Why does Reef aquascaping lag behind compared to Planted?

[Ef4life]

But could you not choose coral species that fit the aquascape - rather than coral that will dominate the aquascape?

If you want zoas, gsp, and other soft corals yeah they will grow over the aquascape without much alteration, but Stoney corals are called REED BUILDING corals for a reason - they are literally living stones that grow and shape the reef

 

[Anemone_Fanatic]

I'd say it's because of the scaping materials we have. Freshwater hobbyists have dozens of different types of rock and wood to use, each one unique and potentially very good when used right. We have two materials available. White lumpy rocks, and purple lumpy rocks. Much harder to be creative.

It's also much harder to prune corals to grow the way you want them compared to plants. Yes, you can cut off odd branches, or change the positioning around, but you can't just go at them with a pair of scissors like you can with planted tanks. Also, given how slow growing corals are, I'd be hesitant to go around with a pair of bone cutters, chopping off branches willy-nilly. If you mess up, that's how that piece will look for the next 6 months.

 

[Raul-7]

Could it also be the size of most aquariums in relation to the coral [ie. they're not large enough for the species of coral]? Like for example, there's a genus of plant called Echinodorus [Amazon sword plants] that grow relatively large and look out of place in most smaller aquariums without heavy pruning.

For example, going back to Chingchai's reef. The size of the aquarium along with the size of the coral enhances the overall look of the aquascape.

 

[Ef4life]

Could it also be the size of most aquariums in relation to the coral [ie. they're not large enough for the species of coral]? Like for example, there's a genus of plant called Echinodorus [Amazon sword plants] that grow relatively large and look out of place in most smaller aquariums without heavy pruning.

For example, going back to Chingchai's reef. The size of the aquarium along with the size of the coral enhances the overall look of the aquascape.

You keep posting this tank like it’s an amazing aquascape- it’s 3 ugly rock pillars.

Now the beauty of that reef is the partly the size, but it’s how healthy and grown it the coral is.

 

[Tired]

I'd say it's because of the scaping materials we have. Freshwater hobbyists have dozens of different types of rock and wood to use, each one unique and potentially very good when used right. We have two materials available. White lumpy rocks, and purple lumpy rocks. Much harder to be creative.

It's also much harder to prune corals to grow the way you want them compared to plants. Yes, you can cut off odd branches, or change the positioning around, but you can't just go at them with a pair of scissors like you can with planted tanks. Also, given how slow growing corals are, I'd be hesitant to go around with a pair of bone cutters, chopping off branches willy-nilly. If you mess up, that's how that piece will look for the next 6 months.

My book, these are probably the two main things.

 

[d2mini]

But why is aquascaping usually not taken as seriously as it is with planted aquariums?

Ya know, the more I think about the OP, the more offended I am. Talking about composition, negative space, rule of thirds.... like we ignore all that. What a crock.

I said it earlier and I'll say it again, the two mediums couldn't be more different.

 

[CoastalTownLayabout]

I feel like a lot of reef keeping hobbyists see this through the lens of current, desirable coral species that just aren’t suited to creating the high tech planted aquascape aesthetic.

If you were serious about following this path you might consider many of the corals that are considered as pests or weeds in the hobby, gsp, xenia, clove polyps, anthelia, certain zoas etc.

High tech planted aquascapes are transient, designed to be shaped to an aesthetic point quickly, then they’re often taken down not long after the money shot.

 

[Raul-7]

You keep posting this tank like it’s an amazing aquascape- it’s 3 ugly rock pillars.

Now the beauty of that reef is the partly the size, but it’s how healthy and grown it the coral is.

3 ugly pillars still has a direction, shape and overall design goal. Which is lacking from a lot of reef aquariums especially at that size.

This is your average reef. Just random placement of rock and coral.

Now I'm not mocking anyone in the hobby and I understand everyone has different priorities in this hobby. But this is simply a discussion.

Trust me, in the planted hobby [which is miles easier] you still find a lot of jungle aquariums with very little planning or design.

 

[Ef4life]

3 ugly pillars still has a direction, shape and overall design goal. Which is lacking from a lot of reef aquariums especially at that size.

This is your average reef. Just random placement of rock and coral.

Now I'm not mocking anyone in the hobby and I understand everyone has different priorities in this hobby. But this is simply a discussion.

Trust me, in the planted hobby [which is miles easier] you still find a lot of jungle aquariums with very little planning or design.

That’s basically the same aquascape - 3 fairly distinct Pillars, they just lack height and probably 800+ gallons of room for more space between them

Again it’s a beautiful reef, lots of healthy coral that’s growing into something unique. I can say the coral choices could be more “themed” because it’s clearly multiple different zones like the left side is clearly euphyllia dominant.

 

[Raul-7]

That’s basically the same aquascape - 3 fairly distinct Pillars, they just lack height and probably 800+ gallons of room for more space between them

Again it’s a beautiful reef, lots of healthy coral that’s growing into something unique. I can say the coral choices could be more “themed” because it’s clearly multiple different zones like the left side is clearly euphyllia dominant.

Now you're just grasping at straws to support your point. There's 2 pillars and a mound at best.

Here's another example of a well-aquascaped reef despite the small size; lots of negative space, organized rock structures, strong focal point and coral that is not overly dominant in size.

 

[MikeCRK]

Hi,

I was taking part in ADA competitions for a few times.
The answer to the question in the thread is very simple. What you see for the winners of ADA are one time builds purposely made for the competition only. Those are not staying on for more that to take a photo of the best quality and then it is being taken apart. In reef building setting up the scape for the competitions is not possible in the same way due to restrictions. You cannot set up the reef in 48 hours and have it blooming as you can very easily do in a freshwater tank

 

[MoshJosh]

Now you're just grasping at straws to support your point. There's 2 pillars and a mound at best.

Here's another example of a well-aquascaped reef despite the small size; lots of negative space, organized rock structures, strong focal point and coral that is not overly dominant in size.

Yeah but those corals, took YEARS to grow!!! and what did the original scape look like?

The corals are the beauty!!! You don't need any rule of thirds or to call up your buddy fibonacci to make the scape. . . corals are they scape!

Also, THIS is the AVERAGE REEF!?!?!?

3 ugly pillars still has a direction, shape and overall design goal. Which is lacking from a lot of reef aquariums especially at that size.

This is your average reef. Just random placement of rock and coral.

Now I'm not mocking anyone in the hobby and I understand everyone has different priorities in this hobby. But this is simply a discussion.

Trust me, in the planted hobby [which is miles easier] you still find a lot of jungle aquariums with very little planning or design.

That is a beautif reef that took. . . wait for it. . . YEARS! To get where it is! Many reefers would kill for a tank that looks that good!

Also. . . show me a planted tank that looks that good!!!

 

[PotatoPig]

That is a beautif reef that took. . . wait for it. . . YEARS! To get where it is! Many reefers would kill for a tank that looks that good!

Also. . . show me a planted tank that looks that good!!!

Adding on here - this reef also does follow the rule of thirds, lack of symmetry, and has (to me) a focal point. Without the coralline on the back wall it’d also have negative space, but given the clear time and effort its owner has put into it the fact there isn’t a clear back seems to be their personal preference, going for a darker overall look, possibly as part of the color scheme and to help the lights make the corals “pop” more.

 

[Ef4life]

Now you're just grasping at straws to support your point. There's 2 pillars and a mound at best.

Here's another example of a well-aquascaped reef despite the small size; lots of negative space, organized rock structures, strong focal point and coral that is not overly dominant in size.

Hardly grasping at straws, yes this is another beautiful reef, the main difference between the 2 I’d say is less Blue light, it doesn’t make for good photos, and a clean background which showcases the reef. The coral selection, to your credit is more kosher, not a mishmash of everything neon you can find.

But you can’t even see the rock aquascape it started with, because the reef building coral grew a new one on top. Which is why the rocks really doesn’t matter all that much.

And edit - the quality of the photos is also light years apart between the 2. A good photographer can make something not great look amazing

 

[GlassMunky]

I was looking at a lot of planted aquariums and contest aquariums. I was taken back at the level of execution and the attention to detail these aquariums displayed. The golden rule, rule of thirds, negative space, etc. were all taken into account to make an eye-pleasing aquascape.

Now I understand coral do not behave as well as plants do [they cannot be cut or trimmed] - but surely it must be possible to select corals that fit a certain long-term vision before placement.

But why is aquascaping usually not taken as seriously as it is with planted aquariums? Is it because no one has set the benchmark like Takashi Amano did with planted aquariums?

I would argue any healthy reef tank looks 100x better than those Amano tanks. It’s just some green covered wood. Super boring to me.

It’s all personal preference on what looks good to you.

 

[GlassMunky]

I understand how corals will eventually cover most of the rock structure, but the rock structure dictates the overall look of the reef.

A strong rock structure placement [aesthetically pleasing] will enhance the overall coral placement.

Best example of a well-aquascaped reef is Chingchai's 1000G. Rule thirds, focal point, non-symetrical, negative space, etc. Honestly, one of the best I've ever seen.

Case in point…. You think that’s one of the best around. I find that tank to be boring and ugly.

Personal preferences. You can’t say one is better than the other.

And no hate here, but it seems like you’re very inexperienced or not at all when it comes to keeping a reef tank, so that may also play into why you see them the way you do vs the planted tanks.

 

[PotatoPig]

I reckon this could be pulled off on a reef tank, be bout $1000 in rock, $5 for a GSP frag, a little time running a high nutrient tank and then make sure to clean the back wall before picture day.

 

[d2mini]

3 ugly pillars still has a direction, shape and overall design goal. Which is lacking from a lot of reef aquariums especially at that size.

This is your average reef. Just random placement of rock and coral.

Now I'm not mocking anyone in the hobby and I understand everyone has different priorities in this hobby. But this is simply a discussion.

Trust me, in the planted hobby [which is miles easier] you still find a lot of jungle aquariums with very little planning or design.

You're just illustrating a point that has already been made. This is a mature reef tank. Nearly impossible to tell what the initial rock structure looked like. As coral grow, the scape changes and there is never any way to predict how the coral will grow. So many variables determine that.

Again, completey different mediums.

What's "lacking in so many reef aquariums" is also lacking in so many planted tanks.

 

[d2mini]

Here's my planted tank when I decided to take a little break from reefing.
It was fun setting it up and watching the initial growth. Then it got pretty stale.
But it was very hands-off which I just kinda needed for awhile.

 

[Raul-7]

That is a beautif reef that took. . . wait for it. . . YEARS! To get where it is! Many reefers would kill for a tank that looks that good!

Also. . . show me a planted tank that looks that good!!!

Adding on here - this reef also does follow the rule of thirds, lack of symmetry, and has (to me) a focal point. Without the coralline on the back wall it’d also have negative space, but given the clear time and effort its owner has put into it the fact there isn’t a clear back seems to be their personal preference, going for a darker overall look, possibly as part of the color scheme and to help the lights make the corals “pop” more.

There's no clear focal point. Moreover, his rock placement weakens the overall aquascape as it is very flat and lacks any real depth when compared to other reefs I've posted.

In fact, the pile of rocks on the right distracts and contrasts rather than complements the overall aquascape.

Look past the corals. Healthy corals are great, but without a strong rockscape they fall flat.

This is another beautiful example. See how the rockscape clearly defines the aquascape. No random coral placement and overall very pleasant on the eyes.