# A challenge: break these 3 aquascaping rules with a great tank



## greenink

Time to start a debate: is it possible to pretty mechanically ‘test’ for a good and bad hardscape? I’m beginning to think that for 75% or more of cases*, it is, using just three rules.

For obvious reasons this post is pretty photo heavy, so apologies!

*Rule 1:* Focal points need to be pretty much bang on 1/3 markers, not at the same level, and one should be ‘near’ (in yellow below) and one ‘far’ in terms of depth. And each square of a 1/3 grid should be pretty distinct.

*Rule 2:* The hardscape should have strong lines across some core diagonals

*Rule 3:* The three main ‘directions’ in the tank should accentuate the lines in rule 2, and all point in different, ‘tension creating’ directions outside the tank.

Here are eleven examples to show you what I mean… (Long train journey!) First up some of the tanks I admire most. Then my own failures – think helpful to show what doesn’t work as well as what does.

One: George Farmer’s latest aquascape fits all the rules really well.




Two: this used to be one of my all time favourites. But looking now, with the help of the lines, think loses impact because the tension lines aren’t strong enough, and the near focus point isn’t strong enough. Would it have been better with a big red plant bush on the right?


 
Three: just to show that stretching the rules pretty far is ok if you’re a genius.



Four: Lovely, perfect example.



Five: I love this tank. The grid on this is really tight, as are the diagonals.



Six: this goes further away from ‘the rules’ than any others so far. It’s obviously brilliant, but would it be stronger if the top left quarter was a bit more directional?



Seven: a much wider tank, so it’s really two overlapping tanks. Really tight on diagonals and interesting directional flow. I love how the eye floats around this one.




 * the obvious exception to all this are island and U shaped ‘scapes… but would love to see what people think, and whether there are any examples of fantastic tanks that flagrantly break these rules.

What do people think? My failures coming right up…


----------



## greenink

Now for the not-so-good. Eight: my current tank. It’s felt like it doesn’t quite work for some reason I can’t put my foot on. And here it is: fails on all three rules! Think this gives a sense of what I need to do to sort it out, so really helpful. I basically need to decide what I'm doing and then go for it... at the moment is a sort of fudge between various ideas with no strong theme behind it.



Nine: a ‘draft’ hardscape I did earlier this week. Grid is ok, but lacks a second focal point, something highlighting the top left to bottom right diagonal, and all the directional pieces are too similar.




Ten: A hardscape from my ‘transparent tank’ I had for quite a while. Is about 50% there, but now quite easy to see what could have been better. Grid could be tweaked a bit, but diagonals really needed urgent sorting, and the directions all go in the same direction! The main stone should have been facing the other direction at a lower angle, for example, and it would have been a lot better quickly.



Eleven: A really old hardscape from when I just started and didn’t really know what I was doing. But actually, it’s my best one. Grid works nicely. If I’d just taken the lowest branch and flipped it vertically, so it pointed towards the bottom corner, would have been getting towards a good hardscape.



That's my penny's worth... over to you. Really interested in whether people can post a hardscape that breaks these rules and is still genius.


----------



## Ian Holdich

This is a great thread Mike, I like the way you have explained the 'golden rule' and the pics also make it easy to understand. 

I was just thinking whether people 'mean' to do this when making a scape or does it come naturally to them when scaping a tank? What do people think?


----------



## jack-rythm

Ian Holdich said:


> This is a great thread Mike, I like the way you have explained the 'golden rule' and the pics also make it easy to understand.
> 
> I was just thinking whether people 'mean' to do this when making a scape or does it come naturally to them when scaping a tank? What do people think?


I agree with Ian.. Love the thread but I can't help think that this is art, design and just naturally created imagery. I believe if you can't draw u can learn and be successful but u can never become as good as someone that has never had to learn, some one who has it in their blood. That make sense? I think your thread is amazing as it's very very helpful indeed. But I also feel it's an art in itself. A blank canvas to design onto. I think we can learn and understand what methods to abide by but I think sometimes people go with their instinct.   I'm not taking any credit from you, I think this is wicked!

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## nayr88

I need to work this out a bit more, I'm sure what your explains is simple I just not sure i get the dots 
I understand they are focal points is what your saying but why??
Why are they focal points wash divas brought to them? I can't say they would have been if there wasn't dots there
Or are we putting there dots to show where they should be and then it's up to you to have a twisted bit if wood or an shadow or red plants ect to bring attention here.

Sorry it this sounds silly :/


----------



## jack-rythm

I think its just showing where the focal points are in relation to the 3 3rds rule and the gridded lines maybe? I think the focal points have a lot of give and room for manipulation as long as the other areas are balanced.


----------



## George Farmer

Hi Mike

Thanks for taking the time and effort to create this thread. 

Personally I "just put the focal points where I think looks best" and don't deliberately consider the golden ratio or rule of thirds.

Here's a few of my 'scapes that you're welcome to analyse, if you like...

60cm - White cloud mountain (2009)




30cm - Little Mountain (2009)




120cm - Harlequins' Haven (2009)




60cm - Scree (2010)

iwagumi1 by George Farmer, on Flickr

120cm - Jungle v1 (2011)

jungle1 by George Farmer, on Flickr

60cm - Shallow (2012)

60cm shallow by George Farmer, on Flickr


----------



## Ian Holdich

Here's my new scape with the grids and arrows. 

I suppose this is a style of island scape so, the grids tend to work, the diagonals don't really work? 


Golden rule by Ian Holdich, on Flickr


----------



## Ady34

Nice thread Mike.
Itll provide lots of fun and food for thought.
I tend to just position my hardscape and plants where i like the look of them.....will be interesting to do some analysis to see how they fare....
Theres more information on the 'Golden Ratio' in the Aquascaping Basics part two sticky thread posted by George.
Aquascaping Basics - Part Two | UK Aquatic Plant Society
Happy analysing


----------



## nayr88

Am I right in what I've done here? I don't really get this stuff haha 




The circles are quite large as the editor I use from iTunes is for making fun photos haha and quite awkward I use
The bottom right should be to the left a tad


----------



## jack-rythm

I don't think there is a right and wrong focal point as long as you have it balanced with other factors, it's difficult to determine which is focal on different scapes, ie. Island scapes, corner scapes, iwagumi scapes, Dutch scapes, jungle scapes etc. All angles and direction will always differ. I personally think it's important to stick to focal points in 3rds. I can't show you amazing scapes as I do not have any but I design everyday in my life and need to follow the balances the 3 3rds, this goes for my art work and building design too. I don't think it's the grid lines themselves that we should be aiming to pin point, but the 3 columns the grid lines create. There is so much mathematics and geometry involved it almost takes the imagination out of the equation. I think balances are created by imbalances. So many other aspects need to be taken when designing a scape though. Again I'm definitely not a pro at scapes but I feel this isn't down to person positioning of hard scape but the fact I'm a rookie with the knowledge of plant growth. I have not completely understood what grows where, how it grows and why. I think this is what could ultimately decide the scape in the end  

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Ian Holdich

Some scapers get hung up on the rule of two thirds that much they'll put take on the tape on the tank to ensure they hit it. They sometimes can miss out on the nature aspect of scaping, as the scape becomes way to clinical and over extenuated. This again is my personal opinion...most stuff comes down to opinion in this hobby. But I do think you need to get the golden ratio right to some extent. This is what turns a good scape into an amazing scape.


----------



## greenink

The red circles and arrows are my best attempt to capture a bit of the 'art' in this - for me it's where the eye gets naturally drawn most. Couldn't agree more that for lots of people it will be instinctive, but for those of us who aren't quite so artistic, is good to have something that allows us a helpful, critical framework. And of course the best work will always be where the rules are broken in interesting ways!

Thanks George - have done a quick 'analysis' on four of your tanks. What's really interesting for me is that where the tank lacks (at least for me) one of the near or far focus points in the hardscape, the fish shoal is positioned to create one. Shows how much great photography (patience) and a bit of artistic skill comes into play.

This one is pretty classically aligned with the 'rules', but nicely off centre.



This one is furthest away, which is probably why it looks so unusual and distinctive.



This is (rightly!) a lot of people's favourite tank. And looking at this shows a bit why: absolutely bang on. Also really worth noticing how the fish shoal highlights the focus points and diagonals.



Before I put the lines over this, thought wasn't going to fit - and was then really surprised. The planting and fish shoal do a lot to emphasise the golden ratios.


----------



## LondonDragon

have a look at this thread too! keymaker's composition studies | UK Aquatic Plant Society


----------



## greenink

I like that thread


----------



## stu_

Interesting thread, thanks for the effort.
Certainly gives a relative newcomer like myself something else to think about.
I can look at a scape and know that i like it, and this goes some way to explaining why it works.
Next time i feel the need for a rescape, gonna do what feels right, then see if i hit any of the focals & diagonals, see where it needs tweaking.Use it as a learning tool to hone skills hopefully.


----------



## Aquadream

I don't mean to be the party pooper, but all of those rules are jibberish. One can find all sorts of geometry to explain just about anything.
If things don't come naturally to one self reading and drawing lines will do little justice.

The thing to do is to imitate nature as best as you can, not to analyse aquascapes, because they only represent very limited personal point of view.

Nature is universal. All answers are there.


----------



## Ian Holdich

Aquadream said:


> I don't mean to be the party pooper, but all of those rules are jibberish. One can find all sorts of geometry to explain just about anything.
> If things don't come naturally to one self reading and drawing lines will do little justice.
> 
> The thing to do is to imitate nature as best as you can, not to analyse aquascapes, because they only represent very limited personal point of view.
> 
> Nature is universal. All answers are there.



I get what you're saying, are you also saying there is no such thing as the rule of two thirds to make things stand out above the rest?


----------



## Aquadream

Ian Holdich said:


> I get what you're saying, are you also saying there is no such thing as the rule of two thirds to make things stand out above the rest?


I mentioned in other treads before that I am a professional artist. As such I have studied all of the rules for years and I am well acquainted with them.
The whole point of the rules is to attempt an explanation of how certain images are more to the liking of the human eye than others. Also to create images that will be more successful in this regard.
However non of those rules make any sense in nature.
Observing carefuly and imitating nature works way better when creating nature look a like images, weather is a picture on the wall or an aquascape.


----------



## jack-rythm

Ian Holdich said:


> are you also saying there is no such thing as the rule of two thirds to make things stand out above the rest?


I dont think anyone can claim that can they? I do however think that the term should be changed to 'the guide of two thirds' Im not talking about geomerty mumbo jumbo Im just simply saying, whether we like it or not, our vision immediately relates to imbalances and asymmetry. unless its a specific symmetric creation, the imbalance of the 2 3rds 'works best' for us. Its what our vison is more comfortable with seeing in a more sensory way. of course EVERYTHING we ever do all boils down to preference, that goes with out saying. When we look at the 3 thirds 'guide' we see unequal sections and gradations that ultimately, whether we like it or not, attract our attention easily from section to section. When we look at something with equal sections it just holds more difficulty in viewing the image frame for us to process. We find it difficut because our eyes cannot determine which is the focal point straight away and we get confused. I dont beleive there is an ultimate answer for design,but a more 'correct feel' for design, there is just a good and bad perspective, thats all. Some people have the knack to just create a comfortable visual effect and other dont, the others that dont will excell in areas that the creative cannot. this is just human nature. I do believe that everything is preference of course so Im just speaking from my own opinion.

I find this thread interesting as I go through stuff like this daily with my personal work. Its very interesting to see how people perceive the 'correct image'. I have designed logos for businesses based on the 3 thirds rule ('guide') and checked it with other designers all confirming the correct balance and then I have shown it to a client and they simply dont like it. So this shows that overall its down to taste.

Its almost like asking someone what their favorite colour is.. We all have different opinions on the best colour to paint our lounge, lets just all agree that each scape may not be to our tast but to others it might be. I completely agree with you Aquadream when you say nature is out there to copy, because it is for sure! but not everyone can copy nature. Nature is of course a miracle in itself


----------



## Ian Holdich

Sorry I don't know you and am not aware that you're a pro artist. I'm not going to get into the art debate about aquascaping...however the rule of two thirds is explained well in the above pic IMO. Look at George's project skree, as mike states, probably the most famous aquascape in the uk and probably parts of Europe. Look how he's nailed the ratio....funny that isn't it! 

Nature can provide the rule of two thirds perfectly IMO.


----------



## Aquadream

Ian Holdich said:


> Nature can provide the rule of two thirds perfectly IMO.


Nature does not provide anything of the kind. This is only a human expression.
And by the way those drawings look all different to me. Like adapting the rules each time to fit the theory. I am talking about the focal points. The lines are the same, but the focal point are where it fits the theory.
I don't see the focal points to be the same in any of the mentioned scapes and yet they all fit the same rule of geometry.
Amano have made some scapes that have nothing to point to those rules and they still look magnificent.
But then the guy is a very good observer of nature.


----------



## jack-rythm

Aquadream said:


> And by the way those drawings look all different to me. Like adapting the rules each time to fit the theory. I am talking about the focal points. The lines are the same, but the focal point are where it fits the theory.


I must admit I do agree with this. I felt that each scapes analytical diagrammatic changed every time to suit the scape. But I guess this is exactly the point were all agreeing on. That nothing is a certainty.

I can see this becoming a little like the lighting thread where it becomes more of an argument for the sake of the thread and ending up in a big scape of mush  I think what mike has done by explaining his thoughts is brilliant for everyone to see. I found it very interesting indeed. I found even looking at the way he has consistently highlighted things I wouldn't of, very interesting, this doesn't mean he is wrong and nor does it mean I am wrong. Its just another way of looking at something. I do think that the general rules are there as guide, and I do think these help. They help me and they help others. They may not help everyone and some people may think they are pointless... but they would not be a reality if there was no truth in it. Im not a photographer so i dont really have grounds to say this but do photographers not follow the 3 3rds pretty heavily?


----------



## Ian Holdich

Aquadream said:


> Nature does not provide anything of the kind. This is only a human expression.
> And by the way those drawings look all different to me. Like adapting the rules each time to fit the theory. I am talking about the focal points. The lines are the same, but the focal point are where it fits the theory.
> I don't see the focal points to be the same in any of the mentioned scapes and yet they all fit the same rule of geometry.
> Amano have made some scapes that have nothing to point to those rules and they still look magnificent.
> But then the guy is a very good observer of nature.



See the 3 initials after my statement..."IMO" you can disagree with my opinion, but it's mine and I'm keeping it.

Art is all about opinions.


----------



## jack-rythm

Ian Holdich said:


> Art is all about opinions.


Thats why I can never make any money from the bloody stuff


----------



## Ian Holdich

I think this also comes across in styles of aquascaping as well. I'm sure most of us have fave styles of scaping. Not everyone's opinion on style is the same. This is where ukaps wins over other forums. We seem to respects other opinions on scaping and don't tend to shoot down other people's opinions.


----------



## Ian Burgess

Rule of thirds/two thirds, style, balance, diagonals, directional flow, focal points etc  etc use it all, disregard it all, use your eyes but scape from the heart, if it feels good, do it.


----------



## Aquadream

Ian Holdich said:


> Art is all about opinions.


Not quite.
It is about the ability to recreate something and reflect certain idea, emotion and sensation in a way that will make it understandable by many. It comes from within.
When art is related to opinions more than anything else it becomes kitch.


----------



## tim

I like this thread mike, some very useful and valid observations for new aquascapers, nice one mike


----------



## Ian Holdich

Aquadream said:


> Not quite.
> It is about the ability to recreate something and reflect certain idea, emotion and sensation in a way that will make it understandable by many. It comes from within.
> When art is related to opinions more than anything else it becomes kitch.


Are you expressing an opinion on art here? 

My point exactly.


----------



## Aquadream

Ian Holdich said:


> Are you expressing an opinion on art here?
> 
> My point exactly.


So by your opinion you may be Leonardo Da Vinchi. But are you really?
You are generalizing something out of your legue putting everythging down to an opinion.
It is not that simple.


----------



## Ian Holdich

Aquadream said:


> So by your opinion you may be Leonardo Da Vinchi. But are you really?
> You are generalizing something out of your legue putting everythging down to an opinion.
> It is not that simple.


This is the exact reason why I didn't want to get into the debate around art. We could keep this up all day. 

I don't understand how it's out of my league though, you don't know me you don't know what I do. I think it's actually out of your and most peoples league...you don't seem to understand your own trade.


----------



## greenink

Blimey. Did start quite a debate! Here's the exact same grids put over Aquadream's recent IAPLC scape... Seems to me that it conforms pretty well to the 'rules', even if these were nowhere near front of mind.


----------



## Aquadream

mikeappleby said:


> Blimey. Did start quite a debate! Here's the exact same grids put over Aquadream's recent IAPLC scape... Seems to me that it conforms pretty well to the 'rules', even if these were nowhere near front of mind.


 
Nice of you to analyse my recent scape.
It was actually build around different ideas and these rules mentioned here still don't make much sense.
Now on the first example with 1/3 grids. I see on all other pics in the tread at least two focal points mentioned. On my picture you found one only.
The red arrow lines in the last example are also quite conroversial in all pictures you have analysed in the tread.

I can explain how the depth and perspective are achieved in this scape if you would like. You'll see that the basics in this design do not comply any near as much to the well known rules in aquascaping as many would expect.


----------



## Aquadream

Ian Holdich said:


> This is the exact reason why I didn't want to get into the debate around art. We could keep this up all day.
> 
> I don't understand how it's out of my league though, you don't know me you don't know what I do. I think it's actually out of your and most peoples league...you don't seem to understand your own trade.


 Ian. I do not have to know you. I have life time experience in arts and people that are involved closely with arts.
If you are convinced that all about art is a matter of opinions then you simply can not be one of those I know for sure to be artists.
Of course I will not ever try to change your opinion, but please accept that out there some people have understanding of arts beyond yours.
Just as I accepted that Tom Barr and Clive are people with much deeper understanding of bio chemistry than me, regardless that I have been diggin in fish tanks for 30 years.
I can promice you that as much I can see how much anyone is an artist those guys can see how much I am a bio chemist by a few simple words.


----------



## Ian Holdich

I never once stated that I have an understanding of art, please read back properly. I do know what I like and what I don't like. This is subjective, as is art. I feel your being a little condescending tbh, and again you haven't really proved to me you understand what art is either. I accept there are people out there that understand art in a way that I don't. Pity you're not one of them. 



Time for me to sign out of this discussion as we're going round in circles.


----------



## Aquadream

Ian Holdich said:


> I never once stated that I have an understanding of art, please read back properly. I do know what I like and what I don't like. This is subjective, as is art. I feel your being a little condescending tbh, and again you haven't really proved to me you understand what art is either. I accept there are people out there that understand art in a way that I don't. Pity you're not one of them.
> 
> I actually do remember you in a thread over on asw come to think of it, claiming the same things to others. You also put a lot of backs up over there with you opinions on art. Maybe take a step back and appreciate other people's opinions on art lol.
> 
> Time for me to sign out of this discussion as we're going round in circles.


If by your words you do not have understanding of art what gives you the right to summarize it like this?

Those peeps on ASW were just as wrong as you are. Their opinion also yours regarding art is irrelevant as none of you have much practical experience in it.

In the spirit of your attitude we can summarize that your occupation is also matter of opinions. It's just subjective, right?


----------



## Ian Holdich

Wow, have I really summarised art, awesome...I didn't intend that statement to summarise art. Thank you! 

This is where you come across as a little condescending...



> Those peeps on ASW were just as wrong as you are. Their opinion also yours regarding art is irrelevant as none of you have much practical experience in it.



You really don't know what people do as a day job do you? I know of a few full time artists/graphic designers who are present here and also present in the other thread regarding this matter.

Now can you summarise art, or pm some of your work or can we get back to discussing golden ratios? 

So, back to the rule of two thirds....


----------



## Aquadream

Ian Holdich said:


> Wow, have I really summarised art, awesome...I didn't intend that statement to summarise art. Thank you!
> 
> This is where you come across as a little condescending...
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't know what people do as a day job do you? I know of a few full time artists/graphic designers who are present here and also present in the other thread regarding this matter.
> 
> Now can you summarise art, or pm some of your work or can we get back to discussing golden ratios?
> 
> So, back to the rule of two thirds....


The people you mention never came to argue about art in here or in ASW. You did.
Condescending...? So, how about I put aside everything I am. Call my self stupid and crowl in your feet? Would this be less condescending?


----------



## jack-rythm

This has become pathetic

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## tim

Aquadream said:


> The people you mention never came to argue about art in here or in ASW. You did.
> Condescending...? So, how about I put aside everything I am. Call my self stupid and crowl in your feet? Would this be less condescending?


 it would be a start wouldn't it  just messing aquadream, guys i would really like to see this thread get back on track, it is IMO a really helpful guide for newcomers to the hobby or those which have less natural instincts for aquascaping like me


----------



## greenink

tim said:


> i would really like to see this thread get back on track, it is IMO a really helpful guide for newcomers to the hobby or those which have less natural instincts for aquascaping like me


 
Aquadream, could you explain how you think your scape works in detail? Would be very helpful for everyone - and different perspectives useful! (Agree red arrows very controversial - these are just where my eyes are drawn, nothing more, which is I think part of the whole skill of it).


----------



## Aquadream

mikeappleby said:


> Aquadream, could you explain how you think your scape works in detail? Would be very helpful for everyone - and different perspectives useful! (Agree red arrows very controversial - these are just where my eyes are drawn, nothing more, which is I think part of the whole skill of it).


Sure Mike. Here it is.
The basic "geometry" in my last scape is based on perspective lines against straight horizon line. I personally consider this to be the most pure and natural form of perspective in an image that does not look over exaggerated and does not contain specific shapes like paths, river banks etc meant to enhance the perspective impression.
This is of course my preference in achieving perspective. There are many other ways to do so.
I also use the comparative method between larger forms in front and smaller at the back. A common way to do perspective.
Another method that I used in this scape is relatively sharp transition between shadow and highlight that can be seen in the central part of the scape. 
It is also very easy way to get good impression of depth and perspective that I have seen other aquascapers to use. It enhances greatly the impression of space in the layout.
Group 2, which is relatively dark is exactly next to the light open part of the scape that is close enough to the Golden Ratio, but not exactly on top of it.
The use of straight horizon line as perspective control in an image delivers wider and brooder space and perspective impression than the cone cave style as the cone cave is a perspective form that describes in general case a smaller spaces in nature like canyons, caves, hills that are close by etc.
Straight horizon line suggests vast amount of space, therefore much deeper image impression that does not need any obvious enhansmets. Of course in aquarium this is very limited. Not any close to nature it self.

Of course folks can manage to apply all sorts of other rules. However non of them were intended in this aquascape.


----------



## Aquadream

Small amendment. Where I mention Group 2, I intended to mention Group 1. For some reason I can not edit the original post.


----------



## tim

This is why I like this thread, looking at mikes grids and lines plus your diagram above really shows why this scape and no doubt many others work, they don't conform to the rules perfectly but for me it helps to show what makes a good scape  if I'm honest though and it is just what I think or my opinion this and many other overscaped tanks are really not my thing (sorry) i think that's where personal taste and perspective comes into play.there is no denying plant health, composition, photography all amazing so please don't take offence for me it's just not quite natural


----------



## Aquadream

tim said:


> This is why I like this thread, looking at mikes grids and lines plus your diagram above really shows why this scape and no doubt many others work, they don't conform to the rules perfectly but for me it helps to show what makes a good scape  if I'm honest though and it is just what I think or my opinion this and many other overscaped tanks are really not my thing (sorry) i think that's where personal taste and perspective comes into play.there is no denying plant health, composition, photography all amazing so please don't take offence for me it's just not quite natural


 
No ofense Tim. It is not natural, because it was not intended to be. The name of the scape is "Another day in paradise". That denotes surreal imaginery elements in the art work.


----------



## jack-rythm

I think your scape is truly inspirational mate, you push the boundaries to the extreme and its paid off ten fold.  I agree that its interesting seeing different people analyzed the same scape. this shows different views and different focal points. Im going to disagree with tim and say that scapes like this are what I search the internet for  sorry tim  I do love the natural tank but the tank featured above by aquascape is truly magic!

I think the way Aquadream has drawn on the image would be the exact same way I would of done it. may I would of numbered them differently according to focal importance. But this is preference once again  How long did you keep the tank Aqua dream? how long did it take for you to achieve this?


----------



## Aquadream

jack-rythm said:


> I think your scape is truly inspirational mate, you push the boundaries to the extreme and its paid off ten fold.  I agree that its interesting seeing different people analyzed the same scape. this shows different views and different focal points. Im going to disagree with tim and say that scapes like this are what I search the internet for  sorry tim  I do love the natural tank but the tank featured above by aquascape is truly magic!
> 
> I think the way Aquadream has drawn on the image would be the exact same way I would of done it. may I would of numbered them differently according to focal importance. But this is preference once again  How long did you keep the tank Aqua dream? how long did it take for you to achieve this?


Thanks Jack.
The numbering I did was only to assist the explanation. It was not intended to show order of focal points, because that would be a bit subjective to whom may be looking at the aquascape.
I have been bubbling on this scape for almost 7 months before this picture.


----------



## roadmaster

Aquadream,
I like your scape , but I must confess that unless I try very hard,,,,All that my eye's are drawn to ,,are the tall green pipe cleaner looking stem's protruding from the scape.


----------



## Aquadream

roadmaster said:


> Aquadream,
> I like your scape , but I must confess that unless I try very hard,,,,All that my eye's are drawn to ,,are the tall green pipe cleaner looking stem's protruding from the scape.


I didn't mean to spell charms with sticks on you mate.


----------

