# Have I overdone it? 120p hardscape advice



## dudebro (Aug 23, 2012)

Looks good to me. I don't think it's too much.


----------



## CPDzeke (Jan 4, 2013)

Maybe too symmetrical. Either take out the tree or a rock from the left


----------



## GMYukonon24s (May 3, 2009)

I think it looks good.


----------



## JustAGuy716 (Aug 28, 2012)

I think I would probably try to move the center rock behind the two on the left and angle it up to give some depth opposite the "tree". If you move the left two stones toward the front to accommodate, you'll end up with three layers of depth, also: near (front L), mid (wood / stones)' and far (back left).

Then again, it might look like kaka when this is actually tried 

Good luck!


----------



## Kathyy (Feb 22, 2010)

It actually looks like you could try a mountain scape with tree as in #89 and 156 here.
http://en.iaplc.com/results12/top200vote/ Place the largest rock where it belongs and the secondary stone then place the tree. The other stones will support the three main elements and might need to be partly buried to reduce bulk or consider breaking one up so you have more variety.


----------



## alkatraz (Jul 28, 2012)

Thanks for the feedback everyone!

I played around with the 2 stones on the left a bit, pic attached.



CPDzeke said:


> Maybe too symmetrical. Either take out the tree or a rock from the left


I'm thinking the tree might need to go.. it creates two focal points at equal distances from the center like you said. It also throws the proportions all off unless I were to try the "mountainscape" look like Kathyy suggested. 




JustAGuy716 said:


> I think I would probably try to move the center rock behind the two on the left and angle it up to give some depth opposite the "tree". If you move the left two stones toward the front to accommodate, you'll end up with three layers of depth, also: near (front L), mid (wood / stones)' and far (back left).
> 
> Then again, it might look like kaka when this is actually tried
> 
> Good luck!


The center rock is as far back as it will go unfortunately. The 2nd from the left, the massive one, I may be able to bring that forward however.




Kathyy said:


> It actually looks like you could try a mountain scape with tree as in #89 and 156 here.
> http://en.iaplc.com/results12/top200vote/ Place the largest rock where it belongs and the secondary stone then place the tree. The other stones will support the three main elements and might need to be partly buried to reduce bulk or consider breaking one up so you have more variety.


For referrence, 

















Hmmm yeah, burying the rocks deeper would make it more natural, good thinking. I'm in a condo so breaking one up is going to be tough.. unless I drop it off the balcony.  

Going to try a few more changes. Thanks everyone for the feedback!


----------



## alkatraz (Jul 28, 2012)

Tried moving the 2 stones on the left forward, rotating #1 back to how it was earlier. There are huge shadows in the forward position as the stone is so big. Also, dug the stones on the right in a bit more.


----------



## alkatraz (Jul 28, 2012)

Here I've removed the wood and moved the lighting forward ~75% towards the front.

Hmmm... I think I might take it all apart and try moving the large stone (#2) a few inches to the right.. Right now it's at 1/4 the tank and I'm thinking it should really be at the 1/3rd mark. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds) That will bring the focal point inwards.


----------



## Fuze (Jul 26, 2012)

I don't like how that middle stone is sitting, try to bury that one deep in the substrate.

Also, try to position the right stones so that they are more of a composition. Right now they look like they are free floating stones.


----------



## alkatraz (Jul 28, 2012)

Tore it down, removed ~4 bags of soil and started fresh. I have ~2 bags of soil yet to pour in


----------



## Fuze (Jul 26, 2012)

Definitely better, try moving the two leftmost stones all the way into the left corner? Unless you're set on having one mass.


----------



## alkatraz (Jul 28, 2012)

Fuze said:


> Definitely better, try moving the two leftmost stones all the way into the left corner? Unless you're set on having one mass.


I just took it down again but I'll keep that in mind. I'm not set on one mass, but I'm finding that my "center stone" is a bit narrow so I've been trying to "prop" it up a bit with other stones. 

Just tried a few 3 stone configurations.. Not really liking it.. that damn center stone is just too awkward. 

I think I'll give it a rest for now and then go back to 5 stones, 2 + 3 like you suggested. Thx!


----------



## Kudaria (Jan 7, 2013)

Personally I love that tree. I keep getting a picture in my mind of one of those twisted and windswept scrub pines clinging somehow to a craggy hillside.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

The first rock grouping looked promising, but the tree moved the focus away from that main rock with the deep crevice. 

I don't think you can have the wood on the right and then the most prominent rock on the left that just doesn't work. From the first setup if you just remove the wood I think you can have a nice layout. If you want to keep the tree than you need to incorporate the tree in and around the dominant rock grouping and then have other rocks support that, but not compete with the main focal area. That's pretty much what's going on in the pics you attached. The main grouping with the trees are slightly off-center and inside the main focal area.


----------



## Kathyy (Feb 22, 2010)

I like the way the tree fits over the rock in the first scape but it fights with the largest stone. Wonder how it would look on the other side of the tank near the largest stone.

Whatever you come up with is going to be nice. Your stones have multiple interesting faces, each arrangement you have come up with has been interesting. I like the mystery when there is a concave face to the stone especially.

120 pounds of rock? Might want to do this in a cardboard mockup so the glass isn't in danger and you don't have to reach in to move things around. I have no idea how many pounds of rock are in my tank but once a big one was placed I sure didn't want to move it again! Lucky for me the stones were never intended to be very visible once the tank was grown in.


----------



## Neatfish (Jun 22, 2012)

Put back in the tree it looks better with it.


----------



## hisxlency (Jan 26, 2013)

I like it with the tree, if you decide to sell it let me know, im looking for that style for my 20L


----------



## tomfromstlouis (Apr 2, 2012)

This is fun. I'll join.

I would tackle it this way: First, cut out a piece of cardboard the size of the tank's footprint. Play with the stones there until you come up with an arrangement you like enough to keep overnight, look at again the next day, and so on. There is no real benefit to doing this in the tank; it only slows down the changes and risks the glass.

First, decide on the best position for the biggest rock; I personally think it is close to the original way it sat. Given the size of the pieces, I agree that the tree and biggest rock need to be part of the same focal point, much like the second contest tank shown. So work the next rock and the wood into the picture once the big rock is set. The rest should just be a matter of experimenting until you get one worthy of getting wet.


----------



## dudebro (Aug 23, 2012)

Original is my fav. I think it closely matches your referenced images. Its good to have an image to work from and vision to design toward.


----------



## Green_Flash (Apr 15, 2012)

Post #11, last one, minus biggest rock, plus tree, I think would look the best. You don't want two focal points, either the tree or largest stone,otherwise it will look unbalanced.


----------



## Smokeygrey (Feb 17, 2012)

That tree is So Awesome.. use it as your centerpiece. You don't have to stand it, it could be at an angle or laid down sideways.


----------



## xmas_one (Feb 5, 2010)

To me the rocks are all sort of the same "too big" size. That "tree" doesn't work at all in there, especially considering the size of the rock. With the five stones, I would do two groups, one with two stones and one with three. Arrange to minimize size and to portray a "eroded" feeling. Those stones are very sharp and young looking, it will be difficult to find an angle that makes them appear weathered . Good luck, I think you have good intuition for this.


----------



## scapegoat (Jun 3, 2010)

first layout with the large rock removed or placed deeper. I like the "tree"


----------



## Aquaticus (Jan 7, 2013)

Maybe try first layout with one of the rocks removed by the tree?


----------



## bluestems (Feb 7, 2012)

alkatraz said:


>


This one has really nice proportions and interest. :smile:

That is also a cool looking tree. I could see it used with the larger vertical stone immediately behind and to the side of the tree to reinforce the vertical element (like in the pictures that Kathyy referenced).

eg: 










Good luck, I look forward to seeing what you do with it!


----------



## Green_Flash (Apr 15, 2012)

I like that digital rendition a lot! 

Very close to the theme of the inspiration photos!


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

The rocks lack a certain character. I would also suggest sloping the substrate higher in the rear and shallow as you can in the front, over time, this will slide forward unless the plant roots are established quick.

You can moss the rocks by chopping up some moss, and spreading the moss with some tank water and and about 10% yogurt. and then keep the rocks moist with plastic wrap outside on the north side of the house if the temps are not freezing, or in a window sill etc.

Some folks do a dry start method and mist the moss daily for about 2 weeks, then they fill the tank.

Mossing the stone will add an old natural feel and moss is a different color of green than the other plants. You can and should leave some spots bare so the rock shows through.


----------



## bluestems (Feb 7, 2012)

Tom, this was suggested by Kathyy on the first page, and I think incorporates some moss like you suggested as well:










I think he has the rocks that can accomplish a similar look, if that's what he's going for. :smile:


----------



## alkatraz (Jul 28, 2012)

Thanks for all the feedback everyone!

The referenced pics were suggested by Kathyy and i pasted them for easy viewing but I won't be going for a miniature mountain scene style. (Where the wood becomes a mini "tree" and the stones are mountains) I may end up with a few larger fish in the tank (angels perhaps) which would ruin any attempt at mini proportions IMO.

Nice work of the photochop! I'll give that a try myself. 

I did initially lay things out on cardboard with towels for support but in my eagerness I moved things to the tank too early. Good point about watching for glass damage.

I'm going to try more "3 stones" then "wood + center stone + 1 stone" layouts as suggested, if that doesn't work out I think I'll go back to one of the early egs and maybe try <cringe> breaking up the tree. The tree as is barely fits in the tank, I already broke off one side of it for it to fit. If I break it up further ill have more flexibility for deeper placement and potentially smaller groupings of placements. 

I'll be taking another run at it this weekend and will post updates. Thanks again, really appreciated.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## bluestems (Feb 7, 2012)

Photoshop is great to aide in explaining ideas, but it can never replace working with the actual stones. It doesn't, for example, take into account how deep some of the stones were buried and whether they would actually work in the position shown. 

I think you're doing the best thing by just working it, stepping back or away for a period and coming back to it. :smile: If you're not going for the mountain look though, you might consider breaking up those stones or exchanging them for something of a smaller scale.

If you have a chance, you might look through the different tanks from the link Kathyy posted to see if there's one with the feeling or general idea of what you are hoping to accomplish. It would be easier then for us to make suggestions. 

Looking forward to seeing the future pics/ideas!


----------



## alkatraz (Jul 28, 2012)

After a bunch of pre planning I've attempted 2.5 more layouts involving the wood and 3 smaller stones. (No massive 1.5 man boulder)









The first one doesn't work at all IMO.









The second one has promise. Nice and simple, everything is sort of angled along with the tree in a right to left water direction, but I felt the middle stone was too far out. (1/2 that stone is buried btw)









The 3rd one is an attempt at bringing that middle stone tighter to the center stone to support it better. I added 3/4 bag substrate to cover it all better and make a mound. I still have 1 bag left but I don't think I'll need it. 

The tree is sitting pretty high so I'll see about lowering it. There's something still not right about the 3 stones.. I think it's the center stone sitting too high. And the mound is looking really tall.. Almost half the tank height. 

I'm going to let the last one sit for a bit to see how I like it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Kathyy (Feb 22, 2010)

Angels going into the tank? Agree, a mountain scape would be jarring to say the least. There was a really nice mountain range type scape posted here a while back but then discus were added. Looked like a scene from a 1950s science fiction movie. 

What plants are you going to use in this tank? I know it is old school but angels and tall long leaved plants and larger scaled wood that looks like stumps and roots look great together, not rocks so much. That nice stump is very small scale to use with large fish and they sure wouldn't be swimming gracefully through its twigs.


----------



## mistahoo (Apr 25, 2012)

Of all the pictures I really like the last one on post #32. I would move the tree out a bit to the left so that the branches occupy some of the open space on the left side of the tank. IMO, the 3 rocks look great as is, but those rocks on the left side look like they were just tossed in there to occupy that space. Maybe add a medium sized rock right there and move the tiny ones you have to the side of it to complement? Good luck! I like your progress so far!


----------



## alkatraz (Jul 28, 2012)

Kathyy said:


> Angels going into the tank? Agree, a mountain scape would be jarring to say the least. There was a really nice mountain range type scape posted here a while back but then discus were added. Looked like a scene from a 1950s science fiction movie.
> 
> What plants are you going to use in this tank? I know it is old school but angels and tall long leaved plants and larger scaled wood that looks like stumps and roots look great together, not rocks so much. That nice stump is very small scale to use with large fish and they sure wouldn't be swimming gracefully through its twigs.


LOL I can totally see that. Not set on anything yet but I had Angels as a kid and I have a soft spot for them. More then likely I'll do small schooling fish with a pair of "something" interesting that is a bit larger but wont grow as big as Angels. Good point on the small branches. Unsure about plants yet but most likely a DHG carpet. 



mistahoo said:


> Of all the pictures I really like the last one on post #32. I would move the tree out a bit to the left so that the branches occupy some of the open space on the left side of the tank. IMO, the 3 rocks look great as is, but those rocks on the left side look like they were just tossed in there to occupy that space. Maybe add a medium sized rock right there and move the tiny ones you have to the side of it to complement? Good luck! I like your progress so far!


You nailed it on adding a smaller rock to the left. I added one with lots of slop and character and that seems to tie it together really well. 

Made some more adjustments.. There's no way to get that tree down any lower.. one of the branches is actually resting on the back glass lol. I'm concerned that if it move it to the left more it will be centered or I'll have the same problem as before where there was 2 focal points. 

Played with the center stone a bit.. What a difference using the smaller stones makes, looking back at the first pics and the tank looked so much smaller because of the volume of rock. Looked more like a 60p with all that rock. 


I'm actually quite happy with the current look but something about the right is still bothering me.


----------



## mistahoo (Apr 25, 2012)

*buzz buzz* the left side still looks funny. Maybe have that rock point the other way towards the right side? Or break it? Possibly turn the rock and play with it in different positions? *giggle* It's because the middle rock is pointing to the left along with the rock on the left side. It gives me the feeling of tipping over to the left (if that makes any sense). 

The right side looks good as is since you don't want to move the driftwood. Leave the right side and the slope how it is. It gives the tank depth.

Sent from my spaceship using Tapatalk 2.


----------



## Kudaria (Jan 7, 2013)

Kathyy said:


> Angels going into the tank? Agree, a mountain scape would be jarring to say the least. There was a really nice mountain range type scape posted here a while back but then discus were added. Looked like a scene from a 1950s science fiction movie.
> 
> What plants are you going to use in this tank? I know it is old school but angels and tall long leaved plants and larger scaled wood that looks like stumps and roots look great together, not rocks so much. That nice stump is very small scale to use with large fish and they sure wouldn't be swimming gracefully through its twigs.


This is something that I'm already beginning to appreciate, you can build a scape that you really like visually and then add fish that hate it because it's unsuited for their natures, you can build one that takes into account both or you can build a scape around your fish.

Laying out scapes is good, but I think you have to consider the fish that your planning on stocking it with and build with an eye towards the fact that this is where you are placing them to live out the rest of their lives.

That said I really like the fact that you kept that piece of driftwood and I like the placement of it up against the stone that is just slightly less high than it. I also like the front right stone's top being level with the upper ground giving the right front side the look of a cliff face.


----------



## bluestems (Feb 7, 2012)

This is the best one yet! Try letting the soil in the back go straight into the back right corner (instead of sloping down into that corner).

Could also see the soil level in the left back corner coming up a little behind the stone and into the corner. Maybe move the little rock in the back on the left somewhere else as I think it would get lost in the back plantings.


----------



## Green_Flash (Apr 15, 2012)

I agree that is the best one yet, about that stone in the bottom right, it has a harsh awkward surface facing that way, maybe try a different position? Or another rock?


----------



## OVT (Nov 29, 2011)

The last one looks the best IMHO, the slope will be hard to maintain. You can achieve the same visual hill effect with flat substrate and plants like blyxa.

You might also be overthinking it a bit. If I cannot get it to my liking in 15mins I let it be for a day, then come back, pull everything out and dump it back. If it comes from the heart and not the head it will "feel right". Easier said then done.

via Droid DNA Tapatalk 2


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Not bad, but the rock on the left is way to big and distracting (especially with the crevice running along the top.) I would remove that. All you really need IMO is a rock to the left near the branches pushed in some and then some smaller rocks randomly downhill and toward the left side. This will also help maintain the slope.


----------



## mistahoo (Apr 25, 2012)

+1 with smaller rocks. I was thinking about medium sized rocks. Maybe about half of that rock that's there now (bottom left side) and some smaller rocks.


----------



## starfire12 (Aug 13, 2009)

I would move the tree so that it is in front of the big stone pointing to the left. I also would reduce the amount of substrate in the right corner just mound it up a little bit. If you do decide not to use the tree I would be willing to buy it from you. Where did you get it from I want one.


----------



## mistahoo (Apr 25, 2012)

starfire12 said:


> I would move the tree so that it is in front of the big stone pointing to the left. I also would reduce the amount of substrate in the right corner just mound it up a little bit. If you do decide not to use the tree I would be willing to buy it from you. Where did you get it from I want one.


Manzanita wood. Comes in plain sticks or very branchy pieces like that one.

Sent from my spaceship using Tapatalk 2.


----------



## starfire12 (Aug 13, 2009)

I knew what type of wood it was, I was wondering where you bought it from.


----------

