though via VHO actinics and now T5’s and leds. LEDs have taking it a step farther with royal blue (not a huge fan myself)

 

[JNalley]

I don’t think we can consider all MH and all Led to be the same either. I started with 6500k MH mogul based lamps with diy reflectors and VHO supplemental lights. Over the decades MH fixtures and bulbs were refined to what people are co

Oh for sure. A Kessil will grow corals far differently from a Radion, and a Dappled reflector on a MH will grow them completely different from a highly polished reflector. Totally agreed. As light properties change, so does the way nature reacts to them.

 

[Troylee]

Oh for sure. A Kessil will grow corals far differently from a Radion, and a Dappled reflector on a MH will grow them completely different from a highly polished reflector. Totally agreed. As light properties change, so does the way nature reacts to them.

Curious what you’ve experienced to make the claim that a hammered reflector grows differently than a polished? I have both over my tank and don’t see any difference besides higher par 100+ under the hammered one.

 

[lbacha]

Curious what you’ve experienced to make the claim that a hammered reflector grows differently than a polished? I have both over my tank and don’t see any difference besides higher par 100+ under the hammered one.

I would think the 100+ par would make a difference but that is a whole different can of worms. I’m assuming all these conversations revolve around the same par levels. If par comes into play then so does a lot of other factors. I’m not sure smith vs dappled has any effect on the color of the light which is what most of this discussion has revolved around. Even shadowing and spread can’t be considered because a panel style led like Orphek or ATI will be completely different than a puck style like Kessil. This is an interesting conversation as there are so many variables

 

[JNalley]

Curious what you’ve experienced to make the claim that a hammered reflector grows differently than a polished? I have both over my tank and don’t see any difference besides higher par 100+ under the hammered one.

In the early 2000's I had two 55 Gallons with MH (only MH, no T5 supplement) over them. One of them had polished reflectors and the other had dappled/hammered reflectors. The Polished reflectors produced significantly darker shadows than the dappled (The fixtures were also slightly different with the polished being smaller in length and width but slightly deeper in height, resulting in a more focused light)

The dappled was more like this:

While the polished was more like this:

Both were single light fixtures, with 250 Watt bulbs, same brand, same 20,000K (At least I think they were, it's hard to remember that far back), but the slight difference in the dimensions of the reflectors and the polished vs dappled produced different lighting results between the two tanks. As a result the tank with sharper shadows had more outward and upward growth like this / (but a much shallower angle) with 90% of the growth happening on the side of the colony closer to the light, while the tank with dappled light saw less upward and more outward more like __ though obviously not flat, but the rate of growth wasn't as lopsided, 70% of the growth happened on the side with more light while the other grew about 30%...

Once I upgraded to MH + T5 lighting, things evened out more and growth happened everywhere. This is why I attribute that to the softer more diffuse light coming from the dappled reflector. Of course, it could have been other things like flow, placement, PAR (Which I never measured for) etc. I mean it's not like poweheads back then were as advanced as they are now, they were on electronic timers with on-off cycles... But those were my observations between the two tanks.

This is similar to what I switched over to on both tanks when they evened out:

 

[Troylee]

In the early 2000's I had two 55 Gallons with MH (only MH, no T5 supplement) over them. One of them had polished reflectors and the other had dappled/hammered reflectors. The Polished reflectors produced significantly darker shadows than the dappled (The fixtures were also slightly different with the polished being smaller in length and width but slightly deeper in height, resulting in a more focused light)

The dappled was more like this:

While the polished was more like this:

Both were single light fixtures, with 250 Watt bulbs, same brand, same 20,000K (At least I think they were, it's hard to remember that far back), but the slight difference in the dimensions of the reflectors and the polished vs dappled produced different lighting results between the two tanks. As a result the tank with sharper shadows had more outward and upward growth like this / (but a much shallower angle) with 90% of the growth happening on the side of the colony closer to the light, while the tank with dappled light saw less upward and more outward more like __ though obviously not flat, but the rate of growth wasn't as lopsided, 70% of the growth happened on the side with more light while the other grew about 30%...

Once I upgraded to MH + T5 lighting, things evened out more and growth happened everywhere. This is why I attribute that to the softer more diffuse light coming from the dappled reflector. Of course, it could have been other things like flow, placement, PAR (Which I never measured for) etc. I mean it's not like poweheads back then were as advanced as they are now, they were on electronic timers with on-off cycles... But those were my observations between the two tanks.

This is similar to what I switched over to on both tanks when they evened out:

Interesting… yeah my cayman suns are polished and 12x12 on the outsides and in the center I have a lumenarc that’s hammered and 14x14 it puts out Much more light but I haven’t noticed any difference in structural growth just a little faster under it. Same bulbs and ballast in all 3 which is Phoenix 14k 250watt you can tell in my pictures more than in person it’s brighter in the center.

 

[A. grandis]

So hard to write over and over the same explanations every single time a thread like this comes up... It seems like there is a huge team of LED users out there sending fresh groups every time that are just waiting to get into the conversation to try to teach me how to understand all this with the same questions and suggestions... tired.

 

[Hans-Werner]

Interesting…
Sooooo… Is there particular nutrient or particular numbers to aim for?
Also is there particular trace elements you suspect are, let’s say more critical that one should watch out for?

Well, you may already know that I always emphasize the importance of phosphate for coral growth. Phosphate is also the nutrient that gets incorporated and precipitated in the hard coral skeletons while most of the available nitrogen compounds may get recycled. I recommend around 0.10 to 0.15 ppm phosphate.

Trace elements is one of my main subjects of interest for 30 years now and I am still learning because the interactions are complex and the effects seem different to me than commonly said.

Something I found out in the last years is that copper seems to be quite important and I came to the conclusion that corals need only very little iron and excess iron has negative effects. This is in contrast to what is generally said but reflects the concentrations in ocean waters.

Copper and iron both have prooxidative as well as antioxidative functions, depending also on concentrations. In my eyes iron seems to switch to prooxidative function in corals and their zooxanthellae quite readily while the prooxidative effect of copper seems to start in the zooxanthellae long before affecting the coral.

So it is a matter of balance and fine tuning. A lot takes place below the detection limits of ICP-OES, so it is hard to give hard numbers for the trace metals.

Still corals will grow deformed, showing artificial colors under LEDs.

In my experience it is vice versa: While some corals like Montipora digitata and Acropora millepora grow quite unnatural under MH and T5 they form much more branches and more sturdy growth under LED. The natural cusion or table shape of A. millepora is in my experience more beautiful and regular under LED.

I prefer a more even distribution of the LED. You have to take into account that the sun in the tropics is following an arch of 180° and will hit corals in shallow water from almost every angle (but there is an effect of refraction at the water's surface). A LED bar can be quite a good approximation.

Finally you can create almost every spectrum with combinations of LEDs if you want. You can for example combine cool white, warm white and blue LEDs to create a more natural spectrum with more green and yellow.

 

[A. grandis]

In my experience it is vice versa: While some corals like Montipora digitata and Acropora millepora grow quite unnatural under MH and T5 they form much more branches and more sturdy growth under LED. The natural cusion or table shape of A. millepora is in my experience more beautiful and regular under LED.

I prefer a more even distribution of the LED. You have to take into account that the sun in the tropics is following an arch of 180° and will hit corals in shallow water from almost every angle (but there is an effect of refraction at the water's surface). A LED bar can be quite a good approximation.

Finally you can create almost every spectrum with combinations of LEDs if you want. You can for example combine cool white, warm white and blue LEDs to create a more natural spectrum with more green and yellow.

I did see some few examples where colonies showed better grow pattern under some of the LEDs. Depending on the position of the coral in the system sometimes, like under overlaps, for example. They still had dead spots under, tough. Pigment formation isn't the same. Reflection of blue/violet diodes makes a difference to impress. When halides have correct application those dead spots under are absent. To use the right reflector is so important with halides! The very best for homogeneous growth is T5 only lighting IME. The halide is the only light that will produce some of the natural pigments we see in the ocean tough. Using both you get the best spectrum with the superb distribution. Panel LEDs are the best to resemble T5s and will be the very best to produce that blanket of light to avoid those weird growth patterns we normally see. It would be great to see images of those coals you are talking about and to know what type of LED fixture you used in those cases. It was probably a panel full of LEDs covering most of the surface area of the system, right? You are the first person that told me you had weird growth using halides. I wonder why you experience that. The only time you could have that under halides is when water flow is seriously compromised. Then the water flow is what did that, which has nothing to do with lighting.

 

[Hans-Werner]

I did see some few examples where colonies showed better grow pattern under some of the LEDs. Depending on the position of the coral in the system sometimes, like under overlaps, for example. They still had dead spots under, tough. Pigment formation isn't the same.

Here is an image that is already some months old. Meanwhile the plates have grown a lot. They have grown under LED only. What is you opinion?

 

[A. grandis]

Here is an image that is already some months old. Meanwhile the plates have grown a lot. They have grown under LED only. What is you opinion?

Thanks for the picture.
That is the normal under LEDs though. Well, could be worse too...so, not too bad. It shows nice colors too!! Lovely!
I was expecting way more images from the tank and info about your fixtures.
But yeah, that's what happens... some places in the tank is worse than other places. The best LEDs in this world are the ones that simulates T5s, like the old Lani and if you would have enough of those Coral Care fixtures aligned, or enough of any other decent panel style fixture to cover, for example.
But hey... your colony looks good. People tend to paint a bad image of me when we talking about lighting because they think I'm blindly against LEDs. thy call me "hater". LOL! If only they knew me. All my LED friends love me, so...

I am against the way the LED companies and some vendors shoot their propaganda since the beginning, comparing with T5s and MH. I am against diminishing MH and T5s and promoting LEDs as better source of quality light. I am against the fact that some major stores would simply make videos trying to brainwash hobbyists in thinking MH and T5s are "dead" after removing them from their stock claiming they have no space on their shelves. I think that is disrespectful and not professional. Specially when all the MH fixtures they used to sell were shipped directly from the manufacturers. If MH was dead we would never have Radium getting back to production in Germany and a brand new MH company launched in 2024, Aqua Bright Solutions, selling all lamps in US! I am against when they simply say their LEDs are "better" than halides without explaining any of the real supposed advantages in a serious fair comparison, cause I can do the same in favor to MH and T5s, or anything in live to tell the truth. (sorry to those who are tired of knowing all that from my posts).

The fact is that each application will drive the system to the coral's health accordingly to the limits of those applications. The fact is that LEDs will never be able to SUBSTITUTE halides or T5s with the same qualities of spectrum, intensity and distribution at it's best. Just like halides can't SUBSTITUTE T5s for the same reasons. Remember when we had the MH vs T5s discussions in the past? Same idea here. The only difference is that back in the day the T5 manufacturers didn't try to prove their lights as "better" than the other no matter what with PDFs. That doesn't mean one is actually better than the other to EVERYONE in this world either, because everyone has the right to choose what they want for their tank. Is the same for chemistry and everything else. No one can force anyone to accept such and such systems as the ultimate best. BUT... each system will provide different results and what that person is looking for. So specific results and ways to apply methods is what we should choose to achieve. Now, when I expose MY OWN wishes for results and say that MY experience is this way I like, people interpret as a threat against their choices. Why? The fact I feel sorry for the majority of corals under LEDs is ONLY beause of what I would aim for my own, and I wish the best (which is the best for me) to everyone. My posts will give some boost to those who know that MH and T5s are still very alive and should be considered as very important choices in this hobby.
People call my expressions towards my preferences as "passion".

Back to Acropora millepora, as an example. Here are some of the images of what would be a perfect representation of a healthy colony in the wild (pictures by our friend Vincent Chalias):

This is a great example of a tank that had all colonies in a very appreciative balanced growth under halides (photo by our friend Mike Palleta).

This is a sad example of a colony that had the amazing potential to become a beautiful show piece, but was compromised in an aquarium under LEDs. The colors show that it was under LEDs, which is the main reason why we have such deformities happening today even with the pigment formation. Not chemistry, not water flow. I know this one is on the worse side of the examples, though, but very common as a general rule around the world today. Where is this hobby going? How much money our friend aquarists will have to spend on LEDs to achieve better results?

I would apprecite if you would take some time to share some tips to those who would be interested to learn from you an the information of your LED fixtures. many people are struggling with LEDs and still want to use them, so...

References:

Acropora millepora: Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About This Coral | Reef Builders | The Reef and Saltwater Aquarium Blog

Acropora millepora is probably the most famous Acropora right after Acropora tenuis. Demand for this SPS coral waxes and wanes but it’s always a very popular coral, and holds a very special place in…

reefbuilders.com

My Mini-Reef Past, Present, and Future | Reef Builders | The Reef and Saltwater Aquarium Blog

I’m Back. Well, after a brief six-year hiatus, I am happy to be back writing for Reef Builders on a regular basis. To be honest, it is kind of bittersweet, as it is not quite the same as it was when I…

reefbuilders.com

 

[JNalley]

If MH was dead we would never have Radium getting back to production in Germany and a brand new MH company launched in 2024, Aqua Bright Solutions, selling all lamps in US!

But this is not a good goalpost/sign that MH isn't dead... I am positive that 99.9% of people polled would say that Tube amplifiers are dead and have been dead for 20+ years, but new companies are still popping up all the time making new tube amplifiers. They're a niche audiophile market, no serious studios are using them in regular production, retailers are not stocking them in large quantities, and market share is 99.99999% Solid State amplifiers. Sometimes, tube amps are featured on one or two tracks, or maybe an entire album, because they're looking for a particular sound, but it's not an indication that they're on the upswing and coming back.

That's basically what's happening with Metal Halide. Some holdouts embrace and continue to use the old technology, and some companies have figured out that there was a hole to fill in the market, so they're filling that hole. It's a niche market for people like you.

I am against when they simply say their LEDs are "better" than halides without explaining any of the real supposed advantages in a serious fair comparison, cause I can do the same in favor to MH and T5s, or anything in live to tell the truth. (sorry to those who are tired of knowing all that from my posts).

How would you like to see the comparison? What parameters would you like discussed in a fair and direct head-to-head? What is your benchmark for success? Because, to be candid, I feel like the benefits of LEDs over Halides have been spoken about so many times that your argument here is more based on the fact that you either don't believe people or you're stuck in your ways and don't want to hear it... This is perfectly valid, but saying no one explains the advantages in a serious and fair comparison seems completely disingenuous.

 

[A. grandis]

But this is not a good goalpost/sign that MH isn't dead... I am positive that 99.9% of people polled would say that Tube amplifiers are dead and have been dead for 20+ years, but new companies are still popping up all the time making new tube amplifiers. They're a niche audiophile market, no serious studios are using them in regular production, retailers are not stocking them in large quantities, and market share is 99.99999% Solid State amplifiers. Sometimes, tube amps are featured on one or two tracks, or maybe an entire album, because they're looking for a particular sound, but it's not an indication that they're on the upswing and coming back.

That's basically what's happening with Metal Halide. Some holdouts embrace and continue to use the old technology, and some companies have figured out that there was a hole to fill in the market, so they're filling that hole. It's a niche market for people like you.

No... there is a very strong marketing strategy for more than a decade to try to remove halides and T5s from this hobby and promote LEDs as a "better option". To see LEDs as "best" is as subjective as to see MH and T5s as "best". There is a pressure against halide users as well. There is a bias for LEDs and a very strong negative acceptance to those who still use halides/T5s. That needs to change. It is changing now...

How would you like to see the comparison? What parameters would you like discussed in a fair and direct head-to-head? What is your benchmark for success? Because, to be candid, I feel like the benefits of LEDs over Halides have been spoken about so many times that your argument here is more based on the fact that you either don't believe people or you're stuck in your ways and don't want to hear it... This is perfectly valid, but saying no one explains the advantages in a serious and fair comparison seems completely disingenuous.

I don't need comparison. I don't think anyone needs any comparison with so many channels showing results from both sides. It is what it is. We all can see videos and more videos and choose what we want. People should be able to try and choose. Any serious article pointing the pros and cons would be a fair comparison if all factors would be taken in consideration. Still personal preferences would play.
It's not a crime to use halides or T5s. It's not a crime to use LEDs. People need to understand that everyone has the right to express what they want and what to follow as the standard for what they want. Halide users need to be accepted more and have the right to put their observations for others to consider. Just that!