Colours of corals

ISpeakForTheSeas

7500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 22, 2021
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
10,304
Location
United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I am always impressed with your responses... thank you.
Now about the space stuff, what's your take- why do the pics look so impressive? Something about ir, as far as I know; if so, how could ir possibly not be meaningful to life on earth?
Haha, thank you, and I'm not sure on the space/IR stuff - I'll have to look into it and see if I can find something there (I've been meaning to look into IR for a while now anyway, so this may be a good excuse).
 
OP
OP
Lasse

Lasse

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
11,262
Reaction score
30,666
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The white color doesn't reflect UV as well as other colors, so it would absorb more UV and sustain more damage as a result

Is not as simple as that. The UV damage the skin in that way that it create active oxygen radicals and the black colour is mostly melanin - a well known antioxidant

In regards to "normal light" it becomes very subjective as we know. Unless everyone knows what you mean. I have no idea what hat would be in your case.
I´m sorry - its my normal light - not sunlight or something else. The one I have in my aquarium and the spectra is in lower right corner of the picture

Skärmklipp1.JPG


And once again - I have I don't intend to decide which approach is right or wrong - I just want to show how different corals look in different light (with different wavelengths) depending on whether their color is mainly reflective or mainly created by fluorescence or a mix of these two

Sincerely Lasse
 
OP
OP
Lasse

Lasse

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
11,262
Reaction score
30,666
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Green montipora

Note - in the left lower corner is a spectra of the incoming light shown, The spectra show which type of photons that are incoming to the coral

My normal light

normal.jpg


6500 K = 0 all others on

steg-1-ned.jpg


6500 and 8000 K = 0 all white are zero - mainly blue is reflected from the edge - the main body stell green

steg-2-ned.jpg


6500K, 8000K, and red 622 nm = 0

steg-3-ned.jpg


6500K, 8000K, red 622 nm and green 530 nm = 0. This means that there is no green photons in the incoming light. If the main bodies green is caused by only reflecting colours - we should not see any green in the next picture.

steg-4-ned.jpg


But we do - this mean that all green photons we see now is created of the coral animal by it self. The coral animal is it owns light source. There is no green photons coming in, hence no is bouncing back. The green photons we see is from blue photons absorbed by the coral animal and after that emitted as a green photon. It is named biofluorescence - It is a form of luminescence. In this cases, the emitted light has a longer wavelength, and therefore a lower photon energy.


6500K, 8000K, red 622 nm, green 530 nm and blue 470 = 0 still green

steg-5-ned.jpg


6500K, 8000K, red 622 nm, green 530 nm, blue 470 and blue 455 = 0

steg-6-ned.jpg


6500K, 8000K, red 622 nm, green 530 nm, blue 470, blue 455 and blue 450 = 0

steg-7-ned.jpg


This serie shows that even in only 425 nm light - the coral is mostly green. This green is a true biofluorescence colour. Now is the question if there is ant reflecting green colours involved. The picture below with only incoming green photons that this is the case. a dark green colour is reflecting

green.jpg


Is there more reflecting colours in this coral - let us see how it looks like in RGB light. yes there is - giving another greenish look.

RGB-only.jpg


7500 K white - some more yellow in the picture. The blue peak seems no be so strong that fluorescence is the dominate colour factor

7550K.jpg


What´s happen if we mix 425 nm blue with 7500 K white. Now its clear that green photons from fluorescence from blue photons dominate the green look from this coral

comb7550k-425-nm.jpg


Other tests I have done shows that mainly 455 (royal blue) and 425 nm seems to be the most important in this green fluorescence

Sincerely Lasse
 

Bpb

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Messages
4,518
Reaction score
6,359
Location
College Station
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I’ll begin by stating I understand the point of the original post. Simply to show different visual effects of different spectra. Nothing more. I don’t believe @Lasse was trying to be persuasive in any way with the write up, so this is not a knock on him or the original subject. I’m more touching on the idea of what is “best” for corals in general, as it has been brought up a bit in the comments.

“best” is largely hypothetical. Because the specific amount of every individual usable wavelength, in an intensity and duration which leads to zero free radical production, zero photoinhibition, and sits perfectly at saturation will be constantly fluctuating from species to species, and even specimen to specimen based on what they’re acclimated to. There is no “best”. And any assumption as such is just that, an assumption, as we don’t presently have any conveniently available metric for quantitative measure on what optimal health actually is. Just preference. Lots of generalizations but none are actually discretely definable
 
OP
OP
Lasse

Lasse

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
11,262
Reaction score
30,666
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I’ll begin by stating I understand the point of the original post. Simply to show different visual effects of different spectra. Nothing more.
Exactly - its a simple way to show the differences between reflection and fluorescence colours of corals and why you need a full spectra if you want all colours to be seen but not exclusive "white LEDs"

Sincerely Lasse
 

A. grandis

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
4,735
Reaction score
3,429
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I'm sorry, but I just want to add something here...
I know this is not the focus of this thread, but I'll leave it here as others did...

If you have no basis for comparison everything is subjective!
If you compare to nature, for example, you have a point and that becomes your goal.
If you are keeping corals just because at the store you saw them under the blue LEDs, you have another goal.
Etc...
The personal preferences will dictate what you want to "reproduce".
That is also true to all related, like for example, keeping a shelf full of frags instead of letting them to grow into colonies, for example.
To one, those blue LEDs over the corals, like in the store, is the the deal! That's what they thought him!
To another, a full spectrum form metal halides, or even "white" LEDs, to resemble what's in nature as much possible, is the real deal.
Everyone will have different "opinions" and do what they want.
Is the coral under blue LEDs healthier than the one under full spectrum metal halides? Why? There will also be different answers there!

BUT... the foundation of this hobby, as we see in books... thought us that the reproduction of what nature offers is what we should follow for the best, to keep the corals healthy in captivity. It is a vision towards biology. The values are changing as mere "personal opinions" today, as the corals would be plastic toys. Still... if you ask any normal person, out of the hobby, they will most likely tell you that we should reproduce what's in nature to offer the best!

Political weird ideas have been polluting our lives and horrible things have been happening because of changes that should be left alone, like this and many other aspects in the reef aquarium hobby.

In the end of the story, your jaw will drop in front a mature system under halides and that blue LED tank full of struggling frags will be ignored after that!

So... it's not that relative in the end! Just ask your grandma!
 

A. grandis

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
4,735
Reaction score
3,429
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
You never fail to let your personal bias get the better of you.
"Personal bias" is a good example of a term invented to justify against what I just posted and avoid reasoning.
You will never hear that when you talk to a biologist or a scientist about what is the best light to keep corals in captivity!
This hobby has regressed big time!
 

areefer01

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
Messages
3,535
Reaction score
3,681
Location
Ca
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
"Personal bias" is a good example of a term invented to justify against what I just posted and avoid reasoning.
You will never hear that when you talk to a biologist or a scientist about what is the best light to keep corals in captivity!
This hobby has regressed big time!

We all have bias. I do agree. The OP as he noted above was only to show the differences. Not get into any debate as it relates to what is better or best. You, nor I, should care what is generating the light unless we are paying a stipend for it.

Hobby regression - it has changed no doubt but then again so has the world around us. Maybe we are both old men (figure of speech) yelling at the clouds.
 

A. grandis

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
4,735
Reaction score
3,429
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
We all have bias. I do agree. The OP as he noted above was only to show the differences. Not get into any debate as it relates to what is better or best. You, nor I, should care what is generating the light unless we are paying a stipend for it.

Hobby regression - it has changed no doubt but then again so has the world around us. Maybe we are both old men (figure of speech) yelling at the clouds.
I can expose my thoughts just like others did, though.
I like the fact that my thoughts called your attention to the subject.
 
OP
OP
Lasse

Lasse

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
11,262
Reaction score
30,666
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Third coral a mushroom species that show up to have both reflection and fluorescence colours

My normal light (By the way no Halides only full spectra LED)

normalt-ljus.jpg


6500 K = 0 all others on - not big difference

steg-1-ner.jpg


6500 and 8000 K = 0 all "white" are zero. Some reflection wavelengths is missing

steg-2-ner.jpg


6500K, 8000K, and red 622 nm = 0 Something happening when red photons disappear - green colours fade away. As you can see in the underlying coral - green photons is still in the incoming light

steg-3-ner.jpg


6500K, 8000K, red 622 nm and green 530 nm = 0. Suddenly . near green showing up - and no incoming green photons

steg-4-ner.jpg


6500K, 8000K, red 622 nm, green 530 nm and blue 470 = 0

steg-5-ner.jpg


6500K, 8000K, red 622 nm, green 530 nm, blue 470 and blue 455 = 0

steg-6-ner.jpg


6500K, 8000K, red 622 nm, green 530 nm, blue 470, blue 455 and blue 450 = 0

steg-7-ner.jpg


RGB only

egb.jpg


7750 K

7750.jpg


In this coral - it is clearly a mix between reflecting and fluorescent colours

Sincerely Lasse
 
OP
OP
Lasse

Lasse

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
11,262
Reaction score
30,666
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
n the end of the story, your jaw will drop in front a mature system under halides and that blue LED tank full of struggling frags will be ignored after that!
Lucky me that I do not have halides then :anguished-face::anguished-face::anguished-face:;)

1708108872666.png



Sincerely Lasse
 

ISpeakForTheSeas

7500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 22, 2021
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
10,304
Location
United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Why are the prettiest pictures of deep space infrared? Any camera can see the ir repeater of a remote control, why can't corals "see" ir?
@Reefering1 - Did a bit of reading today (some of the references are at the bottom, a few pertinent ones are scattered throughout).

For IR and space:

Infrared gives the prettiest pictures of deep space because the long wavelengths of infrared light allows the infrared light to avoid bumping into dust and gases in space; so where visible light would run into dust/gas (making it so that all we would see is a dust cloud), infrared penetrates through and shows us what's on the other side (the first link explains it fairly simply, the second has some more info and some cool examples to demonstrate the difference between visible and IR pics of space):
The European Space Agency also has some info it, but it's not as detailed as NASA's info above.

With the ocean life and IR, there doesn't seem to be much research there, but this is what I've found:

-Near-IR (700-1400 nm) can only penetrate a few meters into water; mid- and far-IR (1400-10000 nm) seem to only penetrate less than 1 mm of water. Water seems to absorb IR very quickly; organics in the water absorb it even faster; generally speaking, higher salinity seems to cause it to be absorbed faster as well.
-Some fish (like salmon) and inverts (like mantis shrimp) can see infrared.
-The only research I can really find on IR and corals is about the coral tissue/tissue thickness and IR; these studies indicate that corals seem to basically ignore IR/IR seems to basically ignore corals; 400-700 nm light intensity decreases in coral tissue (being reflected, bounced around/redirected internally, etc.) while IR light (700-800 nm were tested in the two studies I could find) stays basically unchanged (it basically just passes through unimpeded).
I wouldn't be surprised to find IR has some sort of biological impact on corals, but it doesn't seem any impact has been researched at this point that I can find.
 

Reefering1

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
May 20, 2022
Messages
3,222
Reaction score
5,058
Location
Usa
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
@Reefering1 - Did a bit of reading today (some of the references are at the bottom, a few pertinent ones are scattered throughout).

For IR and space:

Infrared gives the prettiest pictures of deep space because the long wavelengths of infrared light allows the infrared light to avoid bumping into dust and gases in space; so where visible light would run into dust/gas (making it so that all we would see is a dust cloud), infrared penetrates through and shows us what's on the other side (the first link explains it fairly simply, the second has some more info and some cool examples to demonstrate the difference between visible and IR pics of space):
The European Space Agency also has some info it, but it's not as detailed as NASA's info above.

With the ocean life and IR, there doesn't seem to be much research there, but this is what I've found:

-Near-IR (700-1400 nm) can only penetrate a few meters into water; mid- and far-IR (1400-10000 nm) seem to only penetrate less than 1 mm of water. Water seems to absorb IR very quickly; organics in the water absorb it even faster; generally speaking, higher salinity seems to cause it to be absorbed faster as well.
-Some fish (like salmon) and inverts (like mantis shrimp) can see infrared.
-The only research I can really find on IR and corals is about the coral tissue/tissue thickness and IR; these studies indicate that corals seem to basically ignore IR/IR seems to basically ignore corals; 400-700 nm light intensity decreases in coral tissue (being reflected, bounced around/redirected internally, etc.) while IR light (700-800 nm were tested in the two studies I could find) stays basically unchanged (it basically just passes through unimpeded).
I wouldn't be surprised to find IR has some sort of biological impact on corals, but it doesn't seem any impact has been researched at this point that I can find.
You're the man!! Thank you, I'll read the links and possibly follow up with some questions..
 
OP
OP
Lasse

Lasse

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
11,262
Reaction score
30,666
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
Rating - 0%
0   0   0

HAVE YOU EVER KEPT A RARE/UNCOMMON FISH, CORAL, OR INVERT? SHOW IT OFF IN THE THREAD!

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
Back
Top