# Aquascaping Contest Scandal



## glasscanvasart

In IAPLC 2018 people got upset by the grand price work closely resembling a layout made by Takashi Amano years before. This year IAPLC rank 4 has been disqualified from another contest, the AQSC, a Spanish competition, due to evidence of photoshop use. Here is the layout in question and sorry for the poor quality.




And this is the Statement made by AQSC on Instagram @aqscontest 



And the evidence of photoshop found on @salvador.maciastorres , but I don’t know his relationship to the contest. 














I haven’t seen any public reaction from the IAPLC or ADA, but I‘m sure they’ve been made aware.


----------



## Wolf6

Sad, i fear we will see more of this occuring, and be ever harder to detect. :/


----------



## Kezzab

What exactly had he done? Hard to tell!


----------



## Wolf6

Kezzab said:


> What exactly had he done? Hard to tell!


Easiest to see on pic five, you see the exact same plant size form and leaves twice next to eachother circled on the right side of the picture.


----------



## Kezzab

Sneaky.


----------



## glasscanvasart

The fish are also easy to spot as they have the same shimmer on a lot of them.


----------



## Ghettofarmulous

When it’s pointed out like that it’s hard not see the same images


----------



## Tim Harrison

I find that incredibly sad; it's the total antithesis of Takashi Amano's Nature Aquarium and the spirit it was supposed to engender.
Even worse, for me it's a double corruption of those values, not only is it a diorama but also a photoshopped fantasy. 
But I guess where there is competition there will always be cheats, unfortunately.


----------



## Nuno Gomes

Tim Harrison said:


> I find that incredibly sad; it's the total antithesis of Takashi Amano's Nature Aquarium and the spirit it was supposed to engender.
> Even worse, for me it's a double corruption of those values, not only is it a diorama but also a photoshopped fantasy.
> But I guess where there is competition there will always be cheats, unfortunately.



If a "nature aquarium" with mirrors inside will not be disqualified, I don't see why a photoshopped image should.....both should be out tbh


----------



## Nick potts

Nuno Gomes said:


> If a "nature aquarium" with mirrors inside will not be disqualified, I don't see why a photoshopped image should.....both should be out tbh


It's a bit different. Using photoshop for white balance etc is fine, but to clone, remove and just plain create something that was not/is not there is cheating


----------



## Nuno Gomes

Nick potts said:


> It's a bit different. Using photoshop for white balance etc is fine, but to clone, remove and just plain create something that was not/is not there is cheating



I agree, I just meant that we have very high ranking tanks that use artificial items, like Steven Chong's tank, and somehow I don't think that would fly if Mr. Amano were still among us.


----------



## glasscanvasart

Though Diorama goes against the principles that Takashi Amano cultivated, the competition is not a Nature Aquarium contest. I would defend the use of ‘artificial’ items, for ‘natural’ albeit abstract, effects.


----------



## Tim Harrison

glasscanvasart said:


> the competition is not a Nature Aquarium contest.


Not any more, unfortunately.


glasscanvasart said:


> I would defend the use of ‘artificial’ items, for ‘natural’ albeit abstract, effects.


Can you define this with examples? I'm not too sure what you mean.


----------



## zozo

It was waiting for it...  And who knows how often it already happened. I have seen incredible photoshop artists creating impeccable pieces of art indistinguishable from a real photograph.

The only way to get around it is by asking for the raw files from the camera... Checking the metadata in the file it will reveal any kind of altering, all 3th party software will leaf footprints in the metadata.

The only way around this is by taking a picture from a shopped picture... Thus we are never safe.

It's sad this happens, even sadder are the people getting away with it. I'm not so sure if they proudly take their secret to the grave. After all, in reality, they didn't win a thing... I've met a few crooks in my life (in my bartender days) and all of them have a facade and actually are unhappy frustrated people deep down inside.

(I remember a story from 2003 about Microsoft Windows XP Operating System, it contains audio files, created with illegal software with the famous criminal hacker's nickname as footprint still in the file. Uncle Bill, fond of fighting and protecting against illegal software caught launching his baby on the market in cahoots with illegal hackers. (Back then i did check it out and the files indeed are in it)

Swallow the Red pill...


----------



## Wookii

This is all very disheartening to see. Why would someone be so desperate to win a competition like this by cheating.



glasscanvasart said:


> Though Diorama goes against the principles that Takashi Amano cultivated, the competition is not a Nature Aquarium contest. I would defend the use of ‘artificial’ items, for ‘natural’ albeit abstract, effects.



Its not a nature aquarium contest, but the scoring structure is laid out to suggest that only nature aquariums should reasonably expect to be in the top 50. Over 60% of the points are available to the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish” and the “Presentation of natural atmosphere in layout works”:





No matter your thoughts on diorama scapes, it should be very difficult to allocate many points to one under those two categories. Somehow the judges still manage to though.


----------



## Nuno Gomes

glasscanvasart said:


> Though Diorama goes against the principles that Takashi Amano cultivated, the competition is not a Nature Aquarium contest. I would defend the use of ‘artificial’ items, for ‘natural’ albeit abstract, effects.



Even though I much prefer the classic NA style, I'm not against Diorama layouts entering and winning, I'm against artificial items in the layout and of course, against fraudulent editing.


----------



## Nick potts

Wookii said:


> Its not a nature aquarium contest, but the scoring structure is laid out to suggest that only nature aquariums should reasonably expect to be in the top 50. Over 60% of the points are available to the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish” and the “Presentation of natural atmosphere in layout works”:
> 
> View attachment 156226
> 
> No matter your thoughts on diorama scapes, it should be very difficult to allocate many points to one under those two categories. Somehow the judges still manage to though.



I've not seen that before and didn't know the scoring criteria. Do the judges just completely ignore it then? The tank in the op should have scored a max of 30/100


----------



## zozo

Kezzab said:


> What exactly had he done? Hard to tell!


The photographer used Photoshop Clonestamp tool... Then for example if you want to edit the flashlight flare or reflections in the glass from the image by selecting a region next to it and clone that part as a layover. Or copied a section, with the Magic Wand Tool, moved it, rotated it a few degrees and merged it back into the image. 

See 1st,2nd and 4th circle, they are all identical clones






If used smartly you will not see it or very hard to notice... Obviously this editing was done by an amateur...  He did a bit too much.
It's like cooking, the art of omission and do not clone that close together.

But there are many other ways in photoshop to push an image over the edge without seeing it is edited. For example, if there are dark spots in the image under overhangs in the hardscape with less contrast and pale colours. Then you can duplicate the image edit the brightness, contrast colours etc. etc. Then overlay both images and erase the pale section to reveal the edited section below it. Then merge both layers as 1 and you're done.

I bet my life on it this technique is used over again in contest images... Simply because the camera's never can see what the human eyes will see when it comes to detail and light intensity... There can/will always be shadows showing more obvious in the picture than in real life. Now, this kind of editing isn't really altering the layout in its true form, but only highlighting sections that wouldn't be obvious and hidden from view without editing.


----------



## mort

I'm not familiar with the contest, it isn't something I follow but I have looked at the aquariums in the similar biotope competition and they always have a video of the tank. It would surely be both interesting to people following the contest and to promote fairness, to have a video of each tank as part of the competition.


----------



## zozo

Back in the days, before the internet and international competition we had (maybe still have I dunno actually) national unions competition for Dutch scapes (Anything, not Dutch wasn't even considered an aquarium). Then you got personal visite at home from the judges, tearing your aquarium apart and throwing you under the bus if so...

I remember one rule, less then 12 fish of a schooling sp. isn't considered a school and critical minus points. If you claim it are leftovers from the previous population, you had to provide solid proof. They were pretty critical and strict.   Lighting, filtering etc. etc. they looked at and judged it all.


----------



## LondonDragon

Tim Harrison said:


> Can you define this with examples? I'm not too sure what you mean.


Steven Chong used mirrors on the substrate to create the puddle effects


----------



## zozo

LondonDragon said:


> Steven Chong used mirrors on the substrate to create the puddle effects



Air pumps and air stones and fine sand for the waterfall effects above it...


----------



## Tim Harrison

LondonDragon said:


> Steven Chong used mirrors on the substrate to create the puddle effects





zozo said:


> Air pumps and air stones and fine sand for the waterfall effects above it...


Of course...
I should imagine the images of all other top rated entries will be scrutinised now. It'll be interesting to see if this is a one off or there are others. I suspect there are but perhaps they're a little more seamless


----------



## LondonDragon

Tim Harrison said:


> I should imagine the images of all other top rated entries will be scrutinised now.


Problem is the past entries for this person might now be undermined, and he will be forever be known as the Photoshop Aquascaper  not something we want to see in the hobby! :/


----------



## Aqua360

This is very sad, not just on the points raised previously; but for the expectations of new aquascapers entering the hobby. 

Reminds me of people trying to look like their Instagram fitness heroes, who also abuse photoshop to comedic levels


----------



## glasscanvasart

Tim Harrison said:


> Not any more, unfortunately.
> 
> Can you define this with examples? I'm not too sure what you mean.


I was referring to Steven Chong’s use of mirrors to create pools of water reflecting the swamps in his background. Sorry for not being specific, as the mirrors where mentioned in a post above.


zozo said:


> I bet my life on it this technique is used over again in contest images... Simply because the camera's never can see what the human eyes will see when it comes to detail and light intensity... There can/will always be shadows showing more obvious in the picture than in real life. Now, this kind of editing isn't really altering the layout in its true form, but only highlighting sections that wouldn't be obvious and hidden from view without editing.


I find this kind of cheating more heinous, because rather than an enhancement, it is a fabrication.


Wookii said:


> View attachment 156226
> 
> No matter your thoughts on diorama scapes, it should be very difficult to allocate many points to one under those two categories. Somehow the judges still manage to though.


I personally believe the scoring structure is lenient, because it’s the most impactful entries that win and not the layouts that tick the most boxes. Personally I don’t believe there should be a scoring structure as this is an art and not a baking contest with everyone baking the same type of cake. However, the way the score allocation is presented isn’t really consistent with the results.

I would disagree on your point that only nature aquariums should be represented in the highest results, because of the natural habitat points allocation. The way you look down (at least in the sense of natural recreation) on diorama layouts, Heiko Bleher and other biotope aquarists look down on your nature aquariums.


----------



## glasscanvasart

Aqua360 said:


> This is very sad, not just on the points raised previously; but for the expectations of new aquascapers entering the hobby.
> 
> Reminds me of people trying to look like their Instagram fitness heroes, who also abuse photoshop to comedic levels


Not to mention fake weights, lighting, edits, exaggerated timespans, measurements, lifts and of course anabolics.

I wouldn’t worry too much about about new comers. Many people have humble aspirations and aspire to results like George Farmer’s, rather than Takayuki Fukada. A greater threat to newcomers is algae!

On the topic of ’he who shall not be named’, I hope he comes out and makes an apology, surrenders his prize money and shares the real final photo (I have a feeling that the photoshop might be less disingenuous than we suspect). If he can do this I’d say we should try to forgive, but he’ll always carry the weight of his mistake.


----------



## NiteshAquascaper

Thanks for sharing the details.. I was in utter shock after reading this whole stuff.. I still had that layout one of my favourite from IAPLC this year but after this i am very much sad. Already there are few works which were disqualified from IAPLC 2020 IN FINAL ranking and this one got unnoticed.. Hope this will be not followed by anyone else.


----------



## BanditCoaxx

Rumour has it the original aquarium was actually a bare bottom nano cube... 

ben.


----------



## Wookii

glasscanvasart said:


> I would disagree on your point that only nature aquariums should be represented in the highest results, because of the natural habitat points allocation. The way you look down (at least in the sense of natural recreation) on diorama layouts, Heiko Bleher and other biotope aquarists look down on your nature aquariums.



I suspect you misread my post, so you may want to reread it. I cast no opinion on diorama scapes at all, I certainly don’t ‘look down’ on them.

Literally the only point I was making was:



glasscanvasart said:


> . . . the way the score allocation is presented isn’t really consistent with the results.


----------



## sparkyweasel

zozo said:


> Back in the days, before the internet and international competition we had (maybe still have I dunno actually) national unions competition for Dutch scapes (Anything, not Dutch wasn't even considered an aquarium). Then you got personal visite at home from the judges, tearing your aquarium apart and throwing you under the bus if so...


We had similar in the UK, except it didn't have to be Dutch style of course. 
Local clubs used to do it as well, it was easier to organise the judges' visits at a local level. Regional and national competitions were a bit more complicated to arrange, but clubs and societies usually have one or two members who just love all the admin and sorting out fiddly details of rules and regulations. I don't know the current situation, I haven't been involved in clubs or shows for years now.


----------



## glasscanvasart

Wookii said:


> I suspect you misread my post, so you may want to reread it. I cast no opinion on diorama scapes at all, I certainly don’t ‘look down’ on them.
> 
> Literally the only point I was making was:


I think you’re misinterpreting me 😜 

I‘m under the impression that you cast an opinion that nature aquariums more closely represent a ‘natural environment’ and thus are more deserving of the point allocation for ‘recreation of natural habitat for fish’.

I then counter that (some) biotope aquarists scoff at the idea that nature aquariums are a natural environments for fish and I perceived that the way (you appear) to be ‘looking down on’ (i.e. viewing diorama as an unnatural environment for fish and thus not deserving of the point allocation) the diorama style much in the same way as biotope aquarists ‘look down’ on nature aquarium style.


I then separately try to go on to say that the competition doesn’t appear to me to allocate points based on much other than impact/composition. Rather than saying they don’t adhere to the stated point allocation, because diorama style do exceedingly well in the competition and they ought not to score highly on ‘recreation of natural habitat for fish’.


Sorry for the word salad just hoped to clarify, but I may still be wrong.


----------



## zozo

glasscanvasart said:


> I find this kind of cheating more heinous, because rather than an enhancement, it is a fabrication.



I'm afraid that 99% of all pictures you'll find are digitally edited one way or another. The more professional the photographer the more professional the editing is done. Maybe the scaper himself didn't have any ill intentions and hired a professional photographer screwing up.

As said if they would look at the picture's metadata of all entries, then I'm pretty sure that 99% of the top entries have a photoshop or other editing software reference in it. Having a reference to editing software in the file makes them all equally suspicious... If only 1 picture is entered and judged than only the ones edited very stupidly are obvious. The rest is a matter of faith. 

And I believe this issue is a wake-up call and will change the entire aquascaping contest culture forever. With a simple question for all judges to come. "How do we know we're are not looking at a fake?"


----------



## rebel

That example is such a shoddy photoshop job. If you are serious, you'd take much more time with it and make it undetectable!

TBH I think this entry was trolling the whole competition by being deliberately shoddy.


----------



## zozo

rebel said:


> BH I think this entry was trolling the whole competition by being deliberately shoddy.



That would be a hell of a statement... If so I'm sure if it's intentional trolling, rather whistleblowing.


----------



## Tim Harrison

rebel said:


> That example is such a shoddy photoshop job. If you are serious, you'd take much more time with it and make it undetectable!
> 
> TBH I think this entry was trolling the whole competition by being deliberately shoddy.


Kinda reminds me of this scape below. It was submitted to the 2018 AGA Aquascaping Contest in the *biotope section* and is titled "Penglai Fairyland". Needless to say it was immediately disqualified.
Maybe an ironic comment on the way competitions are headed?


----------



## BanditCoaxx

Tim Harrison said:


> Kinda reminds me of this scape below. It was submitted to the 2018 AGA Aquascaping Contest in the *biotope section* and is titled "Penglai Fairyland". Needless to say it was immediately disqualified.
> Maybe an ironic comment on the way competitions are headed?


Looks legit to me mate  he's frosted the front of his tank? 

ben.


----------



## NiteshAquascaper

Steve has acknowledged the disqualification in his video comments..


----------



## rebel

Aqua360 said:


> Reminds me of people trying to look like their Instagram fitness heroes, who also abuse photoshop to comedic levels


This has become a norm in the modern culture now. It's completely normal to use beautify filters and bend hips/waists and bump up biceps/abs.

Music is now being adjusted note by note on the computers including microtonal adjustments.

It's natural that it will spill over to the other forms of visual arts.

What is laughable is that some people believe these to be true and don't realise that it is just a representation of the original.


----------



## glasscanvasart

rebel said:


> This has become a norm in the modern culture now. It's completely normal to use beautify filters and bend hips/waists and bump up biceps/abs.
> 
> Music is now being adjusted note by note on the computers including microtonal adjustments.
> 
> It's natural that it will spill over to the other forms of visual arts.
> 
> What is laughable is that some people believe these to be true and don't realise that it is just a representation of the original.


I mean, it is against the rules.


----------



## mort

rebel said:


> This has become a norm in the modern culture now. It's completely normal to use beautify filters and bend hips/waists and bump up biceps/abs.
> 
> Music is now being adjusted note by note on the computers including microtonal adjustments.
> 
> It's natural that it will spill over to the other forms of visual arts.
> 
> What is laughable is that some people believe these to be true and don't realise that it is just a representation of the original.



Unfortunately it goes the other way to and people just don't believe what they see. I saw some amazing wildlife photography of weird creatures and all the comments just moaned about it being photoshopped when they were genuine photos.

It's sad that people are either to sceptical or feel the need to cheat.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


mort said:


> I saw some amazing wildlife photography


Same applies there, there have been suggestions that some photographs are not exactly <"what they purport to be">.

I must admit I find the whole idea of wildlife photography (and aquascaping etc) as a competitive processes, a long with medals at <"Gardening shows"> etc. bizarre.

cheers Darrel


----------



## mort

One of the photos was a butterfly, _Greta oto_, an amazing looking creature that no one believed was real. Nature is far more creative than man however.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


mort said:


> was a butterfly, _Greta oto_, an amazing looking creature the no one believed was real


I've seen these (<"possibly at Bristol Zoo?">), they are other worldly.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Paulo Soares

Evening friends,
As i came across to this post... i swear i was not surprised.
We are all in this hobbie for "quite a while" to believe in some tanks we´ve been seeing.
I never agree with the contests rules as they leave in my point of view "windows" to this kind of matter.

Many pictures doesn´t look natural. Look opaque..  lack of brightness.. little shiny..  not the green we know, not natural and others we see light in just some parts of the tank and we start wonder how the hell that light come from.. the usage of mirrors to create special effects..  and many other things. All this kind of tricks distort and distracts us from the reality or in fact to the real tank.

Even the the way pictures are cut i do not agree. They should show the tank.

Also i think the judges regardless the efforts made by the person in creating and maintaining the tank.
Is very said to see a tank with simple trunk wood upside down and few moss around wining or being classified in top 100 ... cause this kind of tank is made on one purpose. Contests! Take a "worked" picture and Voila! 

Just take a look into this link.

https://www.adana.co.jp/en/contents/iaplc/2017/index.html

For me.. what is shown in most of this tanks are far away from their natural state.

Also.. people who own stores should not be allowed to participate in contests. It´s not a fair "fight"  Does not motivate to many to participate.
Best compliments to you all.


----------



## lilirose

Paulo Soares said:


> Also.. people who own stores should not be allowed to participate in contests. It´s not a fair "fight"  Does not motivate to many to participate.



Wouldn't it be great if there were different categories: a "pro" category for those who do this for a living, and a "hobbyist" category for ordinary folk who just do it for fun.


----------



## PARAGUAY

lilirose said:


> Wouldn't it be great if there were different categories: a "pro" category for those who do this for a living, and a "hobbyist" category for ordinary folk who just do it for fun.


Be quite difficult l think as many pro scapers have other jobs to supplement their incomes. And hobbyists love to compete against the best.Think there might be a case for having a separate contest for dioramas as they do seem to split opinion but in the IAPLC think it would sort of detract from Grand Prize Winners. Think @mort as the best idea of a video of the entry and maybe each country have their own checking committee say from ADA retailers?


----------



## rebel

Paulo Soares said:


> people who own stores should not be allowed to participate in contests


Well they have access to unlimited hardscape, plants and fish!


----------



## howanic

rebel said:


> Well they have access to unlimited hardscape, plants and fish!


I don't really agree that store owners should not be allowed to participate. Anyone with a limitless budget has limitless access. 
Also, you could give me identical hardscape, plants and fish to those of the grand prize winners and my tank would still end up resembling a ditch. 
I should think owning a fish store makes these things more easily accessible, but I don't think it gives them any real advantage. Certainly not enough to ban them.


----------



## not called Bob

there was one with a


PARAGUAY said:


> Be quite difficult l think as many pro scapers have other jobs to supplement their incomes. And hobbyists love to compete against the best.Think there might be a case for having a separate contest for dioramas as they do seem to split opinion but in the IAPLC think it would sort of detract from Grand Prize Winners. Think @mort as the best idea of a video of the entry and maybe each country have their own checking committee say from ADA retailers?


Apparently something like that happens with a lot of allotments, person a has to see person b pick the produce and seals a box after so much cheating 

Most comps ask for the unedited version to accompany the submitted image to see just how much touching up has been needed, so times it's lens flare or a bit of marine snow that's cloned out,  but there are still winning images that personally I think are staged. Like the seahorse with a cotten bud, that won a competition.  Dead easy to get a sea horse to attach to something, but happening across one in the water column at the right focal length and a bud still with so much fluff on, I'm not so sure.


----------



## sparkyweasel

lilirose said:


> Wouldn't it be great if there were different categories: a "pro" category for those who do this for a living, and a "hobbyist" category for ordinary folk who just do it for fun.


And perhaps a novice class for people who have never won a contest (top ten or whatever) and maybe a budget class too.


----------



## rebel

howanic said:


> Anyone with a limitless budget has limitless access.


Agree. You don't get to have limitless skill unless you put in the hours to practice.


----------



## Tim Harrison

I think the only way around this is a systems akin to the Dutch model, where you get periodic visits from a team of judges. Direct judging of the actual scape, not some fantasy photoshop image, would soon sort the wheat from the chaff. It'd be interesting to see how many east asian dioramas featured in the top 27 if this were the case... Very few would be my guess....


----------



## zozo

I believe in today's digital era there is no professional photographer around anymore that doesn't fiddle around with Photoshop.  And in the aquascaping contests, every single picture looks perfect... I find it hard to believe that all contestants are not only very skilled top-level aquascapers but also skilled top-level equipped photographers.

I rather believe the majority of them call in a professional photographer (befriended or not - that's irrelevant) for the photoshoot. Then the photographer comes back with his best shot at a later date and the aquascaper likely is unaware of the magic done to make the picture look so good.

Since the first day i looked at the pictures of the AS contests (a few years now) I always kinda had the feeling and doubt. Am I looking at a picture or an aquascaping contest? It always stood out to me, that at least 90% of all entries had too perfect pictures.


----------



## Luketendo

zozo said:


> I believe in today's digital era there is no professional photographer around anymore that doesn't fiddle around with Photoshop.  And in the aquascaping contests, every single picture looks perfect... I find it hard to believe that all contestants are not only very skilled top-level aquascapers but also skilled top-level equipped photographers.
> 
> I rather believe the majority of them call in a professional photographer (befriended or not - that's irrelevant) for the photoshoot. Then the photographer comes back with his best shot at a later date and the aquascaper likely is unaware of the magic done to make the picture look so good.
> 
> Since the first day i looked at the pictures of the AS contests (a few years now) I always kinda had the feeling and doubt. Am I looking at a picture or an aquascaping contest? It always stood out to me, that at least 90% of all entries had too perfect pictures.



There's a bit of a difference between adjusting the contrast and brightness sliders vs copying and pasting your fish though. I thought that these contests asked for RAW photo files to be kept so quite suprised that ADA did not ask for and check these from the winning entries.


----------



## zozo

Luketendo said:


> There's a bit of a difference between adjusting the contrast and brightness sliders vs copying and pasting your fish though. I thought that these contests asked for RAW photo files to be kept so quite suprised that ADA did not ask for and check these from the winning entries.



Off course we all agree to that... Still, it's a matter of faith this is respected and all to it.

It's just the perfection in the pictures and what I know photoshop can do makes me doubt it a bit... 100 entries perfect scapes and 95 have perfect pictures? The best of both worlds, aquascaping and photography!?

But that's my, once bitten twice shy, personality.  Made me live by the rule, it's good to trust but it's better to check. Then I don't really do in believing too much if I can't.  The benefit of the doubt goes a long way.

I doubt the picture, not the aquascap(er).


----------



## rebel

A single (or even multiple) cheating events shouldn't discredit the whole art or even the whole competition though. I still believe that the art itself speaks for itself. Credit where it's due.


----------



## Wolf6

PARAGUAY said:


> Be quite difficult l think as many pro scapers have other jobs to supplement their incomes. And hobbyists love to compete against the best.Think there might be a case for having a separate contest for dioramas as they do seem to split opinion but in the IAPLC think it would sort of detract from Grand Prize Winners. Think @mort as the best idea of a video of the entry and maybe each country have their own checking committee say from ADA retailers?


I do believe the diorama's and fantasy scenes should get their own catagory. Impressive as they sometimes are, they are all about the hardscape construction and not about making a natural scene. Of course sometimes the edges of these catagories would blur into eachother, but then its up to the creator to decide for which category they will apply. Ah yes, my perfect world where its all simple


----------



## rebel

I am not convinced about the use of the word 'natural' in the case of even normal nature style. Most of the plants are found in nature but some are not found submerged (some are only emersed) and together with species from all over the world. I think we are stretching the word natural..... Natural systems often contain much more algae and don't have foreign fish swimming in harmony. 99% natural systems are murky.


----------



## Kezzab

I think this is true. A 'nature scape' is just another style. Also when was the last time you saw a one of these and thought wow that's novel not seen that before? Beautiful, etc but been done before. 
Good to see people pushing and trying new stuff, even if some of it not to.my taste.


----------



## Wolf6

rebel said:


> I am not convinced about the use of the word 'natural' in the case of even normal nature style. Most of the plants are found in nature but some are not found submerged (some are only emersed) and together with species from all over the world. I think we are stretching the word natural..... Natural systems often contain much more algae and don't have foreign fish swimming in harmony. 99% natural systems are murky.


True. So it would be 'trying to achieve what we perceive to be a perfect natural scene' even when it isnt. Much like a garden, you know the plants you see dont grow together in nature or in the place/soil they grow in your garden, but still you may try to place them so that it at least appears as if you could find it that way in nature. Even when you tie up your plants to not flop over their neighbours, cut off the dead flowers or ugly overhanging branch, and so on. Nothing truely natural about it really. But its all about what we perceive as natural. But start adding gnomes or over the top rock formations and you know you have passed that station and went a few stops further into fantasy town, giving up all pretense that it could be natural (for the eye).


----------



## glasscanvasart

Sorry, but I find the idea of novice and professional categories silly and I’m not even going to address the idea that shop owners should be barred from entry.

Personally, I think there are two problems with the competition (IAPLC).

The first and gravest is cheating through photoshop. There are multiple ways to address this, but I think the most successful and clear cut would be to ONLY accept RAW files. The competition asks for RAW files, but its clear that anything goes, as shown by our friend at world rank 4.

The second problem concerns the judging. The criteria and points allocation doesn’t add up to me and I know others share my opinion. The solution to this is less clear to me, but it’s something the competition must work on and decide on for themselves. Personally, I think impact, composition, sense of nature (not a natural habitat for fish, but a feeling / an essence of nature), skill, originality and longterm maintenance should be the criteria in order of importance. This is a similar breakdown to the EAPLC and I’d suggest that some of you might find this competition more favourable. It’s also compatible with the IAPLC.


----------



## Siege

glasscanvasart said:


> Sorry, but I find the idea of novice and professional categories silly and I’m not even going to address the idea that shop owners should be barred from entry.
> 
> Personally, I think there are two problems with the competition (IAPLC).
> 
> The first and gravest is cheating through photoshop. There are multiple ways to address this, but I think the most successful and clear cut would be to ONLY accept RAW files. The competition asks for RAW files, but its clear that anything goes, as shown by our friend at world rank 4.
> 
> The second problem concerns the judging. The criteria and points allocation doesn’t add up to me and I know others share my opinion. The solution to this is less clear to me, but it’s something the competition must work on and decide on for themselves. Personally, I think impact, composition, sense of nature (not a natural habitat for fish, but a feeling / an essence of nature), skill, originality and longterm maintenance should be the criteria in order of importance. This is a similar breakdown to the EAPLC and I’d suggest that some of you might find this competition more favourable. It’s also compatible with the IAPLC.




wot JM said!

👏 👍😃


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

glasscanvasart said:


> Sorry, but I find the idea of novice and professional categories silly and I’m not even going to address the idea that shop owners should be barred from entry.



Agree that it is a ridiculous idea. There are no agreed upon boundaries for novice and professional’s in aquascaping for starters. In other circles professionals would be considered people who are sponsored and it’s their full time occupation for tax purposes. If you applied this notion to Sim or Fukada, they both have day jobs and wouldn’t even be considered ‘professionals’. Is it fair they are entered into the novice category? 😂

Beyond this, the pursuit and outcry for equal chances by non-participants to the comp game attempts to create an arbitrary measuring stick that is based on the scaper, not the aquascape. Last time I checked this was about judging aquascapes, not trying to categorise somebody’s life chances.



glasscanvasart said:


> The first and gravest is cheating through photoshop. There are multiple ways to address this



Big fan of the nuclear option as a deterrent; you get caught cheating you are finished, never to enter ever again and the competition owners have the right to publicise their evidence of a fraudulent entry. Dare say this photoshop incident has done everyone a huge favour as it brings attention to consequences. There will always be cheats and going down the ‘overseer’ approach is simply not feasible. 2358 entries to the IAPLC in 2020 and it is free to enter; wanting judges to fly out to view every entry multiple times on ADA’s bill isn’t going to happen. Reacting this way also casts doubt on the other 2357 entrants and ADA’s competence with no evidence other than one person cheating.

Don’t worry, nearly done 😂 

As for wanting to see their work in video form... Hidekazu’s #118 ranking scape from 2020:


----------



## glasscanvasart

Siege said:


> wot JM said!
> 
> 👏 👍😃


Sorry, what who said? I don’t recognise the tag.


Geoffrey Rea said:


> Beyond this, the pursuit and outcry for equal chances by non-participants to the comp game attempts to create an arbitrary measuring stick that is based on the scaper, not the aquascape. Last time I checked this was about judging aquascapes, not trying to categorise somebody’s life chances.


Well said.


Geoffrey Rea said:


> Big fan of the nuclear option as a deterrent; you get caught cheating you are finished, never to enter ever again and the competition owners have the right to publicise their evidence of a fraudulent entry. Dare say this photoshop incident has done everyone a huge favour as it brings attention to consequences.


I’m reluctant to say ban the cheat and all future cheaters permanently, but it would be nice to see an apology from him and to cough up the prize money. Though he has caused a lot of damage to the competition and screwed over a fair few people, banning him would lead to a ‘witch-hunt’ of past competitors, and make no mistake there will be cheats that have slipped through, dragging the competition down further and for what?

I think the most appropriate course of action is retrospective disqualification with equal punishment to disqualifications before the rankings, and most importantly changing the competition to prevent any further scandals. Having said this, I don’t suppose the cheat has got the confidence to enter the competition or any other competition again having been caught so publicly.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

glasscanvasart said:


> I’m reluctant to say ban the cheat and all future cheaters permanently



If they did and this thread is to be believed there would only be four entrants left apparently 😂

We’ll see _what is_ in 2021 off the back of this but I’m willing to bet ADA just want this to go away and will treat it as a one off.

On a funnier note, if this were the scape to bring you down in the IAPLC it’s rather humorous that it sort of looks like a flushing toilet:


----------



## Tim Harrison

glasscanvasart said:


> but I think the most successful and clear cut would be to ONLY accept RAW files


I'm not sure that would work very well. RAW files are much larger resulting in increased workflow time; might be an issue opening and sorting through 2000 images. There's no standard RAW format meaning more software is needed to open different RAW files.

The skill needed to produce a decent minimally processed RAW image would probably exclude a lot of folk and turn the IAPLC in to a photographic competition rather than an aquascaping contest. However, let's be honest it's clearly become as much about the image as the actual aquascape.

I'm not sure what the answer is, or if it'd make any difference anyway. I think this has exposed a fundamental flaw in online competitions and maybe such competitions will never be taken as seriously again.


----------



## zozo

Tim Harrison said:


> maybe such competitions will never be taken as seriously again.



I'm afraid so... The taste is set... A hard pill to swallow for all trustworthy legit players.

And as said, could be the scaper in question is a victim himself from a befriended foolishly photographer trying to fix his mistakes.

Can't believe he's that stupid to have done this on purpose.


----------



## castle

Tim Harrison said:


> I'm not sure that would work very well. RAW files are much larger resulting in increased workflow time; might be an issue opening and sorting through 2000 images. There's no standard RAW format meaning more software is needed to open different RAW files.


You're right, but something like imagemagick will do this all in a relative flash with a couple of terminal commands.


----------



## glasscanvasart

Tim Harrison said:


> I'm not sure that would work very well. RAW files are much larger resulting in increased workflow time; might be an issue opening and sorting through 2000 images. There's no standard RAW format meaning more software is needed to open different RAW files.


I decided to check up on the entrance criteria and it states



I realise I was wrong when I said they request RAW files.

Perhaps, a better solution is to demand RAW data or video of the winning works. However, this would then mean that the winners would know before the public announcements or letters came through. If someone then says they’ve lost the files or not retained them then what would you do, disqualify them? I don’t particularly like this idea.

 Another, solution could be to check over the highest ranking entries for photoshop, maybe hiring some experts. It would be impossible to detect lighting and colour alterations at least without checking data and even then I’m not sure that’s plausible. However the kind of cheating that are friend has employed is visible to the naked, albeit discerning, eye. This is the most heinous type of cheating and I don’t think it would be awful to miss the lighting and colour alterations, if we could catch the fabrications. I would also note, as others have said, it may not be possible to detect photoshop from a more skilled hand, and I have no solution to that.

Having said all this, I definitely don’t have all (perhaps any) of the answers and I suspect -given the lack of response from the IAPLC to ‘he who shall not be named’s’ disqualification- that the IAPLC and ADA are going to stick their head in the sand and not acknowledge or address the issue. Though I may and hope to be wrong.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

Tim Harrison said:


> such competitions will never be taken as seriously again.






zozo said:


> I'm afraid so... The taste is set... A hard pill to swallow for all trustworthy legit players.



Just for posterity... one person found cheating out of two thousand three hundred and fifty eight. If this is an evidence based community - it’s getting away from itself without further evidence of people breaching the rules. 



glasscanvasart said:


> I realise I was wrong when I said they request RAW files.



Yes and noticed folk on here also not correctly referring to the rules as they’ve not yet applied or thoroughly checked before commenting. It’s not a pop at anyone as most won’t have unless they want to enter.

The file size for IAPLC entry is 5MB:





It isn’t much and almost bizarre. Most bridge cameras will approach that on a mediocre shot with good lighting. EALPC allows for 10MB. Either doesn’t allow for much detail when zooming in, label this point in defence of the judges ‘not noticing’ and this is not including time restrictions judging each entry. A DSLR shooting in RAW format will push 20MB plus.

Falling back on my original argument; make it a career ender to go against the most basic rules of a competition and you’ll get a reduced frequency of fraudulent entries. Oversight would be better but not possible in this scenario. Either way I doubt any further attention will be drawn towards this photoshop incident by the competition owner/sponsor if it can be avoided.

A big theme on this thread I think is people dislike dioramas now and want to get back to NA style scapes. This recent upset may be a good push in that direction.


----------



## zozo

The problem is "smart", very smart and getting smarter and digitally smarter day by day.

It actually kinda surprised me that it took so long for someone to throw a spanner in the works.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

zozo said:


> The problem is "smart", very smart and getting smarter and digitally smarter day by day.



Very much true. Outside of scaping, having to look at research that entails varying visual salience across time in video to predict and control eye tracking. Suffice to say when you equate for specific demographic info and manipulate via locational change in visual salience using software, you get a high accuracy rate of where and when you will attend to information on screen. Plainly, knowing where you’ll look and when dependably. All of this outside of the participants conscious awareness. Add AI to operate this process and it’s brown trouser time. You’re a puppet on a string.

It is certainly not lost on me how terrifying the world is becoming. Software is so much more than I ever imagined as a kid, frighteningly so. I completely agree:



zozo said:


> It actually kinda surprised me that it took so long for someone to throw a spanner in the works.



It really is a shambles how bad a photoshop job the entry is 😂 For that reason alone it sort of feels like it maybe, just maybe, might be a deliberate protest entry. Plus the theme... going down the pan. Wanting to cheat to the top is more probable though but in defence of fairness it is worth waiting to see what’s said. Maybe it is the fault of a third party, who knows until he comes forward about it. If it was a friend that helped for example it would make it very difficult to publicly state that.

As for the IAPLC I genuinely believe a hard sell route back to honesty is the path forward. How you feel about a piece of art is far more provoking and long lasting compared to anything that it is. To control where you look is possible now, but not how you feel about what you’ve seen.


----------



## Tim Harrison

Geoffrey Rea said:


> ... one person found cheating out of two thousand three hundred and fifty eight. If this is an evidence based community - it’s getting away from itself without further evidence of people breaching the rules.


I think it'd also come as no surprise to discover it's the thin end of the wedge and that it's fairly common place. But I don't really think we'll ever know for sure. Which is kind of the point. 


Geoffrey Rea said:


> Yes and noticed folk on here also not correctly referring to the rules as they’ve not yet applied or thoroughly checked before commenting. It’s not a pop at anyone as most won’t have unless they want to enter.
> 
> The file size for IAPLC entry is 5MB:


Funny you should mention that, I was going to post the exact same extract from the IAPLC rule book, but I guess the rules can be altered in future if needs be. 

I suppose it is what it is now. Like most things you can take it or leave it. It's not like it's doping in international athletics, or US election voting fraud. It's just aquascaping...


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

Tim Harrison said:


> I suppose it is what it is now. Like most things you can take it or leave it. It's not like it's doping in international athletics, or US election voting fraud. It's just aquascaping...



It’s important to us though right? The direction of the top works presented feel wrong don’t they? The judging criteria keep coming up as a sore point over and over don’t they? It’s a shared experience amongst the community on UKAPS who have viewed thousands of works? It is an international community so despite its limitation in numbers, it is internationally subscribed to.

The nerve that’s being pressed is about the validity of the IAPLC to assess work even before the cheating argument I would suspect. It’s been brewing for at least the last three years.

My two cents are dioramas win out as they’re easier to assess, less cognitive effort needed to validate them. They either are or aren’t a good representation of what they attempt to depict. Amano sold a ‘sense of nature’ and it feels like we’ve wandered into miniature wonderland. Reckon he would have several counts of assault against the judging panel if he were still with us 😂


----------



## sparkyweasel

glasscanvasart said:


> I find the idea of novice and professional categories silly


Well, that's told me.


----------



## glasscanvasart

sparkyweasel said:


> Well, that's told me.


Sorry, blunt but honest.


----------



## glasscanvasart

Geoffrey Rea said:


> It’s important to us though right? The direction of the top works presented feel wrong don’t they? The judging criteria keep coming up as a sore point over and over don’t they? It’s a shared experience amongst the community on UKAPS who have viewed thousands of works? It is an international community so despite its limitation in numbers, it is internationally subscribed to.
> 
> The nerve that’s being pressed is about the validity of the IAPLC to assess work even before the cheating argument I would suspect. It’s been brewing for at least the last three years.
> 
> My two cents are dioramas win out as they’re easier to assess, less cognitive effort needed to validate them. They either are or aren’t a good representation of what they attempt to depict. Amano sold a ‘sense of nature’ and it feels like we’ve wandered into miniature wonderland. Reckon he would have several counts of assault against the judging panel if he were still with us 😂


Amano has responded to the prevalence of ‘Diorama‘ in the IAPLC before if I remember correctly. I might be wrong, but I believe he grudgingly said that the IAPLC is not a ’Nature Aquarium‘ contest.

I like the top works in all honesty and mostly support the rankings of the past years. However, I don’t appreciate the judging criteria, as it doesn’t seem to match the rankings.

I’ve said it before, but I don’t think that people’s preferences should be imposed on the contest. However there should be a wide panel of judges so that preferences are averaged out and I’d like to see more IAPLC judges who are Aquascapers themselves.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

sparkyweasel said:


> Well, that's told me.



Not sure if that was comedic or serious @sparkyweasel but just spat out my beer 😂 

UKAPS could run an annual comp that would be far more fun and far more inclusive. Phone pictures only. Just some suggestions but categories could include:

- Forget about the rest, you know I’m the best
- I thought it would be great... WTF happened to my scape (before and after with biggest disaster being the winner)
- Three rocks, two wood
- First scape 
- Self proclaimed professional
- Best photoshopped/convincing composition from stitched tank shots from members photos (with their permission)

No prize money, no ego trip. A mascot for each category that you get to hold onto for the year to show in journal photo’s etc to hold your status on the forum... fun... enjoyable... light.

As for the IALPC:




glasscanvasart said:


> I’d like to see more IAPLC judges who are Aquascapers themselves.



Couldn’t agree more.


----------



## glasscanvasart

To anyone wondering how far our friend has fabricated his layout I checked out the IAPLC winners video and took these screenshots. It’s not as bad as I thought it might be, which leaves me thinking was it really worth it. Because of how poor a job it was and the changes that have been made (namely the rock work on the left), I believe it’s not the doings of a photographer.














I believe the first three are unlikely to have been edited, but some honest changes might have happened between photos 3 and 4. As far as the layout goes, all I’m sure that has been edited is the top left area which in photo 3 was negative space. In addition, I suspect a lot of the planting has been duplicated over the rock work. Other edits include the majority of fish being duplicated. Finally, the colour has been made more bluish and the yellows minimised. I’m sure there’s more, but I haven’t spotted them.

Edit. I forgot to mention the sideways cropping, which is against the rules.


----------



## Tim Harrison

Geoffrey Rea said:


> The nerve that’s being pressed is about the validity of the IAPLC to assess work even before the cheating argument I would suspect. It’s been brewing for at least the last three years.
> 
> My two cents are dioramas win out as they’re easier to assess, less cognitive effort needed to validate them. They either are or aren’t a good representation of what they attempt to depict. Amano sold a ‘sense of nature’ and it feels like we’ve wandered into miniature wonderland. Reckon he would have several counts of assault against the judging panel if he were still with us 😂


I couldn't disagree less...

My last was the personal commentary of a jaded pragmatist. Truth be known I've found the IAPLC increasingly absurd for reasons including those you mentioned above.
During the course of this discussion I've discovered I'm completely indifferent to it. The IAPLC is now dead to me...


----------



## Tim Harrison

glasscanvasart said:


> To anyone wondering how far our friend has fabricated his layout I checked out the IAPLC winners video and took these screenshots. It’s not as bad as I thought it might be, which leaves me thinking was it really worth it. Because of how poor a job it was and the changes that have been made (namely the rock work on the left), I believe it’s not the doings of a photographer.
> 
> View attachment 156465
> View attachment 156466
> View attachment 156467
> View attachment 156468
> 
> I believe the first three are unlikely to have been edited, but some honest changes might have happened between photos 3 and 4. As far as the layout goes, all I’m sure that has been edited is the top left area which in photo 3 was negative space. In addition, I suspect a lot of the planting has been duplicated over the rock work. Other edits include the majority of fish being duplicated. Finally, the colour has been made more bluish and the yellows minimised. I’m sure there’s more, but I haven’t spotted them.


It's still ridiculous...


----------



## glasscanvasart

I’d definitely be in favour and participate in a UKAPS ’Nature Aquarium’ competition. It would be great with the aims of bettering our layouts, learning from each other and working towards a final photo which I think everyone should do, so we can look back on our layouts.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

Tim Harrison said:


> The IAPLC is now dead to me...



It’s gone all Albert Camus and _The Myth of Sisyphus_. Except in this rendition Sisyphus gives the middle finger to the gods at the top of the mountain before starting over.

Just to position myself in all this I find real talent wins in our modern age. Just not in organised situations outside of our own personal volition. I can’t really disagree with your position about it being absurd or ridiculous.

If it’s crap, be part of something better.


----------



## zozo

glasscanvasart said:


> To anyone wondering how far our friend has fabricated his layout I checked out the IAPLC winners video and took these screenshots. It’s not as bad as I thought it might be, which leaves me thinking was it really worth it. Because of how poor a job it was and the changes that have been made (namely the rock work on the left), I believe it’s not the doings of a photographer.
> 
> View attachment 156465
> View attachment 156466
> View attachment 156467
> View attachment 156468
> 
> I believe the first three are unlikely to have been edited, but some honest changes might have happened between photos 3 and 4. As far as the layout goes, all I’m sure that has been edited is the top left area which in photo 3 was negative space. In addition, I suspect a lot of the planting has been duplicated over the rock work. Other edits include the majority of fish being duplicated. Finally, the colour has been made more bluish and the yellows minimised. I’m sure there’s more, but I haven’t spotted them.
> 
> Edit. I forgot to mention the sideways cropping, which is against the rules.






Find the differences in the rocks  I can find about 10 features added at first glance.


----------



## PARAGUAY

I know a lot of aquascapers work hard to enter the IAPLC every year a few UKAPS members.  So l feel it's wrong to dismiss it just on the fact there are a couple of bad apples get through. As regards Steven Chong and his aquascape its within the rules  Plus a lot like it. Including obviously the judges. I know little about the technicallitys of photography except whether it competitive or not we like our fish and tanks to look the best. My plants possibly will never look however healthy as good as under expensive ADA lighting but so it doesn't matter for most it's a competion and the finished aquarium and how it looks without cheating is all the matters. 
              Noticable at ADA partys all the top entrants discuss and admire their fellow competitors efforts


----------



## Tim Harrison

Geoffrey Rea said:


> It’s gone all Albert Camus and _The Myth of Sisyphus_. Except in this rendition Sisyphus gives the middle finger to the gods at the top of the mountain before starting over.
> 
> Just to position myself in all this I find real talent wins in our modern age. Just not in organised situations outside of our own personal volition. I can’t really disagree with your position about it being absurd or ridiculous.


Crikey that's deep, especially to wake up to on a Sunday morning 🙂


Geoffrey Rea said:


> If it’s crap, be part of something better.


I think we could all do better here. We should start thinking about next years hardscape challenge or maybe we should throw caution to the wind and have a full blown contest with plants an' all ?



PARAGUAY said:


> I know a lot of aquascapers work hard to enter the IAPLC every year a few UKAPS members.


For me that's precisely the point. Situations like this make a mockery of that fact. And I strongly suspect it's the tip of the iceberg, especially in the case of southeast asian diorama; they just lend themselves to increasing levels of absurdity and illegal alteration. So my contention is why bother entering unless you're prepared to play the same game? It doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## glasscanvasart

zozo said:


> View attachment 156469
> Find the differences in the rocks  I can find about 10 features added at first glance.
> View attachment 156470


I saw those but didn’t point them out, because they weren’t shown as evidence for photoshop and I feel that they could have been adjusted before the final photo.


----------



## glasscanvasart

PARAGUAY said:


> I know a lot of aquascapers work hard to enter the IAPLC every year a few UKAPS members.  So l feel it's wrong to dismiss it just on the fact there are a couple of bad apples get through. As regards Steven Chong and his aquascape its within the rules  Plus a lot like it. Including obviously the judges. I know little about the technicallitys of photography except whether it competitive or not we like our fish and tanks to look the best. My plants possibly will never look however healthy as good as under expensive ADA lighting but so it doesn't matter for most it's a competion and the finished aquarium and how it looks without cheating is all the matters.
> Noticable at ADA partys all the top entrants discuss and admire their fellow competitors efforts.


Yeah, I’m with you. I still really enjoy the works from the IAPLC and will continue to enter into the competition and maybe one day be part of some of the higher ranking entries. However, I think there is a place for a down to earth Nature Aquarium contest and I think this forum could be a great host.


----------



## CooKieS

Nuno Gomes said:


> If a "nature aquarium" with mirrors inside will not be disqualified, I don't see why a photoshopped image should.....both should be out tbh


That’s some stupid statement...tbh.


----------



## CooKieS

hope Ada staff will finally disqualify this photoshopped scape...it’s time they do something about that! Otherwise I won’t participate at iaplc 2021, and I think I won’t be the only one...


----------



## Steven Chong

Nuno Gomes said:


> I agree, I just meant that we have very high ranking tanks that use artificial items, like Steven Chong's tank, and somehow I don't think that would fly if Mr. Amano were still among us.





Wookii said:


> Its not a nature aquarium contest, but the scoring structure is laid out to suggest that only nature aquariums should reasonably expect to be in the top 50. Over 60% of the points are available to the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish” and the “Presentation of natural atmosphere in layout works”:
> 
> View attachment 156226
> 
> No matter your thoughts on diorama scapes, it should be very difficult to allocate many points to one under those two categories. Somehow the judges still manage to though.





glasscanvasart said:


> I personally believe the scoring structure is lenient, because it’s the most impactful entries that win and not the layouts that tick the most boxes. Personally I don’t believe there should be a scoring structure as this is an art and not a baking contest with everyone baking the same type of cake. However, the way the score allocation is presented isn’t really consistent with the results.



It's interesting, because from this end the rubric feels objective-- it's definitely in effect. And the top aquascapers that consistently get results, see success because they definitely have a sense for the different parts of it. The two categories in question, “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish” and the “Presentation of natural atmosphere in layout works”; if anything these are the two areas I have the most confidence in-- certainly the two to be valued most highly, and thought about most deeply.

You can see it in the comments on my past works in the contest books:
2018 (rank 5) - If you summarize the judge's comments they boil down to: "This is a big impact diorama with lots of techniques, but it sincerely re-creates a sense of nature."
2019 (rank 15) - ADA's description of the aquascape is: "A meticulous, dedicated re-creation of the actual nature inside of a river. This is a superior work of this category this year."

Heiko Bleher and the biotope community also praised the 2019 aquascape-- it was a work that reflected how much nature and biotope study I do prior to each work. Usually 6-8 months of researching, story boarding, illustration, thinking about it. The real work of a contest aquacape is the work that happens before you start putting things in the tank.
I go into depth here: 


I wish that ADA would do some translation work on that “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish” category, because when Amano-san and other Japanese judge's talk about it, they always talked more about it in terms of, "Creating a sense of underwater." The real task with this category is to create a sense of wetness, a sense of water. Those works that can really nail that will pass this category with flying colors. In my layout this year, using the mirrors, I created an expression of water that never existed in any previous work. But beyond just the work around the mirror, my aim was to take the audience inside of a log, to see the world as a fish would see it. Something I try to pursue in each work.

Actually what I did was pretty conservative. Given Tanaka Katsuki's 2016 Rank 4 layout with mirrors, and then 2018 Bernat Hosta's Rank 6 work with mirror receiving so much praise even from  traditionalist Nature Aquarium lovers. I knew that the technique itself had to be recognized as legitimate. All I had to do was do what I knew was possible-- use it in a way that neither of them did, and surpass both in using it to "Present a natural atmosphere." If anything, I took the crazy gimmick that was already accepted, and used it in a way that was far more conservative and aligned with Amano's ethos than the previous accepted examples. 

In my approach, if you do go with a crazy gimmick, what you really want to do is use it to present a face of nature-- and in tapping the emotional sense of standing trees reflected on a water's surface, I presented a face of nature that had never existed in any previous layout.

How can I put the audience in a fish's perspective?
What is interesting about the death of a tree?
Why does it stir my soul when seeing trees reflected on a water's surface?

These were the types of questions I was asking myself as I brought the pieces together for this work.
In order to succeed at the contest, it takes effort to understand it. In order to create nature aquarium, one would do well to not only study the form of Amano's specific techniques, but to really follow his ethos-- to be dedicated in the study of nature. Nature is what teaches us to create beautiful Nature Aquariums.


----------



## Steven Chong

Also on the main topic, it’s very sad about what Albert decided to do. It’s dishonest and a tragedy for scaping.

To add my own take— looking at the photoshopped version, and his work in progress scape— it’s clear he currently still lacks the technique and size sense to actually create this work. But the sad thing is that with practice and study, there’s nothing in here particularly difficult to do. If he had this idea, it’s unfortunate he wasn’t able to execute on it properly.

The real top contest scapers wouldn’t do this because they don’t have to. Anything that they can imagine, they can build. The real task is finding the idea and committing. Here he had a novel idea, and clearly the idea itself was top 7 worthy. Should have studied and practiced more on the hardscaping skills needed to create it. Sad because the technical part— the “how” as opposed to the “what”— should be the easy part.

Most of all though, he should have respected the contest, the community and his own aquascaping enough not to do this.


----------



## Nico Felici

If I may, these type of behaviours are the reflection of what this fantastic hobby is partially now driven by: a snap. Whilst I am conscious that contests can be a great initiative to promote engagement, in my humble opinion they distort the original concept and purpose of aquascaping into a simple competition for "likes". A scape is created, photographed, dismantled... really?


----------



## Kezzab

Great to see @Steven Chong posting here again. Guest judge for Ukaps aquascaping contest? 😉


----------



## CooKieS

Awesome read as always @Steven Chong !


----------



## Tim Harrison

Steven Chong said:


> Most of all though, he should have respected the contest, the community and his own aquascaping enough not to do this.


I agree, but isn't it also a commentary on the trajectory of the IAPLC competition itself and the type of entries it attracts? In that ultimately, very few diorama scapes, by their very nature, are really true representations of natural aquatic habitat, or the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish”, and therefore as such should they score as highly as they do? Especially considering that criteria warrants 50% of the marks, 60% if you count "Presentation of natural atmosphere in layout work".

In other words that criteria is either flagrantly ignored, not defined appropriately, or the judges have very little understanding of what a natural aquatic habitat looks like. Therefore, why not go one step further and use photoshop to enhance the fantasy landscape because clearly the IAPLC doesn't care what constitutes a natural habitat for fish anyway? In this respect surely the IAPLC has reaped what it's sown?

And whilst I totally appreciate the skill, vision and hard work involved in the creation of some diorama scapes, how does the use of mirrors create an impression of a natural habitat for fish? Yes it creates a sense of wetness and of water, but again it's a fantasy. Surely the fact that the use of mirrors is recognised as legitimate simply reinforces the point above, doesn't it?

Perhaps the IAPLC should just be honest and totally scrap the idea that the winning scapes have anything to do with the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish”? It just increasingly seems like an ADA/Takashi Amano legacy that clearly doesn't apply any more. 'To know Mother Nature is to love her smallest creations', does the IAPLC really believe this or has it just become a commercialised catchphrase?


----------



## Steven Chong

Tim Harrison said:


> I agree, but isn't it also a commentary on the trajectory of the IAPLC competition itself and the type of entries it attracts? In that ultimately, very few diorama scapes, by their very nature, are really true representations of natural aquatic habitat, or the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish”, and therefore as such should they score as highly as they do? Especially considering that criteria warrants 50% of the marks, 60% if you count "Presentation of natural atmosphere in layout work".
> 
> In other words that criteria is either flagrantly ignored, not defined appropriately, or the judges have very little understanding of what a natural aquatic habitat looks like. Therefore, why not go one step further and use photoshop to enhance the fantasy landscape because clearly the IAPLC doesn't care what constitutes a natural habitat for fish anyway? In this respect surely the IAPLC has reaped what it's sown?
> 
> And whilst I totally appreciate the skill, vision and hard work involved in the creation of some diorama scapes, how does the use of mirrors create an impression of a natural habitat for fish? Yes it creates a sense of wetness and of water, but again it's a fantasy. Surely the fact that the use of mirrors is recognised as legitimate simply reinforces the point above, doesn't it?


I think if you read my earlier post, I mostly disagree— about the categories, and how suited the diorama style is to the categories. I do think ADA could be more clear on what they mean by “Natural Habitat for Fish,” but those who do understand it deal with it well.

The “what kind of entries it attracts” argument sounds a bit like victim blaming to me. Just as I wouldn’t blame an assault victim for what she/he was wearing, I wouldn’t blame IAPLC for Alberto’s cheating.

They do have a responsibility to take action when it becomes apparent though. I hope ADA is making considerations— they historically take their time and are measured in taking action to these types of circumstances; they may want to make sure they are lined up with a proper response before making it.

As for the direction of the contest and what contest aquascaping should be— Amano-San loved the progressive arc of aquascaping. I remember in 2009, going to the NA Party and hearing him say “All these layouts are just copies of my work. Can’t the world show me anything new?”

The 2013, 2014, 2015 GPS were all diorama scapes, and I believe the “Best in Show” layouts chosen by Amano-San alone were diorama as well.

The contest will die if it is not at least somewhat progressive, and allowing for new expression and pushing the envelope in technique. I did what Amano-San asked of me in 2009— show a completely new expression of Nature in the aquarium, something never seen before.

And in order to get the insight to create this work, I did what the contest and ADA had always hoped for— study nature deeply.



> Perhaps the IAPLC should just be honest and totally scrap the idea that the winning scapes have anything to do with the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish”? It just increasingly seems like an ADA/Takashi Amano legacy that clearly doesn't apply any more. 'To know Mother Nature is to love her smallest creations', does the IAPLC really believe this or has it just become a commercialised catchphrase?



I disagree. The legacy is clearly there-- if anything, we've seen in the last years that in order to pursue greater heights, in order to pursue more consistent strength, the top layouters who truly are at the top have needed to demonstrate a higher appreciation for tradition, for creating the underwater feel. That's why you see Josh's and Siak's layouts becoming more hybrid-styles or in Josh's case going completely traditional in style this year. Fukada-san too, you'll see his 2018 work was part of this trend to re-visit the traditional style and hybridize it with learnings from Diorama-- and this year his work completely broke all his main tenants of scaping. The ranking may be poor for Fukada-san (33), but this lean into traditionalism is his own way of soul searching.

Last year I went hard biotope, and created an aquascape purely dedicated to Japan's riverways. I titled it "Amano-Gawa" (milky way galaxy in Japanese, but can also be translated as "Amano's River"), and built the structure in order to prominently feature Riccia + Hair Grass, Amano-san's famous combination, highlighted by Potamogeton Gayi, another plant he used with those two often in Nature Aquarium World. I am a student not only of Fukada-san, but the 20 year veteran Masashi Ono as well. The sense for Nature Aquarium from him, and appreciation for studying nature is what allows me to create diorama that differentiate themselves from the bulk of Asian diorama scapes-- and many previous top 27 diorama layouters found themselves outside the top 127, and even in the 300's, 400's, 1000's this year.

High impact, technically savvy Diorama skills alone will get you into the top 27 inconsistently, or even top 7 here or there. But year-in year-out performance at the top level definitely requires dedication to studying nature, appreciating Amano's legacy, and "Recreation for a Natural Habitat for Fish," or "Creating a Sense of Nature."

Whether you do NA or you do Diorama, the key is to be one of the very best in the lane you pick. And often it is aquascapers that pursue knowledge and skills most broadly that are able to win in whatever lane they choose. Last year, I was the #1 river layouter, not someone traditionally strong in the style like Tsukiji-san. This year, Josh Sim was the #1 Traditional NA style scaper-- and he ranked 3rd in the world. The two inform each other-- doing diorama can make you better at traditional, and visa versa; for those who are not restrained and have a wide appreciation for nature and nature aquarium.

I'll say that the staff at ADA and folks in ADA world are no less passionate or dedicated to the mission when you meet them. I am sure as a company in a global market they have many pressures and much soul searching especially after Amano's passing-- but I do not doubt their dedication.


----------



## rebel

BanditCoaxx said:


> he's frosted the front of his tank?


Very creative actually with the mist in the front!!


----------



## zozo

IMHO it goes for all of us, that we try to create a depiction of something natural by imagination and fantasy.  How many of us have scuba dived in tropical streams, ponds and lakes etc. to see for them selfs what the true natural habitat for fish look like? The majority of us has to go by impressions from snapshots in magazines a few nature documentaries and good looking examples made by others. It's what you see is what you get under the assumption that must be it and then try to create something similar.

I guess the criterium of judging a "Natural habitat for fish" should take fish psychology into consideration. What does a certain type of fish need to feel safe and comfortable? In which type of surroundings does this specific fish sp. like to be if it was in nature? Does it need places to hide, free swimming space, Surface vegetation, broken lines of sight, dominated wood or rock hardscape, an adequate amount of aufwuchs, soft or hard substrates etc? Then in combination with the inhabitants, the layout should provide all this as comfortable for the fish as possible. Can you manage to create this in a perfectly good looking Golden Ratio then you're maybe the winner?

How and with what you do this should actually stay totally irrelevant, it's a zeitgeist of taste, current trend and fashion that can and will keep changing. If it didn't the concept would bleed to death rather soon. And actually, the fish don't give a flying figure if it is Manzanita wood, a trash bin, beer can or a shopping cart to feel safe and comfortable around it.

Thus happy fish with natural behaviour? Then it's very natural... Do you like to look at it? No, then I'm sorry and try better next time.

All tho in our hobby happy fish might also be a very illusive judgement to make. Considering all the hardship they went through to finally end up in one of our scapes.


----------



## Tim Harrison

Steven Chong said:


> I think if you read my earlier post, I mostly disagree— about the categories, and how suited the diorama style is to the categories. I do think ADA could be more clear on what they mean by “Natural Habitat for Fish,” but those who do understand it deal with it well.


On that we can agree, and I'm glad we have some common ground. Do you think the IAPLC would benefit if diorama were to have its own category and perhaps different judging criteria? Then it would be up to the contestants to decide what style their scape best fits, and it can be judged accordingly. At the polar opposites, and some not inconsiderable way toward the centre, Diorama and Nature Aquarium are apples and oranges and I don't think it's really appropriate to judge them in the same category any longer.



Steven Chong said:


> The “what kind of entries it attracts” argument sounds a bit like victim blaming to me. Just as I wouldn’t blame an assault victim for what she/he was wearing, I wouldn’t blame IAPLC for Alberto’s cheating.


I can see how you drew that conclusion from what I wrote, but that's not really what I was trying to get at. I meant if contestants want to win they pretty much have to enter a diorama. Which is perhaps bad news for the development of other aquascaping styles. That is, if it's accepted that those styles can evolve further, and in to something other than diorama.

I don't blame the IAPLC for Alberto's dishonesty. I just think because of the dominance of diorama and its progressive arc it's drifting ever further from reality, and the temptation to photoshop a little detail here and there is understandable (not that I'm condoning Alberto's actions). Also, I suspect photoshopping has been more common than IAPLC would like to believe. Diorama seems to be a style that simply lends itself to ever greater flights of fantasy and fabrication.



Steven Chong said:


> They do have a responsibility to take action when it becomes apparent though. I hope ADA is making considerations— they historically take their time and are measured in taking action to these types of circumstances; they may want to make sure they are lined up with a proper response before making it.


I'd be interested to see if the IAPLC scrutinises past entries too. I think it risks loosing all credibility if it doesn't. And I hope it doesn't try to brush Alberto's dishonesty under the carpet or use him as a scape goat and then pretend all is well. Again IAPLC risks loosing what's left of its credibility if it does.



Steven Chong said:


> I disagree. The legacy is clearly there-


I don't disagree with this statement. The legacy is still there and maybe evolving in a different direction to diorama. Either way, it's like a breath of fresh air when you see scapes like Amano-Gawa, with more of a leaning toward traditional Nature Aquarium, ranking well in the IAPLC. But they are clearly still the exception to the diorama rule.



Steven Chong said:


> High impact, technically savvy Diorama skills alone will get you into the top 27 inconsistently, or even top 7 here or there. But year-in year-out performance at the top level definitely requires dedication to studying nature, appreciating Amano's legacy, and "Recreation for a Natural Habitat for Fish," or "Creating a Sense of Nature."


Diorama is clearly an accomplished art form, and hate it or love it you have to admire the creativity, skill, dedication and hard work involved. And it's an art form that dominates the IAPLC's top prizes and those of other scaping competitions as well, so clearly diorama scapes have impact and are greatly admired and appreciated. And I hope it continues to evolve and breath life in to all aquascaping competitions.

However, as an ecologist that has spent many years researching the ecological principles behind the conservation management of semi-natural wetlands I can assure you that most dioramas have very little in common with natural aquatic habitats.

And that's fine, but the IAPLC needs to be honest about it, and acknowledge that the progressive arc of diorama creativity has perhaps become more important than the original Nature Aquarium concept and its fundamental ethos of the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish”. The two have almost become mutually exclusive.

If the IAPLC fail to acknowledge this it may risk becoming a caricature of itself and may struggle to convince anyone that it still believes... 'To know Mother Nature is to love her smallest creations'. Which brings me full circle to my opening contention at the top of this reply... perhaps diorama needs it's own category with different judging criteria?


----------



## Steven Chong

Tim Harrison said:


> On that we can agree, and I'm glad we have some common ground. Do you think the IAPLC would benefit if diorama were to have its own category and perhaps different judging criteria? Then it would be up to the contestants to decide what style their scape best fits, and it can be judged accordingly. At the polar opposites, and some not inconsiderable way toward the centre, Diorama and Nature Aquarium are apples and oranges and I don't think it's really appropriate to judge them in the same category any longer.
> 
> 
> I can see how you drew that conclusion from what I wrote, but that's not really what I was trying to get at. I meant if contestants want to win they pretty much have to enter a diorama. Which is perhaps bad news for the development of other aquascaping styles. That is, if it's accepted that those styles can evolve further, and in to something other than diorama.
> 
> I don't blame the IAPLC for Alberto's dishonesty. I just think because of the dominance of diorama and its progressive arc it's drifting ever further from reality, and the temptation to photoshop a little detail here and there is understandable (not that I'm condoning Alberto's actions). Also, I suspect photoshopping has been more common than IAPLC would like to believe. Diorama seems to be a style that simply lends itself to ever greater flights of fantasy and fabrication.
> 
> 
> I'd be interested to see if the IAPLC scrutinises past entries too. I think it risks loosing all credibility if it doesn't. And I hope it doesn't try to brush Alberto's dishonesty under the carpet or use him as a scape goat and then pretend all is well. Again IAPLC risks loosing what's left of its credibility if it does.
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with this statement. The legacy is still there and maybe evolving in a different direction to diorama. Either way, it's like a breath of fresh air when you see scapes with more of a leaning toward traditional Nature Aquarium ranking well in the IAPLC. But they are clearly still the exception to the diorama rule.
> 
> 
> Diorama is clearly an accomplished art form, and hate it or love it you have to admire the creativity, skill, dedication and hard work involved. And it's an art form that dominates the IAPLC's top prizes and those of other scaping competitions as well, so clearly diorama scapes have impact and are greatly admired and appreciated. And I hope it continues to evolve and breath life in to all aquascaping competitions.
> 
> However, as an ecologist that has spent many years researching the ecological principles behind the conservation management of semi-natural wetlands I can assure you that most dioramas have very little in common with natural aquatic habitats.
> 
> And that's fine, but the IAPLC needs to be honest about it, and acknowledge that the progressive arc of diorama creativity has perhaps become more important than the original Nature Aquarium concept and its fundamental ethos of the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish”. The two have almost become mutually exclusive.
> 
> If the IAPLC fail to acknowledge this it may risk becoming a caricature of itself and may struggle to convince anyone that it still believes... 'To know Mother Nature is to love her smallest creations'. Which brings me full circle to my opening contention at the top of this reply... perhaps diorama needs it's own category with different judging criteria?



I disagree.
I don’t think ADA risks anything that you say it risks.

Also diorama doesn’t need it’s own category, and they’re inseparable anyway with lots of room for exploring hybridization.

The diorama scapes are often superior to the NA style ones in the habitat and nature sense categories, and are already an inseparable part of the Nature Aquarium tradition. There is nothing of Amano’s ethos lost by judging all the layouts together.

Agree to disagree.


----------



## Tim Harrison

That's fine, agree to disagree. I'll watch future competitions with interest and wish you good luck in those you enter.


----------



## Steven Chong

Tim Harrison said:


> That's fine, agree to disagree. I'll watch future competitions with interest and wish you good luck in those you enter.


Thank you— my aim is to win next year. Once again, just as in this year and every year— Habitat for Fish and Sense of Nature and passionate research will be first and foremost in my strategy.


----------



## castle

Great to read your point of view @Steven Chong


----------



## cbaum86

Really interesting to see so many views on the topic and potentially what keeps the hobby interesting. I don't feel that my views add any particular depth or revelation to the conversation but it's better to air them and maybe trying to write them out helps clarify ones beliefs in your own head.

I will take out the 'cheating' side of things as that is clearly unacceptable and as there is no clear evidence on any other entry it's unfair to make a comment. However, the response from ADA/IAPLC is important and hopefully, as mentioned by others addressed and not brushed under the carpet.

As for the entires made to the competition and the ranks then in general I have no complaints. I may not agree with and like all the top entries and I'm not a fan of the overly contrived layouts but I think from the past few years they are becoming less and less so with this hybrid diorama NA style becoming more prevalent. Personally I like it and I think it's an evolution, styles will always evolve and circulate; fashion is the obvious go to example as base trends from decades ago recirculate with twists. I don't think the top entries in this years IAPLC are true diorama, to me they are something else.

Should these types of entries be disallowed, marked down, recategorised etc just for being what they are? I don't believe so.
Does the current judging criteria allow for these entries to score as highly as they do? I believe so.

To me the criteria of 'Recreation of a natural habitat for fish' and 'Presentation of natural atmosphere in layout work' are not so literal. 'Recreation of a natural habitat for fish' can be satisfied in (almost) any style of scape. Without necessarily being biotope or full NA but by providing representative elements of what would be a natural habitat for fish; creeping root systems or huge overhanging ledges in these style scapes may satisfy that criteria. If I look at a scape and it makes me think of nature, evokes the same feelings as when I'm walking through a forest, swimming in a lake or climbing a mountain then it satisfies the criteria 'Presentation of natural atmosphere in layout work', how effectively it does that is another matter.

Maybe I believe and twist those criteria to fit what I want because I like the scapes produced I don't know.

On a side note and whilst Steven is on the thread I do have something that baffles me...


Steven Chong said:


> my aim was to take the audience inside of a log, to see the world as a fish would see it.


I feel that the use of mirrors and illusions of puddles detracts from this aim for me. There would be no puddle under water? This takes me out of the mindset of the fish exploring a fallen log underwater and into an environment above the water - where it is impossible to be a fish. Not a criticism, but a question that maybe I don't understand something in the scape?
Whilst I say that I have the greatest respect for this and your past works as well as the time you give to the community explaining and assessing your own, others works and aquascaping in general. Yours and the other works both in and out of the competition give inspiration on developing our own styles and scapes we can be happy to either live with at home or enter ourselves.

As I say, more a ramble to help me understand my own thoughts and feelings.


----------



## glasscanvasart

cbaum86 said:


> I feel that the use of mirrors and illusions of puddles detracts from this aim for me. There would be no puddle under water? This takes me out of the mindset of the fish exploring a fallen log underwater and into an environment above the water - where it is impossible to be a fish. Not a criticism, but a question that maybe I don't understand something in the scape?
> Whilst I say that I have the greatest respect for this and your past works as well as the time you give to the community explaining and assessing your own, others works and aquascaping in general. Yours and the other works both in and out of the competition give inspiration on developing our own styles and scapes we can be happy to either live with at home or enter ourselves.


I was just going to bring this up. Reflections can only exist terrestrially, so this undermines the feeling of being underwater, though I understand their purpose was to reflect the swamp surrounding the log. I would say this years layout's concept of inside a fallen log was brilliant, the depth and impact are great and there is still strong a sense of nature despite losing out on an underwater feeling.

As you are a Japanese speaker, it would be great if you could explain what is meant by 'Presentation of natural atmosphere in layout work' and 'Recreation of natural habitat for fish'. The way I understand them, doesn't match with the point allocation year after year. However, I would say Amano-gawa would score significantly higher than most Nature Aquariums.

Diorama and Nature Aquaria should not be judged separately and their features are not mutually exclusive as Josh and Siak and others have shown.

Oh, and thanks for your work on YouTube; I've learnt a lot from you.


----------



## Steven Chong

cbaum86 said:


> I feel that the use of mirrors and illusions of puddles detracts from this aim for me. There would be no puddle under water? This takes me out of the mindset of the fish exploring a fallen log underwater and into an environment above the water - where it is impossible to be a fish. Not a criticism, but a question that maybe I don't understand something in the scape?
> Whilst I say that I have the greatest respect for this and your past works as well as the time you give to the community explaining and assessing your own, others works and aquascaping in general. Yours and the other works both in and out of the competition give inspiration on developing our own styles and scapes we can be happy to either live with at home or enter ourselves.
> 
> As I say, more a ramble to help me understand my own thoughts and feelings.


Great questions!

Yes, I was aware of the logical fallacy there-- and it's not the only one. For instance, you're not going to have trees underwater; or why is there a water surface above (it's an aquarium, we're under water) and a water surface below (the mirrors). Two water surfaces!

One comment I got from Toshifumi Watanabe (Previous world rank 5, Previous Amano Best of Show winner in TAU): the top half feels like an underwater biotope layout, bottom half feels like a terrestrial diorama layout.
^another contradiction

But when you plan out the scape you have to set aims for what you want to achieve, and think about how it will be received by the audience. Of course if you think about it very literally the logical fallacies (fish don't live above water, there are two water surfaces) are noticeable by anyone. But since so many aquascapes are already putting forth a terrestrial theme, I decided that this issue was not really important. If it was, it's pretty much the same issue facing every above-water theme. But we're not going to ban every above water theme; if we do it might as well be a biotope contest.

So I decided I didn't care, and I didn't think the judges would care either. I think it turned out I was right.

Instead, I decided it's enough if I:
-Use the main log to create the point of view
-Use the trees/mirrors to connect all the background space into an easy to understand theme
-show a new face of nature never shown in aquascaping before

If Watanabe-san felt the above half felt like an underwater biotope layout, AND I had the mirrors making a new scene of water-->

that cued to me that the layout REALLY had a feeling of water, and I was going to be knocking the 50 points of "Natural Environment for Fish" out of the park. Can't say until we get the contest book from ADA, but I was probably right on this point as well.

Sometimes as an artist we have to interpret the critique and see if it can be turned on its head— a weakness could actually be a strength. Even if there is a logical contradiction, if the judge is spending time sorting out that contradiction in their mind, it means they are spending extra time thinking about this layout -> in other words, they’ve already decidedly that this is a top contender that merits extra consideration.

There are give-and-takes for every decision you make inside the glass box. It's up to the aquascaper to interpret what's important in art, and which sacrifices can be lived with in pursuit of obtaining something even more important.


----------



## cbaum86

Steven Chong said:


> Great questions!


Appreciate you taking the time to reply. I always think it's great to understand the thought process of the scaper and you put across your points well. The final image can give us inspiration but your explanations give us the knowledge. Not only in the decisions that lead to the layout but how they would be considered as a contest entry. I guess both of these need equal consideration when creating a layout that is intended to win and a slightly different though process to that of creating a personal aquascape. I love the inside of a fallen tree concept which is executed beautifully and the technicality is mind blowing. Still, the puddles are a step too far for me as are those true diorama scape where it becomes a miniature landscape. There can still be fallen logs, trees with complex root structures or rock formations underwater and so I think I enjoy these hybrid diorama/NA style scapes more as maybe my mind is more believing of them. However, if we all had the same favourites, ideals and artistic expression life would be boring and the hobby/competition stagnant. Yours and your peers work will still serve as an inspiration to me.

I won't continue the conversation further as I feel I'm dragging the thread in a direction away from the topic at hand but thank you Steven.


----------



## zozo

I'm still waiting for a scaper to get the idea to do something with the 3D pavement art concept painted on the bottom panel in a tank instead of using a mirror... 






If I was this creative I definitively would have tried it t see if and how it works.


----------



## Tim Harrison

Now you mention it. My IAPLC entry for 2021. Absolutely no Photoshopping...just shopping 😬


----------



## zozo

A tad more realistic could really work well, paint a sort of Mariana trench on the bottom panel.  With some good rockscape around it could greatly accentuate the 3D effect.

Why not? I guess it's an idea we need to send to Olie... If one can pull it off he will...

I always found this scape of his a stunner that i would not hesitate to put in my living room.


----------



## Tim Harrison

Not sure it’d do very well Marcel. Not enough logical fallacies...


----------



## zozo

Tim Harrison said:


> Not sure it’d do very well Marcel. Not enough logical fallacies...



Me neither... But I've seen awesome 3D art pieces that look awefully realistic.

Believe it or not but this is painted on the bottom of the tub and pan then resin is poured in..



 








For me, it still gets the benefit of the doubt till I see it... But then it surely needs to be a very good realism artist.


----------



## zozo

Hmmm!? 

That is more than just a mirror already... Some green reflective foil even recreating water wrinkles.


----------



## Tim Harrison

I think that @cbaum86 and @glasscanvasart raise a very interesting point, and @Steven Chong's answer reveals much about the IAPLC mindset which will undoubtedly prove helpful for those thinking about entering the IAPLC. But the Emperor is still immodestly dressed...



Steven Chong said:


> Steven Chong said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did what the contest and ADA had always hoped for— study nature deeply.
> 
> 
> 
> So I decided I didn't care, and I didn't think the judges would care either. I think it turned out I was right.
Click to expand...

You are right Steve, the IAPLC doesn't care what constitutes the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish”, quite clearly...



Steven Chong said:


> Steven Chong said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did what the contest and ADA had always hoped for— study nature deeply.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I was aware of the logical fallacy there...you're not going to have trees underwater; or why is there a water surface above and a water surface below (the mirrors)...fish don't live above water.
Click to expand...

Is it a logical fallacy? I disagree with you there Steve. It's only a logical fallacy if you're still labouring under the delusion that diorama is a “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish”. Once you disabuse yourself of that psychosis it's just logic...



Steven Chong said:


> Steven Chong said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did what the contest and ADA had always hoped for— study nature deeply.
> 
> 
> 
> top half feels like an underwater biotope layout, bottom half feels like a terrestrial diorama layout.
> ^another contradiction
Click to expand...

That just sounds deeply schizophrenic 🤪



Steven Chong said:


> Steven Chong said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did what the contest and ADA had always hoped for— study nature deeply.
> 
> 
> 
> AND I had the mirrors making a new scene of water-->
> the layout REALLY had a feeling of water, and I was going to be knocking the 50 points of "Natural Environment for Fish" out of the park.
Click to expand...

I rest my case...🙄



Steven Chong said:


> There are give-and-takes for every decision you make inside the glass box. It's up to the aquascaper to interpret what's important in art, and which sacrifices can be lived with in pursuit of obtaining something even more important.


So I was right all along then... The art is more important than the original Nature Aquarium concept and its fundamental ethos of the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish”. The two *are* mutually exclusive. So why pretend otherwise.



Steven Chong said:


> Agree to disagree.


Yeah sure, whilst some of my sanity is still intact.

Seriously though this is beyond absurd and I know I'm not in a minority of folk who feel this way; tho' politeness and pluralistic ignorance might suggest otherwise. It's kind of ironic, but Albert's actions may have done aquascaping a great service by tipping an already precariously absurd movement over the edge of reason and in to the abyss of the imbecilic.

To misquote a friend slightly, 'Takashi Amano's Nature Aquarium values are not a movable feast in the service of innovating works'. Something the IAPLC has conveniently lost sight of... If the IAPLC no longer respects those values surely it losses much of its reason for being?


----------



## glasscanvasart

Tim Harrison said:


> So I was right all along then... The art is more important than the original Nature Aquarium concept and its fundamental ethos of the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish”. The two *are* mutually exclusive.


What do you define as a ‘Nature Aquarium’? I’d argue it was always about the art. Not just for the competition, but also for Amano.


----------



## glasscanvasart

I can’t comprehend the ‘Recreation of natural habitat for fish’ allocation. It appears to be an extension of ‘Presentation of natural atmosphere in layout work’. I would have no qualms with this, but this is not what the judging criteria articulates. If you could try and explain again Steven that would be much appreciated by more than just me.


----------



## Tim Harrison

glasscanvasart said:


> What do you define as a ‘Nature Aquarium’?


What is Nature Aquarium?
ADA define it as - Nature Aquarium recreates an *ecosystem* that is *found in nature* by growing aquatic plants... Simply that, no smoke or _mirrors_.

Do you spot any logical fallacies in this definition. I'd be so bold as to venture that - no you do not. But apparently logical fallacies are perfectly acceptable as far as the IAPLC are concerned. Go figure 🤪


----------



## Djoko Sauza

Honestly I'm happy the judges show little regard to the point allocation criteria. What better way to judge the world top aquascaping competition than having a group of experts use their judgement to choose which ones are the best?

Seems like ADA wanted to have some sort of structure to the scoring but in my opinion the criteria are useless.

After all how good a scape is is completely subjective or is it not?
Just like a painting, either you like it or you do not. Either it touches you somewhere or leaves you indifferent. Or somewhere inbetween. But it is definitely something personal and up to each ones judgement.
In my opinion that's what the world's top aquascaping competition should be about.


----------



## glasscanvasart

Tim Harrison said:


> What is Nature Aquarium?
> ADA define it as - Nature Aquarium recreates an *ecosystem* that is *found in nature* by growing aquatic plants... Simply that, no smoke or _mirrors_.
> 
> Do you spot any logical fallacies in this definition. I'd be so bold as to venture that - no you do not. But apparently logical fallacies are perfectly acceptable as far as the IAPLC are concerned. Go figure 🤪


As you’ve found above (the case of ‘Recreation of natural habitat for fish’) actions speak 
louder than words 😜

I‘ve never been sure of what a ‘Nature Aquarium‘ is, but I’ve always viewed its ‘recreation of a natural ecosystem‘, as abstract. I challenge you to find an aquatic ecosystem that Nature Aquaria parallel. The majority of plants we use are not commonly found submerged or in good health, let alone sharing the same geography and we pump our tanks full of CO2 and fertilisers. When I see ADA going on field trips, they don’t focus on underwater environments; They observe and absorb the feelings, patterns and compositions of nature. This sense of nature, rather than a literal representation, is what is portrayed in their work. At least that’s what I think.


----------



## glasscanvasart

Diogo Sousa said:


> Honestly I'm happy the judges show little regard to the point allocation criteria. What better way to judge the world top aquascaping competition than having a group of experts use their judgement to choose which ones are the best?


I too am glad they show little regard for the criteria. I mostly have no problem with the ranking and don’t think the competition would be in a better place if they followed the current criteria. The competition is about what can be done within the confines of a glass box and to repeat the quote of Amano brought up by Steven ‘All these layouts are just copies of my work. Can’t the world show me anything new’; This, in my and also Amano’s opinion, is the spirit of the contest.


----------



## Conort2

glasscanvasart said:


> I‘ve never been sure of what a ‘Nature Aquarium‘ is, but I’ve always viewed its ‘recreation of a natural ecosystem‘, as abstract. I challenge you to find an aquatic ecosystem that Nature Aquaria parallel.


I’ve always found the term nature aquarium a bit misleading. Don’t get me wrong most planted aquariums are an excellent home for fish (bar iwagumis) however they’re not a true representation of an underwater habitat at all. The closest I’ve seen recently is @Steven Chong Amano Gawa scape. It looks exactly like you’re looking at a stream and is a perfect aquarium for the barilius which were chosen to stock it. Personally I think that should have Been the winner and would prefer to see more scapes go along that route.

cheers

Conor


----------



## glasscanvasart

cbaum86 said:


> There can still be fallen logs, trees with complex root structures or rock formations underwater and so I think I enjoy these hybrid diorama/NA style scapes more as maybe my mind is more believing of them. However, if we all had the same favourites, ideals and artistic expression life would be boring and the hobby/competition stagnant. Yours and your peers work will still serve as an inspiration to me.


This is the direction I think the hobby and philosophy is going. Layouts by Siak and Josh of Little Green Corner in the past couple of years appear to me to have paired the sense of nature and feeling of being underwater from the ‘Nature Aquarium‘ style with a revised composition from ‘Diorama’ style a combination of the respective styles best features.


----------



## Siege

Diogo Sousa said:


> Honestly I'm happy the judges show little regard to the point allocation criteria. What better way to judge the world top aquascaping competition than having a group of experts use their judgement to choose which ones are the best?
> 
> Seems like ADA wanted to have some sort of structure to the scoring but in my opinion the criteria are useless.
> 
> After all how good a scape is is completely subjective or is it not?
> Just like a painting, either you like it or you do not. Either it touches you somewhere or leaves you indifferent. Or somewhere inbetween. But it is definitely something personal and up to each ones judgement.
> In my opinion that's what the world's top aquascaping competition should be about.



I think the above post is worth repeating.

To me it is about art. Agree or disagree with the philosophy of the competition, marking etc, It is all about art.

I’m blown away by some of the entries, would I like them in my living room, some maybe not, others yes. Either way I’m wowed by the top scapes. They inspire me. I often have the discussion, ‘it’s a diorama again’, it doesn’t matter, I love the competition. I take ideas from just a little piece of a scape and store them.

In short, for me there is not a right or wrong in the discussion. That is art - it evokes passion whatever side of the fence you sit.


----------



## Tim Harrison

glasscanvasart said:


> I challenge you to find an aquatic ecosystem that Nature Aquaria parallel.


That's not the point I was trying to make...


Tim Harrison said:


> Perhaps the IAPLC should just be honest and totally scrap the idea that the winning scapes have anything to do with the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish”?


And why challenge me to find an aquatic ecosystem that Nature Aquaria parallel anyway? Why not go straight to the source, ADA and the IAPLC, and challenge them instead?
Don't shoot the messenger...

But you won't get much change there for the very simple reason...


Tim Harrison said:


> To misquote a friend slightly, 'Takashi Amano's Nature Aquarium values are not a movable feast in the service of innovating works'. Something the IAPLC has conveniently lost sight of... If the IAPLC no longer respects those values it losses its entire reason for being.



I just thought calling bullsh#t on the whole IAPLC hypocrisy was long overdue...


Steven Chong said:


> the top aquascapers that consistently get results, see success because they definitely have a sense...of...the two categories in question, “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish” and the “Presentation of natural atmosphere in layout works...certainly the two to be valued most highly, and thought about most deeply.


Is that with or without logical fallacies? ...sorry, I'm starting to get a bit confused...

Either way, I'm glad it's sparked a more honest discussion...


----------



## glasscanvasart

Tim Harrison said:


> That's not the point I was trying to make...
> 
> And why challenge me to find an aquatic ecosystem that Nature Aquaria parallel anyway? Why not go straight to the source, ADA and the IAPLC, and challenge them instead?
> Don't shoot the messenger...


I assumed you agreed with what you quoted.


Tim Harrison said:


> I just thought calling bullsh#t on the whole IAPLC hypocrisy was long overdue. If your bubble has burst don't blame me...
> 
> Either way, I'm glad it's sparked a more honest discussion...



My bubbles not burst, but I’m enjoying the discussion. I don‘t look to the IAPLC for a beacon of Nature Aquariums, but to ADA and works by Amano’s past works.


----------



## Tim Harrison

No worries. I hope you know where I’m coming from now 🙂


----------



## glasscanvasart

Tim Harrison said:


> No worries. I hope you know where I’m coming from now 🙂


Sorry, but I’m not sure about:


Tim Harrison said:


> That's not the point I was trying to make...


----------



## Tim Harrison

See messages #96, 101. 116 and 126 above. I think they are pretty explicit taken in context


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

Tim Harrison said:


> 'Takashi Amano's Nature Aquarium values are not a movable feast in the service of innovating works'



This boils it down for me really. A whole lot of people have embraced aquascaping because NA values really resonated with them, not because it was the latest trend. Values are values, ideally they remain robust under challenging circumstances. 



glasscanvasart said:


> I don‘t look to the IAPLC for a beacon of Nature Aquariums, but to ADA and works by Amano’s past works.



Aye, Amano’s works are timeless. Find their impact gets more impressive as time goes by rather than less. By feeling that way you know it left an impression, it didn’t need explaining to you, it simply was impressive.


----------



## Steven Chong

Tim Harrison said:


> I think that @cbaum86 and @glasscanvasart raise a very interesting point, and @Steven Chong's answer reveals much about the IAPLC mindset which will undoubtedly prove helpful for those thinking about entering the IAPLC. But the Emperor is still immodestly dressed...
> 
> 
> You are right Steve, the IAPLC doesn't care what constitutes the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish”, quite clearly...
> 
> 
> Is it a logical fallacy? I disagree with you there Steve. It's only a logical fallacy if you're still labouring under the delusion that diorama is a “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish”. Once you disabuse yourself of that psychosis it's just logic...
> 
> 
> That just sounds deeply schizophrenic 🤪
> 
> 
> I rest my case...🙄
> 
> 
> So I was right all along then... The art is more important than the original Nature Aquarium concept and its fundamental ethos of the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish”. The two *are* mutually exclusive. So why pretend otherwise, could it have anything to do with my closing sentence?
> 
> 
> Yeah sure, whilst some of my sanity is still intact.
> 
> Seriously though this is beyond absurd and I know I'm not in a minority of folk who feel this way; tho' politeness and pluralistic ignorance might suggest otherwise. It's kind of ironic, but Albert's actions may have done aquascaping a great service by tipping an already precariously absurd organisation over the edge of reason and in to the abyss of the imbecilic.
> 
> To misquote a friend slightly, 'Takashi Amano's Nature Aquarium values are not a movable feast in the service of innovating works'. Something the IAPLC has conveniently lost sight of... If the IAPLC no longer respects those values it losses its entire reason for being.



Not at all. This comes back to whether the aim is to perfectly re-create nature, or to present/capture the beauty of nature in art.

I believe Nature Aquarium has always been about the later, despite ADA's phrasing (which I also critiqued). I agree they shouldn't use the phrase "re-creation", and there is nothing in Amano's ethos that requires the phrase "re-creation" in a very literal sense.

If you want perfect representation/re-creation, I recommend BAD. The biotope contest scene is getting more and more awesome-- I follow it very closely and really enjoy the works each year.
For the later, IAPLC is an awesome contest and love where it is going personally. There is room for exploration, creativity, innovation in the later that hits on truths of nature that the former cannot capture without going and experiencing the real deal in person.


----------



## Steven Chong

Tim Harrison said:


> Is that with or without logical fallacies? ...sorry, I'm starting to get a bit confused...
> 
> Either way, I'm glad it's sparked a more honest discussion...


You can tap on a truth of nature's beauty without being literal.

You can get into a fish's mindset, you can consider poetically, what is beautiful about the different faces of nature-- whether that is seeing from under a overhang from a fish's perspective, or the dignity of trees reflected on a water's surface, the expansiveness of a canyon or the fear/mystery surrounding a cave.

There is a lot of emotional truth, poetic truth, experience of nature that we can capture in art-- and art doesn't require us to iron out every logical inconsistency or to perfectly recreate only the literal in order to capture those emotions, experiences, truths. Metaphorical truth, as opposed to scientific truth.

To me, the real core of Nature Aquarium is learning these kinds of lessons from nature. Appreciate small creatures by imagining the world through their eyes. Appreciating things like stillness of trees, flow through leaves, wideness of space, energy of fish. Amano's Nature Aquarium was never literal, always using the aquarium to capture a part of these profound metaphoric truths-- and make an emotional connection. The things we can learn from nature are not only things measured in numbers.
Though make no mistake, reading detailed reports of the ecology of natural water ways can be VERY useful when imagining and searching-- but it's not the end information you're looking for. How can that scientific understanding be used to INFORM the aquascaper's ART? Does it stir your EMPATHY? Does it make you FEEL something? What IS it in a given scene in nature, that STRIKES YOUR SOUL?

At the end of the day, when the final works are put together and assessed, this is not an ecology study report. It's art inspired by nature.

In my mind there are no contradictions on this point, because it's not literal re-production that I am trying to capture or present or learn from Nature. I ask of Nature to teach me something deeper about its beauty, and it's those things I am trying to capture.

Sometimes, as in my 2019 layout-- faithful recreation is the best way, and there are such truths only capturable by making the greatest attempt to abide by the forms as they are. Sometimes constraints ask us to stab at it in a different way, and constraints can also be the mother of innovation. Sometimes, aiming for re-creating the emotional experience, the metaphorical truth requires us to do something completely different. This is the way I think about my 2020 work. Personally, as an aquascaper, I am motivated to stretch my breadth of appreciation and skillset as broadly as possible.

I apologize if this explanation doesn't help--

Since it's not perfectly logical, and much of my own understanding of the art is also not grounded in the logic layer. It’s not so easy to put it in words. But our human minds have many layers of understanding besides logic. I think this flexibility, willingness to try and comprehend in different ways-- logically, metaphorically, spiritually-- the ability to use the different parts of your minds, different forms of sensitivity, flexibility in the different means of understanding is connected to one's ability to grow as an aquascaper/artist.


----------



## Tim Harrison

Steven, I know exactly what you're saying, and I couldn't disagree with you less. I'm not sure whether we're arguing at crossed purposes or whether I'm being deliberately misunderstood. But my point of view is quite simple really.

Regardless of what you keep repeating to try and convince me otherwise there is still a contradiction in terms at the heart of this discussion caused by the wording of the judging criteria that has become so controversial, "Recreation of a *natural habitat* for *fish*". And that can not be explained away by logical fallacies or any other contrived philosophical mechanism no matter what your opinion is.

And that criteria awards half the marks. The remaining 50% are distributed evenly between 5 other categories so clearly the "recreation of a natural habitat for fish" is significant and central to the IAPLC's philosophy and values.

To follow your logic and the thread of your repeated argument don't you think the IAPLC should have awarded those 50 marks to a different category?

"*Presentation of natural atmosphere in layout work*", springs to mind. Surely that represents far more adequately what you describe above and in your previous posts than the "recreation of a natural habitat for fish"?

It may seem like I'm arguing the toss on a point of pedantry but I don't think I am. Neither is this an argument over semantics. Words used in the English language have precise meaning for a reason. They are not open to wild interpretation by you, me or the IAPLC, otherwise no one would have the faintest idea what anyone else was talking about.

So I'm still left scratching my head wondering why you and the IAPLC insist on trying to convince me that night is day and black is white. And why you keep hanging on to this essentially delusional idea that a phrase with a precise meaning "recreation of a *natural habitat* for *fish*", can be legitimately interpreted as a small scale version of a large terrestrial habitat in a glass box flooded with water?

Exactly why is that phrase "recreation of a *natural habitat* for *fish*" so important to you and the IAPLC? Especially, when the IAPLC already has a far better category for describing exactly what you are both trying to achieve, "*Presentation of natural atmosphere in layout work*"*. *

It's a simple question and I'd really be interested in your point of view on that precise topic.


----------



## Steven Chong

Tim Harrison said:


> Steven, I know exactly what you're saying, and I couldn't disagree with you less. I'm not sure whether we're arguing at crossed purposes or whether I'm being deliberately misunderstood. But my point of view is quite simple really.
> 
> Regardless of what you keep repeating to try and convince me otherwise there is still a contradiction in terms at the heart of this discussion caused by the wording of the judging criteria that has become so controversial, "Recreation of a *natural habitat* for *fish*". And that can not be explained away by logical fallacies or any other contrived philosophical mechanism no matter what your opinion is.
> 
> And that criteria awards half the marks. The remaining 50% are distributed evenly between 5 other categories so clearly the "recreation of a natural habitat for fish" is significant and central to the IAPLC's philosophy and values.
> 
> To follow your logic and the thread of your repeated argument don't you think the IAPLC should have awarded those 50 marks to a different category?
> 
> "*Presentation of natural atmosphere in layout work*", springs to mind. Surely that represents far more adequately what you describe above and in your previous posts than a "recreation of a natural habitat for fish"?
> 
> It may seem like I'm arguing the toss on a point of pedantry but I don't think I am. Words used in the English language have precise meaning for a reason. They are not open to wild interpretation by you, me or the IAPLC, otherwise no one would have the faintest idea what anyone else was talking about.
> 
> So I'm still scratching my head wondering why you and the IAPLC insist on trying to convince me that night is day and black is white. And why you keep hanging on to this essentially delusional idea that a phrase with a precise meaning "recreation of a *natural habitat* for *fish*", can be legitimately interpreted as a small scale version of a large terrestrial habitat in a glass box flooded with water?
> 
> Exactly why is that phrase "recreation of a *natural habitat* for *fish*" so important to you and the IAPLC? Especially, when the IAPLC already has a far better category for describing exactly what you are both trying to achieve, "*Presentation of natural atmosphere in layout work*"*. *
> 
> It's a simple question and I'd really be interested in your point of view on that precise topic.


If you’re really making the above argument, it means—

“I’m fine with the IAPLC’s direction, it’s works, it’s evolution. The layouts are fantastic each year, but I don’t like the naming of this one category and the rubric is hard to understand.”

If that’s really your argument (not my impression based on the thread, but okay) we’ll take that as the starting point. We’re putting a pin here and cementing this as the starting point, the basis for argument.

Frankly I don’t think it’s a very important point if the rubric is giving the kind of results we want to see.

I think the layout of the rubric has less to do with some truth of Amano’s ethos and more to do with historic trends (the re-weighting was around the time of his death— maybe even after it, but it feels fuzzy in my memory whether it was in effect 2015 or 2016).

If we go back through the history of the IAPLC, originally all categories were equally weighted. But that’s also the conditions where we really reached the zenith of diorama style (2014-2016) where there was a real dominance by the most dramatic diorama style tanks. China/Indonesia style forests and cliff/mountain style layouts totally choked out the top ranks, and there were barely any plants used except moss/HC, with very little recognition of the artwork as art in an aquarium. That feels like an extreme even to me.

That said though, 2016 was also the contest’s peak year in artistic excellence imo, and the top 7 is quite diverse with traditional NA style, Brazilian, diorama all represented, along with Tanaka-san’s first mirror layout that was innovative but also a hybrid between NA and diorama. And, the king seat belonging to Fukada-san’s Mighty Cave, probably an early exemplar of what an aquarium diorama layout should be, and I would argue the single best and most creative use of fish in the contest’s entire history— making it a noteworthy work for this “recreation of natural fish habitat” category.

The diorama over-crowding Choke hold was mostly an issue in ranks 8-40, rather than the top 7 or top 100 overall (at the time, judged scapes were the top 100 not 127).

The dominance of the diorama style in the honor ranks drew critique and alarm, and demands to re-balance so that NA style would see more representation and diorama style would also consider its identity as aquarium art.

The re-creation of Natural Habitat category was changed from 10 pts to 50.

And the contest evolved as a result.

Even before the adjustment, I think works like Fukada-san’s, impact diorama with an NA-style sensitivity was going to be dominant regardless, but the shift in rubric really paved the way for NA style to come back much more and even win in 2018. I mean Josh Sim did just also take rank 3 with it in 2020.

It also forced the diorama style to evolve to how you see it now, with Indonesian and Chinese scapes showing a LOT more volume, variety, and focus on plants than they did before. (Compare Herry Resio’s layout this year to rank 8-10 from 2016 and you’ll see what I mean)

Unfortunately, I would say, the average level of technical skill in top ranking diorama works took a hit and never recovered (the absolute top diorama scapes is still high, but the average level of the diorama works in top 127 ranks is inferior to 2016 and possibly 2015).

Though this decline may be more of a fault line in international politics than having to do with ADA’s rubric (Japan relations worsening with China and Korea resulted in fewer entries from veterans of both countries). Industry relations also worsened across country lines. These things coincidentally have overlapping time period.

Finally, the change in rubric secured that the absolute top diorama layouters would be greatly determined by this aquatic-oriented sensitivity. It paved the way for the hybrid styles Fukada, Josh, Siak and I (and others) are exploring with our works in recent years. Essentially the change in rubric is felt most heavily on these points:

1) More representation of NA style overall in the top 127
2) Pure diorama that doesn’t put emphasis on plant or fish use becoming very inconsistent in performance, often skilled layouters finding themselves in the 2-400’s as I mentioned earlier.
3) The absolute top layouters, especially in the progressive arch being the ones who have a sensitivity for NA style, for an aquatic sense or special care for fish. Hybrid styles taking the throne.

ie. these 50 points have the biggest impact in separating the men from the boys, from separating the top 1% from the top 3-7 people in the world.

This may be why top competitors are probably the most sensitive to how these points shape the results, and how they must be considered.

Now, going back to the original point that we’re happy with what the contest has become and the direction it’s going and annoyance with the wording of the rubric—

If the rubric is doing it’s job, I say leave it be. Scaper’s needing to struggle with its meaning has also driven creativity and forced layouts to evolve in a good direction.

The rubric may be literally false, in that the English words don’t mean what they should mean—

But that doesn’t stop it from being metaphorically true; in the adaptive sense that it is driving the contest results to evolve in a positive direction aligned with what Nature Aquarium should be. The words are a stab at getting the meaning they want, and creating an ecology in the contest driving its evolution in a desirable direction.

It’s also adaptively true for ADA, in that the words let it virtue signal and brand position itself well, while commanding an effective fandom from conservative and progressive aquascapers alike.

So imo, there’s no reason to get wound up over just wording.


----------



## Tim Harrison

Steven Chong said:


> If you’re really making the above argument, it means—
> 
> “I’m fine with the IAPLC’s direction, it’s works, it’s evolution. The layouts are fantastic each year, but I don’t like the naming of this one category and the rubric is hard to understand.”


Well mostly I was referring to the artistic process and appreciation of nature. But anything is going to be better than the diorama choke hold of a few years back. 

After revisiting the top 127, 2020 winning entries I concede more scapes appear to be hybrids in that they include many more elements of Nature Aquarium, and I hope that trend continues to be explored in an innovative way and doesn’t revert back to diorama.



Steven Chong said:


> If that’s really your argument (not my impression based on the thread, but okay) we’ll take that as the starting point. We’re putting a pin here and cementing this as the starting point, the basis for argument.


Got there eventually, I like to take the scenic route 



Steven Chong said:


> I think the layout of the rubric has less to do with some truth of Amano’s ethos and more to do with historic trends (the re-weighting was around the time of his death— maybe even after it, but it feels fuzzy in my memory whether it was in effect 2015 or 2016).


I think this is where some of the contention lies for some folk. I get that the IAPLC needs innovation to keep it current and relevant. But it perhaps appears that Amano’s ethos isn’t quite so intrinsically important to the IAPLC as it once was. 

Perhaps taking the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish” a little more literally, rather than metaphorically, would be beneficial in that sense and help steer the IAPLC in the right direction; away form diorama.

It would be nice to think the change in direction occurred on the back of a change in the rubric, and not just politics. But it could also be that diorama is getting old, tired and uninteresting. The forest theme is threadbare it’s been worn so much. Nevertheless, I can definitely see where you are coming from in that respect. 



Steven Chong said:


> It’s also adaptively true for ADA, in that the words let it virtue signal and brand position itself well, while commanding an effective fandom from conservative and progressive aquascapers alike.


That’s a very honest statement, and I think that’s what I’ve been driving at all along. Maybe I should have just asked up front but I wasn’t expecting you to be so candid. 

My take away from that statement is that the change in rubric, awarding 50% of the marks to the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish”, was also more of a commercial decision and much less about promoting Amano’s original ethos than folk perhaps like to believe, or were perhaps led to believe. And I think this is where much of the contention lies for obvious reasons. Not least because it perhaps doesn't show Amano’s ethos, nor the folk who appreciate it, the appropriate level of respect.


----------



## Steven Chong

Tim Harrison said:


> But it perhaps appears that Amano’s ethos isn’t quite so intrinsically important to the IAPLC as it once was.
> 
> Perhaps taking the “Recreation of a natural habitat for fish” a little more literally, rather than metaphorically, would be beneficial in that sense and help steer the IAPLC in the right direction; away form diorama.



And this is also something where there is contention with traditionalists, who do often make the easy and inaccurate assumption that abiding by Amano’s methods makes one more aligned with his ethos— which isn’t true, or at least isn’t the whole truth.

The Amano I first met was extremely irritated that the 2009 contest results all looked like his past works “inferior copies of things I’ve already done.” He said bluntly to us.

The Amano-San I’ve heard re-counted from TAU members also loved the innovative scapers. Amano-San himself hand picked diorama layouts as his personal “Best of Show,” when that award existed.

Nature Aquarium itself was a trail-blazing style that threw out the stuffy rules and traditions of Dutch style that existed before— and hearing from long veterans here, Dutch was very imbedded in aquarists minds/expectations here in Japan until Amano and others turned the table over.

In that sense, the progressive arc is every bit an inheritor of Amano’s ethos as the traditionalists, even if both “schools” of thought inherit different parts of that ethos.

Though as you say, diorama itself— especially styles like “forest”— are also developing enough to themselves become traditional in a sense. But that’s the nature of these things. “NA style,” “Iwagumi,” “Brazilian,” “Diorama” “Hybrid,” new clades from a common ancestor, inheriting different adaptations and evolving independently but also in response to each other and inter-mixing.

Memes like Nature Aquarium will always continue and evolve as long as the carriers exist—the nature of progress.


----------



## NiteshAquascaper

Really appreciate Tim and Steve.. There are lot of insights to understand and learn from this discussion.. 👍


----------



## Andrew T

Reading all this at 2:00 AM and the only thing that comes to mind is: " Welcome to the beautiful world of aquascaping" 🤣


----------



## DeepMetropolis

Andrew T said:


> Reading all this at 2:00 AM and the only thing that comes to mind is: " Welcome to the beautiful world of aquascaping" 🤣



Got the same kinda thought. Happy that I have the option to create something nice at home and share with the family and some like minded people on this forum and learn from the process..



Tim Harrison said:


> I think we could all do better here. We should start thinking about next years hardscape challenge or maybe we should throw caution to the wind and have a full blown contest with plants an' all ?



That would be nice just a contest with real photos maybe from multiple sides that the tank can be judged like a real aquarium not just a competition tank?


----------



## MWood

I came across this paper recently, which goes into some depth on the foundational differences between Japanese and Western conceptions of nature - quite an interesting read in this context. 

For ref it's:
Aoyagi, M., Vinken, H., Kuribayashi, A., 2003. Pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors: An international comparison. Human Ecology Review 10, 23–31.


----------



## Tim Harrison

Interesting paper. I think culturally the East has a more romantic relationship with nature than the West. We perhaps tend to take a more pragmatic view. Sure we can wonder as lonely as a Wordsworth and feel a thousand squirrels leaping form bough to bough like Louis Stevenson, but Japan, for instance, has its own aesthetic - wabi, sabi and yugen. We tend to view such aesthetics philosophically, where as the Japanese more likely view them as a way of life and it informs their everyday.

I find the phrase "study nature deeply" to be an interesting choice. I have studied nature deeply, from a molecular and cellular level right through to landscape and biome scale. But obviously this phrase alludes to something very different used in the context of Japanese Aesthetic.

How nature is perceived viewed through a cultural lens, and what's considered worthy of attention in the first place seems to be very different. And then superimposed is the artistic interpretation and translation to scape design; perhaps all significant cultural differences, and possibly reflected in a more romanticised scaping style. But perhaps of greatest significance to us, it's a style that wins competitions.


----------



## CooKieS

THE INTERNATIONAL AQUATIC PLANTS LAYOUT CONTEST - The World's Largest Nature Aquarium and Aquatic Plants Layout Contest
					

The World's Largest Nature Aquarium and Aquatic Plants Layout Contest




					en.iaplc.com


----------



## CooKieS

Still...Photoshop guys isn’t disqualified. Iaplc continue to promote their contest by disqualifying you if you join any other ‘non approved’ contests. They insist on that point instead of taking good measure to avoid future cheaters and disqualify the 2019 ones...
...business after all, very sad. Not sure I I’ll join again.


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

CooKieS said:


> Still...Photoshop guys isn’t disqualified. Iaplc continue to promote their contest by disqualifying you if you join any other ‘non approved’ contests. They insist on that point instead of taking good measure to avoid future cheaters and disqualify the 2019 ones...
> ...business after all, very sad. Not sure I I’ll join again.



Business actions are predictable:



Geoffrey Rea said:


> We’ll see _what is_ in 2021 off the back of this but I’m willing to bet ADA just want this to go away and will treat it as a one off.


----------



## glasscanvasart

I read the article feeling quite hopeful that the cheating would be acknowledged and acted on, but it’s really disappointing that there has been no disqualification or acknowledgement of the specific high profile incident. Maybe the article is a primer and we’ll see some action soon, but we’ve waited a long long time. Like CookieS  I am not going to enter next year until the cheating is acknowledged and acted upon.


----------



## Tim Harrison

I'm beginning to strongly doubt anything will be done about it. ADA is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. It's a potential house of cards and the start of a very slippery slope. The incident has highlighted a fundamental flaw in the competition. But I guess the IAPLC thinks it's done enough to draw a line under the incident by posting the article. Perhaps it hopes the incident will just go away now.

And perhaps logic would dictate that if they disqualify Alberto they'd have to scrutinise all previous Grand Prize Works, and that could end very badly. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe they've already found far too many anomalies. That would be a brown trouser moment for any company especially one such as ADA, which espouses such a noble philosophy within a culture where the pursuit of moral principles is paramount

Maybe trying to ignore the incident is ADA's best shot at damage limitation. To do anything else might risk bringing the whole show crashing down. But if scapers like you @glasscanvasart and Thierry @CooKieS refuse to enter it means the incident has already brought the competition, and by dint ADA, in to disrepute.

But if ADA do brush the incident under the carpet it effectively exposes its ethos as nothing more than the empty virtue signalling Steven Chong mentioned in an earlier post. Effectively exposing it for exactly what it ultimately is... the conspicuous and disingenuous expression of moral values with the intent to enhance its own image. Either way, not so good for ADA's brand positioning, nor for commanding a progressive or conservative fandom.

The jury is still out and so am I; out of clichés...


----------



## Geoffrey Rea

Tim Harrison said:


> The jury is still out and so am I; out of clichés...



How about a terrible haiku instead...


A person just lied...
ADA gone run and hide,
fairness been denied.


Know that it fails because it rhymes, but at least it speaks to truth.

Perhaps unfair and Albert, the IAPLC and ADA need tweezing apart here. Combined though there certainly doesn’t seem to be much credit left in the trust department, especially if this is all that comes of outright cheating in a competition.


----------



## PARAGUAY

I think ADA will come good on this. They cant just  come up with something that partially works. We have our own suggestions they theirs and they will be working on this. Personally l doubt any previous GP winners or most in the contest ever cheated. In any walk of life you will get this but the way the top aquascapers discuss an welcome critique and discussion of their creations gives the spirit of Amano will suceed


----------



## LondonDragon

Guess ADA not doing anything about it 









						TOP OF THE WORLD 2020 #04 Albert Escrihuela Cáceres | AQUA DESIGN AMANO
					

I have very strong feelings for IAPLC and ADA. For many years, I have had a great passion for the Nature Aquarium. Being top 7 was one of the dreams of my life. When I was watching the live stream of IAPLC, I had a mix of emotions. I was very nervous because this work was one of the most risky...




					www.adana.co.jp


----------



## Wookii

LondonDragon said:


> Guess ADA not doing anything about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TOP OF THE WORLD 2020 #04 Albert Escrihuela Cáceres | AQUA DESIGN AMANO
> 
> 
> I have very strong feelings for IAPLC and ADA. For many years, I have had a great passion for the Nature Aquarium. Being top 7 was one of the dreams of my life. When I was watching the live stream of IAPLC, I had a mix of emotions. I was very nervous because this work was one of the most risky...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.adana.co.jp


 Wow . . . Just wow! I'm quite shocked. It's one thing to not do anything about it and bury their head in the sand, but to actually run a feature on the guy, that can't be right?


----------



## Tim Harrison

Wookii said:


> I'm quite shocked.


I'm not, not really, for reasons I mentioned earlier.

But not only have ADA/IAPLC done nothing about it they're actually celebrating Alberto's achievement.
Effectively what they're saying is, not only is cheating allowed it's positively rewarded...

It'll be interesting to see how this unfolds amongst the aquascaping community.
Hopefully, it has more integrity and forces ADA to rethink its position.


----------



## Wookii

Tim Harrison said:


> I'm not, not really, for reasons I mentioned earlier.
> 
> But not only have ADA/IAPLC done nothing about it they're actually celebrating Alberto's achievement.
> Effectively what they're saying is, not only is cheating allowed it's positively rewarded...
> 
> It'll be interesting to see how this unfolds amongst the aquascaping community.
> Hopefully, it has more integrity and forces ADA to rethink its position.



Now I've Googled the guy a bit, and I've seen he seems a own an ADA branded Aquascaping store in Spain, and appears to promoting the ADA brand somewhat, the old sceptic in me suspects direct commercial reasons why they won't out the guy.

I'm not a Facebook user, but I'm amazed that no one has took him to task directly on his Facebook page given he is using the scape to promote his business too?!


----------



## Nigel95

Haha my first entry in the IAPLC contest rank 477  was disqualified because I also entered the same work into CIPS. A shame really what Albert did for all the people that work so hard on their tank every year.

Personally I am not against color correcting for example if you shoot with flash you have too to correct somewhat. A photo looks very different with flash compared to what you see with normal aquarium lighting.  Sure you could just photograph your tank with aquarium lighting. However if your very serious about the contests you put a lot of hours into it. So it is understandable you want the 'best' photo as possible with less noise, more depth of field to  have everything in focus and the fishes sharp instead of blurry. You need a lot of light to accomplish thats why I use external flash.  Some basic editing to have more dynamic range (details in shadows and highlights) a little bit of sharpening but that's it.

Adding or erasing elements like plants, hardscape, fish etc is a big NO for me personally. If this is allowed it's going to be a VFX artist contest...

Ofc  the pressure is high if you want to enter every year and try to increase your rank. At some point it is very hard to improve and thats the reason maybe people like Albert  went this route.  A big mistake. The same for Indonesian scaper Paryo which is insanely talented IMO. He photoshopped the fish in and they took his prize money away from CIPS. Now imagine losing converted like €12.000 for someone living in Indonesia. That's a lot of money that could buy him a house maybe? but it is his own fault. Expensive mistake.

I wonder how this people feel when adding or erasing elements and get away with it in the contests. It must feel they are cheating a bit no? I think it's good people share this 'drama'  in public. This way people hopefully think twice to do it again in the future.


----------



## Stu Worrall

LondonDragon said:


> Guess ADA not doing anything about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TOP OF THE WORLD 2020 #04 Albert Escrihuela Cáceres | AQUA DESIGN AMANO
> 
> 
> I have very strong feelings for IAPLC and ADA. For many years, I have had a great passion for the Nature Aquarium. Being top 7 was one of the dreams of my life. When I was watching the live stream of IAPLC, I had a mix of emotions. I was very nervous because this work was one of the most risky...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.adana.co.jp



Just lost a huge amount of respect to Ada now they’ve posted that


----------



## glasscanvasart

I feel in the mood for some lobbying. Maybe some fiery Instagram posts, a trail of critical comments and/or some messages to those concerned. Though nothing that can’t be undone or you risk disincentivising ADA and Albert taking the honest path.


----------



## PARAGUAY

I might be wrong but social media comments unless well reasoned may have a negative effect. Questions asked by leading ADA competitors and  supply ers could be a better way forward. When ADA did the invited aquascape at Green Aqua l believe the head of ADA operations was there a few emails to him and members of the committee and judges?


----------



## Tim Harrison

Direct action is called for...
Everyone should enter a totally photoshopped fantasy scape.
Oh the irony...


----------



## rebel

It would be amazing fun to totally troll the ADA comps next year!!!! I think I will enter but need to find a free Udemy course for photoshop editing.


----------



## LondonDragon

Tim Harrison said:


> Oh the irony...


Bozo was appropriate


----------



## rebel

@Steven Chong ; Keen to hear your commentry on this. Surely Amano would not approve of this sort of behaviour.


----------



## glasscanvasart

I imagine that Amano would have passed judgement on the cheating without delay. Maybe I’ve misread his character, but I don’t believe he was too cautious or considered, more like a man with conviction.

I don’t think I’ll enter IAPLC 2021, because of the spineless response, but in the long run I’ll probably end up entering the competition in the future. I don’t think there is really a substitute to the IAPLC. The EAPLC isn’t anywhere near as competitive and I wouldn’t go anywhere near anything endorsed by the CCP, so the CIPS is ruled out for me. My aspirations align best with the IAPLC and I really admire its competitors, so I guess I will put up with the dishonest judging criteria and spineless response.


----------



## finniche

I have read this discussion with great interest and learned a lot from it. Last year I participated in contests for the first time and plan to continue to do so in 2021. I operate on a very modest level but still this kinda contrived nature of one picture, and a small byte size one, summarizing the whole process and the end result has troubled me.

At the same time I like the idea of capturing the aquascape in one single shot and optimizing your scape for the photo but this also seems like a limiting factor for the possibilities of expression.

I don´t know if anyone else noticed the inspiring and encouraging FB post of Josh Sim that George Farmer shared on the first day of this year. While embracing the idea of enjoying ones hobby and not stressing it too much, Josh Sim also mentioned he had in the past edited fish to prefect postion in his contest pictures. I admire Mr Sim greatly and his achievements are undeniable and this information does not change that a bit. It just leaves me pondering the nature of the contest scene and the contradictions within.

The subdued reactions and the overall silence in broader aquascaping platforms like FB and IG regarding the latest contest scandal does not help. I have been surprised and disappointed about that.

Also has me thinking if there could be some new way of approaching this, new type of competition, as has been suggested here, that would encourage, inspire and move the scene forward in a different way. Competion of journals, maybe?


----------



## Tim Harrison

I think the discussion thus far concluded that the IAPLC and ADA's decision on this is primarily driven by business, sadly. It was interesting to hear Steven Chong's point of view, he was effectively in the IAPLC's corner, but in the end even he admitted as much.


----------



## rebel

finniche said:


> I admire Mr Sim greatly and his achievements are undeniable and this information does not change that a bit.


Wow so now they are coming out of the woods....  This to me sounds like cheating. Why anyone would cheat while doing a hobby is beyond me.

Drain the swamp and build a planted tank with the water.



finniche said:


> The subdued reactions and the overall silence in broader aquascaping platforms like FB and IG regarding the latest contest scandal does not help.


I hope you realize that in those platforms, what you see is tailored to your world. You may not see the outrage depending on how the algorithm thinks of you.


----------



## mort

As someone who knows nothing about the contest can I ask is it anonymous? Or are entrants known when they are judged?


----------



## Nuno Gomes

The pictures are supposed to be judged without a name attached to keep things fair, if that's actually how it goes...I have no idea.


----------



## finniche

AGA announced the results of their 2020 competition last Sunday. They also made their stance to photo manipulation quite clear by disqualifying 13 entries in different categories. 13 out of 590 entries altogether make for a roughly 2 percent. This probably shows the extent of these practices accurately.

Some of the judges also pleaded against cheating in their written comments. The reasons for disqualification were pointed out with the published photos, sometimes along with original positive feedback from the judges unaware of the cheating( I would imagine this to be the case). This method of dealing with the issue seems quite effective to me.

In my opinion AGA deserves high praise for this move.

As for the anonymity: in AGA´s case some of the entries in their competition have been public with the author´s name since IAPLC announced their results so at least with some scapes in some competitions there is no guarenteed anonymity.


----------



## Tim Harrison

That's some consolation at least, and some indication that this whole affair has been taken seriously elsewhere with something of a positive outcome.


----------



## PARAGUAY

Anonymity should never be a problem for good respected judges


----------



## glasscanvasart

PARAGUAY said:


> Anonymity should never be a problem for good respected judges


No, but it rules out bias in the final rankings, which are sometimes contentious.

It’s a shame to see that Josh has cheated, though I don’t know if it was in a high ranking layout, and it‘s not as peverse as Albert editing in fish, plants and hardscape. I really do value Josh’s honesty, especially as no one knew until he shared this. I’m still bitter that the IAPLC hasn’t taken action and that Albert hasn’t taken ownership his mistake. For those who apologise and admit their mistake I won’t bear a grudge and ‘he who casts the first stone’ and all that.


----------



## Tim Harrison

With the IAPLC 2021 open for entries, has enough been done to avoid a repeat of last years scandal?
And does anyone still care?






						Help us improve the moral behavior for the IAPLC - THE INTERNATIONAL AQUATIC PLANTS LAYOUT CONTEST
					

Although we have always asked all participants to compl […]




					iaplc.com


----------



## LondonDragon

Since they took no action last year, who cares


----------



## castle

I’m about to photoshop the life out of an old Amano scape and see how I do.


----------



## PARAGUAY

If it does well your secrets safe on UKAPS😄


----------



## Mooner

zozo said:


> The only way to get around it is by asking for the raw files from the camera... Checking the metadata in the file it will reveal any kind of altering, all 3th party software will leaf footprints in the metadata.


The only away around this is to suspend all these contests until they can be held in public/in person again.


----------



## rebel

Buying photoshop is more expensive than actually getting a tank and doing the scape. 

Gimp is better value/suited for IAPLC manipulation.


----------



## rebel

glasscanvasart said:


> I won’t bear a grudge and ‘he who casts the first stone’ and all that.


The 100s who cheated and got away with it should thank you and thank photoshop. But then those people have a sense of design though. There is some skill involved. Maybe they should be hired by the instagram aquascapers who edit the hell our of their scapes and increase the saturation to 300%.


----------



## George Farmer

rebel said:


> The 100s who cheated and got away with it should thank you and thank photoshop. But then those people have a sense of design though. There is some skill involved. Maybe they should be hired by the instagram aquascapers who edit the hell our of their scapes and increase the saturation to 300%.


I only boost to 278%


----------



## rebel

George Farmer said:


> I only boost to 278%


While you remain a pillar of integrity, the same cannot be said for the shills on instagram out to make a few (hundred thousand) bucks by working 30 minutes per week.


----------

