Why do people ask for coral pics under "daylight" lighting...and does anyone ACTUALLY use this type

[jdl513]

A photo of the frag under lighting that matches what the mother colony is primarily grown under is best.
If grown under heavy blue/actinic fine but if growing well under 12K 90% of each days light cycle than show it that way.

In my opinion SPS in particular can look amazing under 12-14K if given the time for them to grow under those conditions.
As a bonus when they grow out they look that much better during the short dawn/dusk periods.

Adam at BC posts the kind of photos I appreciate.
True to life depictions of some very nice corals.

 

[RalphsReef]

Could you elaborate a little on this? I get the issue of Photoshop abuse (definitely to be frowned upon), but how does taking a dull/browned out picture under white/yellow light fix this? Couldn't it be said that this is also a gross misrepresentation of the coral? It seems to me that if we say a vendor/seller should take a 10k (or less) pic, then we're asking them to take a picture that doesn't do the coral justice. Definitely doesn't sound like this is asking for accuracy (since I'll never be looking at the coral in this kind of lighting once I get it).

You actually hit on part of it in your opening statement about the "smurf fingers" (LOL, by the way) and blue frag plugs. As a few others have stated, not everyone has their blue on full blast all day long. I used to run 10k's and got really good coral growth from it. I have quite a few years into the hobby, so I feel somewhat confident in being able to guess what various pieces would look like in less than 250% (a sarcastic number by the way) blasted actinic shot. It's the brand new hobbyists that will feel duped that I am looking out for. One "vendor" (he doesn't actually sponsor here, or anywhere that I am aware of) that comes to mind is a definite abuser of actinic saturated shots. I have yet to see a "normal" photo from him on his sales. Yet, he expects a lot of people to drop their hard earned cornbread on his pieces. Oooops, did I just say that out loud?

 

[DFW]

I posted some euphlia fragments on dfwmas for sale. I was asked if they were green with blue tips because of the posted pictures. They were really green with purple tips. If they were green with blue tips, someone that did not have that would likely want some. If it was really green with purple tips, and just showed blue tips because of lighting, and they already had that variation, they would be making the drive to my house for nothing.

 

[schminksbro]

I applaud Adam's post. I too struggled with pics for a long time. I think that my picture quality has improved but I am curious what others see when they see these pics?

 

[ritter6788]

Read Steve Tyree's recent post on his facebook page about the origin of named corals. People were accusing him of enhancing the colors on his corals since Acros were first imported.

There are always haters no matter what you do. If your corals are colored people cry photoshop because theirs are not.

 

[metrokat]

The light in my tank isn't windex blue. In fact I have a windex wand that is submersible which I turn on when I want night time viewing and it makes the corals look gorgeous.
Like so

However this is not the way I like my tank to look all the time, so I like to see 14K pictures, not necessarily "daylight" but not the blue that vendors use at frag swaps.

 

[MrDJeep123]

I think this is more of an "I don't understand white balance and how photography actually works so I'm going to blame it on people taking "fake" photos." I was going to post a rant in photography the other day, but decided not to. I **** off enough people IRL as it is. :xd:

 

[TheSaint216]

Anyone care to buy some Sunny D's? Pic above under 20 k

 

[metrokat]

:wink:

 

[Fishywoo]

For me if a corals colors look vibrant in daylight lighting they are usually spectacular under 14k or 20k.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

For me if a corals colors look vibrant in daylight lighting they are usually spectacular under 14k or 20k.

Interesting statement since some in this discussion have said that 14k (or even 20k) IS daylight (because both have white light present). What do you consider to be "daylight" lighting and do you keep your tank under that lighting?

 

[that Reef Guy]

I applaud Adam's post. I too struggled with pics for a long time. I think that my picture quality has improved but I am curious what others see when they see these pics?

Andy,

I think your pictures look great and represent what you are selling.

 

[wangspeed]

well its a funny thing really and a lot of the mediocre pics out there may have to do more with skill and experience than ill intentions. The more time you spend behind a camera the more you can get them to do what you want. a stroll through my own forum or catalog is proof of that Before i figured out how to make a pic look halfway decent they looked horrible. No matter what i did or however i tried to get them to look better.

here's a couple examples that demonstrate this pretty well. at least in my case.

a milli pack from 2011

Custom pack a few weeks ago. not the greatest pic by far but a much much better representation. If i see a pic like the one above don't even slow down unless i know theres something really really nice in it.

I believe good photography is an online venders best asset

Adam, this is a great example of pics. Thanks for posting this. I agree. I would skip FS posts that contain pics like the first one. No offense. The second is a massive improvement containing a realistic amount of white.

 

[Battlecorals]

Adam, this is a great example of pics. Thanks for posting this. I agree. I would skip FS posts that contain pics like the first one. No offense. The second is a massive improvement containing a realistic amount of white.

ha ha none taken. its amazing what four solid years behind the camera will teach you

 

[VelasCorals]

Could you elaborate a little on this? I get the issue of Photoshop abuse (definitely to be frowned upon), but how does taking a dull/browned out picture under white/yellow light fix this? Couldn't it be said that this is also a gross misrepresentation of the coral? It seems to me that if we say a vendor/seller should take a 10k (or less) pic, then we're asking them to take a picture that doesn't do the coral justice. Definitely doesn't sound like this is asking for accuracy (since I'll never be looking at the coral in this kind of lighting once I get it).

It's just a passive aggressive way to call out someone when their pics are over saturated. Not the case all the time but what I have seen over the last 6 years it's usually the case.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

It's just a passive aggressive way to call out someone when their pics are over saturated. Not the case all the time but what I have seen over the last 6 years it's usually the case.

I think you're right. I try not assume this...but it seems like the obvious truth. Unfortunately, what is or is not over saturated is not something that can't always be determined IME (though there certainly are cases of GROSS over saturation that are easily spotted...)...some corals really do look THAT good! In the end if the buyer doesn't trust the picture (and therefore the seller), then it's just best to walk away. If it's unintentional, then taking a second pic isn't likely to fix the problem (bad photography isn't conquered in a day), and (if what we suspect is really generally meant by asking for a daylight pic is true and) if the seller is intentionally over saturating, then the request for a second pic is a waste of time on someone who is trying to scam and not going to be inclined to give in to the request. The bigger pitfall here is that many people aren't likely to go taking extra pictures even when the intent is not to scam bc the perception is that the seller is being passive-aggressively accused of foul play (photoshop abuse) and not likely to receive said accusation very well.

 

[MrDJeep123]

I think you're right. I try not assume this...but it seems like the obvious truth. Unfortunately, what is or is not over saturated is not something that can't always be determined IME (though there certainly are cases of GROSS over saturation that are easily spotted...)...some corals really do look THAT good! In the end if the buyer doesn't trust the picture (and therefore the seller), then it's just best to walk away. If it's unintentional, then taking a second pic isn't likely to fix the problem (bad photography isn't conquered in a day), and (if what we suspect is really generally meant by asking for a daylight pic is true and) if the seller is intentionally over saturating, then the request for a second pic is a waste of time on someone who is trying to scam and not going to be inclined to give in to the request. The bigger pitfall here is that many people aren't likely to go taking extra pictures even when the intent is not to scam bc the perception is that the seller is being passive-aggressively accused of foul play (photoshop abuse) and not likely to receive said accusation very well.

I hope @Battlecorals doesn't mind, but I took the liberty in correcting the first image they posted and corrected for white balance. It's not 100% completed, but I took a few minutes just correct the temperature and tint. I actually had to decrease saturation a little, and I'm sure people will still cry foul saying it's overly saturated. If I spent more time, it would be 100% accurate. I feel the edit is fairly near true to what you would see, not accounting for shadowing, and a few other things.
Again, to me, it's the issue that people have a misunderstanding of how color corrections work for an image and just a general lack of photographic knowledge. If people took the time to learn the very basics of photography, a lot of the crying I see would stop. I'd also venture to say that people who are asking for daylight photos also don't understand lighting temperature and how it affects colors through photography. In general, just a whole lot of lack of understanding.
With a few clicks of the mouse, and a few strokes of the keyboard, google is your friend, then learning can begin! :angel:

 

[Daniel@R2R]

I hope @Battlecorals doesn't mind, but I took the liberty in correcting the first image they posted and corrected for white balance. It's not 100% completed, but I took a few minutes just correct the temperature and tint. I actually had to decrease saturation a little, and I'm sure people will still cry foul saying it's overly saturated. If I spent more time, it would be 100% accurate. I feel the edit is fairly near true to what you would see, not accounting for shadowing, and a few other things.
Again, to me, it's the issue that people have a misunderstanding of how color corrections work for an image and just a general lack of photographic knowledge. If people took the time to learn the very basics of photography, a lot of the crying I see would stop. I'd also venture to say that people who are asking for daylight photos also don't understand lighting temperature and how it affects colors through photography. In general, just a whole lot of lack of understanding.
With a few clicks of the mouse, and a few strokes of the keyboard, google is your friend, then learning can begin! :angel:

I agree 100% with what you are saying here.

...also, may I now send you all of my build thread photos for adjustment? :xd: Great job!

 

[ritter6788]

A lot has to do with difference in tank lighting also. Many people think if their corals don't look like someone else's it must be photoshopped. Different lighting has different effects on corals. I have corals that glow under blue leds and some that look dull under blue leds and look nicer under whites.

 

[82engineer]

Not sure what you mean by " have a yellow coral be yellow instead of green." If no color adjustments are being made to the coral (we're not putting makeup on them), then no one is changing the color of the coral...just representing what it looks like under specific color/lighting spectrums. If a 14k-20k lighting spectrum is what most people are using, then the photographer is being logical in using that spectrum for photography (since that's what most people will see on their tanks).

If you actually keep your tank in sunlight then the request for a photo in sunlight kind of makes sense...but requires removing the frag from the system to be photographed near a window (since most of us don't keep our tanks near windows). You already mentioned that those who keep tanks in this type of lighting are in the vast minority, so perhaps this would be something to be explained in the request ("I actually use 10k lighting, so could you provide me with a picture of the coral under sunlight, so it looks more like what it will in my tank if I buy it?"). If that kind of request were made of me, I'd probably provide the picture in pm since the photo would be irrelevant to most of my potential buyers some it would be an inaccurate representation of what they would see in their tanks...it might even make sense to ask for a photo like that in pm since you realize your request is outside normal tank conditions. Also, this gets difficult for those of us who live up north since we don't see the sun very often for the colder months. Ha!

What I meant was that my yellow corals (yellow tort, pink lemonade) actually show yellow under 10k lighting as opposed to turning green under 20k like I have them now.