# 170 Substrate PAR?



## bbuswell (Oct 21, 2019)

Greetings all. I'm setting up a 125 gallon (72 x 18 x 22) heavily planted aquarium. I'm running a 72" BeamWorks LED and two 36" Fluval Plant 3.0. I rented a MQ-510 Apogee par meter from Bulk Reef Supply and it's reading 170 par at the substrate with lights at 100%. I will be injecting co2 but those numbers seem too high. Am I using the meter wrong? Is that par too high for plants? Should I just dim them? What is the optimal substrate par value? Thanks in advance!

- Brett


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi Brett, @bbuswell,

Welcome to TPT!

No, [email protected] seems about right for 2X Fluval 3.0 and a BeamWorks. That is a lot of light and will require a lot of CO2 and nutrients. 

I certain would not run the tank with [email protected] without CO2 in place and properly adjusted or an algae farm and frustration will likely result. Without CO2 [email protected] is about as high as I would go. If you are not familiar with planted tanks start with low PAR and learn the basics for CO2 and nutrients first (for several months) then you can ramp up as you become more proficient. -Roy


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

Out of curiosity, did you measure PAR with the tank full of water and through whatever lids/canopies you might be using or was it an empty tank measured in air?


----------



## bbuswell (Oct 21, 2019)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi Brett, @bbuswell,
> 
> Welcome to TPT!
> 
> ...


Thank you Roy. This is my first serious attempt at a planted tank but I've maintained community, cichlid, and reef for many years and ready for the next challenge. Definitely injecting co2 but now thinking I may need a reactor and not a diffuser as I’ve been reading 125 gallons is hard to get the proper ppm as it is. I’m thinking I will just dim the lights some, especially for the first few months. What would recommend for the par? I have a 5 lb. co2 tank and an amazon 2 stage regulator, ceramic diffuser. Going for a Dutch style as fish aren’t that important to me right now. Lot to learn in this space. I updated my profile, should have done that before I posted :smile2:.

Bump:


varanidguy said:


> Out of curiosity, did you measure PAR with the tank full of water and through whatever lids/canopies you might be using or was it an empty tank measured in air?


Yep, tank full and everything in place. Using BDBS and the water still has a slight tint... those Fluval's are intense!


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi @ bbuswell,

If this is your first planted tank start slow. [email protected] measured at the substrate. The diffuser may give you sufficient CO2 for the lower level of light intensity however as you increase light intensity the amount of CO2 and nutrients required will increase so you may need to look at alternative CO2 delivery systems later. I have a 5# CO2 tank on my 75 gallon and it lasts about 2 months....I am not running maximum CO2.


----------



## bbuswell (Oct 21, 2019)

Appreciate it, that's what I'll do. Will I have any plant selection restrictions at 50? Wanting to grow a carpet at one end with denser planting at the other.


----------



## SingAlongWithTsing (Jun 11, 2015)

make sure you measure the PAR at the corners of the tank too, I think 50+ is usually enough dwarf baby tears and monte carlo. nd yea start low and ramp up or you can plant really heavy at the beginning.

I ran my contest entry at about 163 PAR, it's doable but expect some hiccups along the way: https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/12-tank-journals/1121050-tsings-135-hybrid-23.html#post11266537

If you decide to go that high I would consider upgrading to a 20-lb co2 cylinder and getting a Dwyer flow meter instead of a bubble counter.
as for reactors, the Sera 1000 is pretty good from what I heard if you don't feel like DIY'ing your own Rex or Cerges. 
Green Leaf Aquariums also releasing their own in a couple of days


@burr740 run's his main tank at 100+ PAR and is a dutch scape: https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/...tchy-freestyle-now-35%-less-water-volume.html
@Greggz has a nice tank too running high PAR(100+, maybe 130?): https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/...ack-normal-10-12-2019-a-189.html#post11272413


----------



## varanidguy (Sep 8, 2017)

SingAlongWithTsing said:


> make sure you measure the PAR at the corners of the tank too, I think 50+ is usually enough dwarf baby tears and monte carlo. nd yea start low and ramp up or you can plant really heavy at the beginning.
> 
> I ran my contest entry at about 163 PAR, it's doable but expect some hiccups along the way: https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/12-tank-journals/1121050-tsings-135-hybrid-23.html#post11266537
> 
> ...




That reactor looks awesome! I’ve been itching to try one, but I don’t like the idea of flow loss.

Also, I’ve found that running 100ish PAR is very doable so long as you’re on top of maintenance and you have enough plants to soak it all in. My Seneye measures my tank at roughly 114 PAR at the substrate in my nature scape 40 breeder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bbuswell (Oct 21, 2019)

SingAlongWithTsing said:


> make sure you measure the PAR at the corners of the tank too, I think 50+ is usually enough dwarf baby tears and monte carlo. nd yea start low and ramp up or you can plant really heavy at the beginning.
> 
> I ran my contest entry at about 163 PAR, it's doable but expect some hiccups along the way: https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/12-tank-journals/1121050-tsings-135-hybrid-23.html#post11266537
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing that. Those threads should keep me busy for awhile. The lowest measurement I could find in the corners was 105. Your tank is beautiful and what I'm going for. Wish me luck, I'm sure I'll have much to ask and post in the coming months. Cheers!


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi Brett, @bbuswell,

Why not hold off on a foreground/carpet until you get comfortable with your tank and fertilizing; typically for a good carpet of Marsilea minuta I have +/- [email protected]

30 gallon, CO2, Marsilea minuta in foreground right


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

bbuswell said:


> What is the optimal substrate par value?


 It is not about PAR only. You can have 68 PAR or 170 PAR and both can work. The missing variable is time. Time with PAR gives light energy per day. You can have 

10 hours of 68 PAR a day, to have 680 PAR/hours a day, or
4 hours of 170 PAR a day, to have 680 PAR/hours a day

The plants are more less going to be driven by the same light energy and therefore need the same CO2 and fertilizer quantity. Considering your aquarium height, you may prefer stronger light. These are the same principles as with reef aquariums. 

With 125 gallon you will find a CO2 flow meter and a CO2 reactor more useful.


----------



## bbuswell (Oct 21, 2019)

SingAlongWithTsing said:


> make sure you measure the PAR at the corners of the tank too, I think 50+ is usually enough dwarf baby tears and monte carlo. nd yea start low and ramp up or you can plant really heavy at the beginning.
> 
> I ran my contest entry at about 163 PAR, it's doable but expect some hiccups along the way: https://www.plantedtank.net/forums/12-tank-journals/1121050-tsings-135-hybrid-23.html#post11266537
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing. Those threads should keep me busy for awhile :smile2:. Your tank is beautiful and the look I'm trying to achieve. Wish me luck, I'm sure I will have much to share and ask over the coming months. Cheers!


----------



## bbuswell (Oct 21, 2019)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi Brett, @bbuswell,
> 
> Why not hold off on a foreground/carpet until you get comfortable with your tank and fertilizing; typically for a good carpet of Marsilea minuta I have +/- [email protected]
> 
> 30 gallon, CO2, Marsilea minuta in foreground right


Do you think it would be better to fully plant everything at once, maybe dry start, or slowly add plants? Would a slow add complicate balancing? Don't want to move hastily, still learning 

EI ferts routine appears fairly straight forward.

Bump:


Edward said:


> It is not about PAR only. You can have 68 PAR or 170 PAR and both can work. The missing variable is time. Time with PAR gives light energy per day. You can have
> 
> 10 hours of 68 PAR a day, to have 680 PAR/hours a day, or
> 4 hours of 170 PAR a day, to have 680 PAR/hours a day
> ...


I appreciate that explanation, thank you!


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi Brett, @bbuswell,

I plant my tanks all at once. Some plants will thrive, some may not. If some species don't do well I try another species until I find ones that work in my tanks. Some plants I just don't do well with, that's OK. I just find a different variety that does like the conditions in the tank. Since I enjoy my fish as much as my planted tanks I adjust the water conditions for the fish and then find species that will do well in those conditions.


----------



## Immortal1 (Feb 18, 2015)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi Brett, @*bbuswell*,
> 
> I plant my tanks all at once. Some plants will thrive, some may not. If some species don't do well I try another species until I find ones that work in my tanks. Some plants I just don't do well with, that's OK. I just find a different variety that does like the conditions in the tank. Since I enjoy my fish as much as my planted tanks I adjust the water conditions for the fish and then find species that will do well in those conditions.



As Roy stated, this method has been working for me for the last few years in my big rainbow tank. Fortunately there are a LOT of different plant varieties out there to choose from.


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

Edward said:


> It is not about PAR only. You can have 68 PAR or 170 PAR and both can work. The missing variable is time. Time with PAR gives light energy per day. You can have
> 
> 10 hours of 68 PAR a day, to have 680 PAR/hours a day, or
> 4 hours of 170 PAR a day, to have 680 PAR/hours a day
> ...


To add another wrinkle that may help .. seeing as you have programmable lights, you can toy with variable lighting periods. 

just one mere example: ramp into 4 hours of 50ish par in the morning, ramp to 100 for a midday burst of 1 hour, ramp back down to 4 hours of your 50ish or whatever 

the idea behind that is to have an extended viewing period without triggering undue stress, but yet still provide that extra oomph for the plants that want it.


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

I wouldnt start out my first planted tank at 170. I'd stay in the 60-90 range for the first few months while you get a feel for running a successful planted aquarium. Most any plant will grow well in that range

And for a 125 you definitely need a reactor. Consider building your own out of common PVC pipe (lots of references around here showing examples) Pre-fab can be good but most reduce flow a lot. Of course you can get around that by having an extra filter/pump dedicated to co2

Plant heavy from the start. Keep things clean. Good maintenance and pruning (of old decaying growth) is just as important as ferts, light and co2.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Those who like diving know how fast light comes and just as fast disappears. Here is a chart of PAR bellow water level. The most active light is only 4 hours a day from 10:00 to 14:00. To translate this chart to home aquarium, divide the PAR by ten. Then we get 2 hours 40 PAR from 8:00 to 10:00, then 4 hours 100 PAR from 10:00 to 14:00, and then 2 hours 40 PAR from 14:00 to 16:00. Total period of 8 hours a day and 560 PAR/hours a day.


```
hours  PAR   from    to
  2     40   8:00  10:00
  4    100  10:00  14:00
  2     40  14:00  16:00
```










This amount of light energy of 560 PAR/hours a day is the same as continuous

```
hours  PAR
 12     47
 11     51
 10     56
  9     62
  8     70
  7     80
  6     93
  5    112 
  4    140
```
This is pretty much what we see in this hobby. Also, this is related to the “low versus high tech” classification. For example, 

```
hours  PAR  PAR/hours a day
 10     40    400
  4    100    400
```
Is 40 PAR “low tech” and 100 PAR “high tech” when both need medium low CO2 and fertilizer?


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi @Edward,

I agree that 10 hours of [email protected] and 4 hours at [email protected] are comparable, however they are certainly not the same. The stronger light level of [email protected] will allow some species to grow at the substrate level while [email protected] at the substrate level will not.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Seattle_Aquarist said:


> Hi @*Edward*,
> 
> I agree that 10 hours of [email protected] and 4 hours at [email protected] are comparable, however they are certainly not the same. The stronger light level of [email protected] will allow some species to grow at the substrate level while [email protected] at the substrate level will not.



not quite sure that holds...many reports of low "PAR" w/ high par plants doing fine as long as sufficient CO2 is present..
Would be interesting to see if 4 hrs of 100PAR is indeed equal to 8 hrs of 50 PAR..

also it doesn't take in account any saturation levels where added PAR at a point in time doesn't add to photosynthesis.
NOW not saying ot applies in fw. Def applies in sw levels of light..









Color may differ though.. 

Reference:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2013.00140/full



> Light and CO2 availability under water are often low to submerged plants. Low CO2 together with impeded escape of O2 can result in high photorespiration as a component determining net photosynthesis. Focus studies of contrasting species and systems are required to develop our understanding of “models” since the environment under water is more complex than in air and there is a diversity of photosynthetic mechanisms (i.e. C3, C4, CAM, and bicarbonate use) in aquatic species.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

OK to sort of add to the confusion.. A study:
Note that all photoperiods were run to give the same DLI...

https://journals.ashs.org/horttech/view/journals/horttech/28/4/article-p453.xml











> The greater NAR with a longer photoperiod may have resulted from greater photosynthetic light-use efficiency at lower PPF because PPF decreased with increasing photoperiod while still providing the same DLI (Vlahos et al., 1991). In addition, the longer petioles produced under the longer photoperiods (described under “Morphological properties”) may increase NAR by reducing the distance between the leaf surfaces and the light sources. On the other hand, the LAR decreased significantly with increasing photoperiod (Table 3) but its effect on RGR was smaller than that of NAR. The lower LAR with a longer photoperiod indicates that the longer photoperiod (or the shorter dark period) reduces leaf extension at a constant DLI.


Of course these are high light plants. most aquatics are more technically low light plants..

Interesting table:


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

The experiment in post #21 above is more about light intensity than light period or DLI. Strong light grow compact plants and weak light grow tall plants. The same applies to our aquariums.


----------



## bbuswell (Oct 21, 2019)

Edward said:


> Those who like diving know how fast light comes and just as fast disappears. Here is a chart of PAR bellow water level. The most active light is only 4 hours a day from 10:00 to 14:00. To translate this chart to home aquarium, divide the PAR by ten. Then we get 2 hours 40 PAR from 8:00 to 10:00, then 4 hours 100 PAR from 10:00 to 14:00, and then 2 hours 40 PAR from 14:00 to 16:00. Total period of 8 hours a day and 560 PAR/hours a day.
> 
> 
> ```
> ...


Very helpful and insightful information. I am going to ramp up and down my lights as you and other have suggested. If I discover anything interesting I'll certainly report my findings. I enjoy this learning as much as the tank...


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Edward said:


> The experiment in post #21 above is more about light intensity than light period or DLI. Strong light grow compact plants and weak light grow tall plants. The same applies to our aquariums.



Actually the real meat of the above was comparing real daylight to different amount of photoperiods w/ the SAME overall photons in a day (DLI)


Morphology, dry weight and ect are different..









NOTE Each photoperiod supplied the SAME number of photons in the light period.. 


350/8 = 230/12= ect. ect.. 

Ignore for this discussion VS daylight DLI..


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Regardless the original experiment intention, the stronger light produced more compact plants and the weaker light produced taller plants. As I mentioned above, the same shape variations we observe in our aquariums too. Light energy, or DLI, or PAR/hours a day affects nutrient requirements. Light intensity, or PAR affects plant shape.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Edward said:


> Regardless the original experiment intention, the stronger light produced more compact plants and the weaker light produced taller plants. As I mentioned above, the same shape variations we observe in our aquariums too. Light energy, or DLI, or PAR/hours a day affects nutrient requirements. Light intensity, or PAR affects plant shape.



Technically there was no stronger or weaker light..over time.. 
I get what you are thinking though...Most of what you are referring to usually applies mostly to Red vs blue light though..
i've "dwarfed" plants using blue light vs stretching them via red light ..No exact PAR measurements but it was mostly morphological differences not "growth" per se.. increased biomass.

Dry weight (judge of actual growth products) more than doubled between the EXACT same amount of light over a 24hr period than the SAME amount of photons over an 8 hr photoperiod regardless of height.

I see they used red heavy blue "horticulture" type LED array..


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

jeffkrol said:


> Technically there was no stronger or weaker light..over time..


 Are you trying to say that 350 PPF is not stronger light than 115 PPF? That’s like saying 350 PAR is not stronger light than 115 PAR. Both, PPF and PAR are measures of intensity, not quantity per time. So again, is 350 PPF not stronger than 115 PPF?


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Edward said:


> Are you trying to say that 350 PPF is not stronger light than 115 PPF? That’s like saying 350 PAR is not stronger light than 115 PAR. Both, PPF and PAR are measures of intensity, not quantity per time. So again, is 350 PPF not stronger than 115 PPF?


I said over time.. 

350 "PAR" over 8hrs is = 115"PAR" over 24hours..and the effects..



Point of DLI...
Not referring to "point" measurements.


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

jeffkrol said:


> I said over time..


 There is no such thing as PPF over time.


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Edward said:


> There is no such thing as PPF over time.





> *PPF* is photosynthetic photon flux. PPF measures the total amount of PAR that is produced by a lighting system each second.


 X "x" seconds..(28,800 seconds per 8 hours)

PPF over time .. 

DLI




> μmol m-2s-1 x (,3600 x photoperiod) / 1,000,000 = DLI
> 
> - μmol m-2s-1 is a reading, or averaged readings, from the quantum meter
> 
> ...



Which is in moles/day in the above 

ALL LED photoperiods =10 moles photons per cycle..regardless of "spot measurements"..

The unit used to express PPF is micromoles per second (μmol/s) X 3600 seconds in an hour X "X" hours........ /1 million (umoles to moles) = DLI All photoperiods had equal DLI's or equal amount of light..

DLI is generally considered more "critical" than the spot PPF..

https://www.ledtonic.com/blogs/guid...and-your-plants-ppfd-photoperiod-requirements


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Are the two, 350 PPF and 115 PPF the same light intensities / strengths?


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Edward said:


> Are the two, 350 PPF and 115 PPF the same light intensities / strengths?


Over what amount of time? 
how well would a plant grow w/ 1 second of 350 PPF per day?

how many times was the advice "shorten your photoperiod" given?

The 2 are inseparable..


----------



## Edward (Apr 11, 2005)

Edward said:


> Regardless the original experiment intention, the stronger light produced more compact plants and the weaker light produced taller plants. As I mentioned above, the same shape variations we observe in our aquariums too. Light energy, or DLI, or PAR/hours a day affects nutrient requirements. Light intensity, or PAR affects plant shape.
> 
> 
> jeffkrol said:
> ...


Really?


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Edward said:


> Really?


I don't know what you think I'm missing and what you aren't understanding.....


Photosynthesis is an assembly line requiring parts..
Photons are one of those parts.
Assuming all other parts are readily available if you capture 300 photons/hr for 4 hours you will assemble 1200 "products"
If you get 150 photons for 8 hours you assemble 1200 "products" 



Yes there are/could be some differences between the 2 but most of the time it will favor the slower, steadier "supply" of photons.
CO2 could be recharged due to atm turnover, intermediary consumed/altered products could be formed 

If intensity is "overwhelming" the system (photo saturation) some photons may be discarded in secondary systems.
Too much O2 may be produced ect....




> the photosynthesis of submerged *leaves of Potamogeton and Myriophyllum was light saturated at a quantum flux of 200 μE m−2 s−1*. Saturation of photosynthesis with CO2, however, could not be achieved, even at 3500 μl ℓ−1 CO2. In contrast, *floating or aerial leaves of these plants showed saturation with light only at or above a quantum flux of 1200 μE m−2 s−1.* In floating leaves of _Potamogeton_ photosynthesis was saturated at 1000 μl ℓ−1 CO2 and in aerial leaves of _Myriophyllum_ saturation was being approached at 2100 μl ℓ−1 CO2.The high resistance of submerged leaves to CO2 transfer makes accurate measurements of photosynthesis and photorespiration difficult. Apparent photosynthesis, though, was stimulated in 2% O2 and inhibited in 50% O2 compared with the rates in air. Oxygen sensitive CO2 evolution into CO2-free air in the light was measured and compensation points of 31 to 75 μl ℓ−1 CO2 were determined. These observations indicate that photorespiration exists in submerged aquatic vascular plants, but the rate of the process cannot be accurately measured.
> 
> 
> *An Einstein is defined as a mole of photons.*
> *Therefore: µEinsteins per m2 per second is identical to µmoles per m2 per second. 1000 µE m-2 s-1 ≡ 1000 µmol m-2 s-1*


Technically photosaturation occurs at 200 PPF.....and light starts to get wasted..
Of course all of this is species dependent and generally not a concern considering the "usual" levels of light "we" use.... unless you run out of CO2 ect..AS seen in the above..
Exposed to the air leaves can take 1200 PPF just fine.
Again light intensity.. presented in a vacuum, has little meaning..


https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1139/b77-337




> Submerged shoots require less light to saturate photosynthesis and have generally lower light compensation points at air levels of CO2. It is unclear whether or not this is partly caused by the interacting effect of CO2.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304377089900594



I don't take high light levels for granted btw, since most will run a fairly consistent "PAR" over 8-12 hours one can judge the overall effect BUT still doesn't change the fact that one can compensate for a lower PPF level w/ a longer photoperiod and vice vera.
Obviously some common sense needs to apply.
As I've said before ..It's complicated.. and frankly not all worked out.
Yes, some plants require more light than others to err "live long and prosper".. 
Some low light plants may suffer if exposed to long periods of "high" light..


One last comment:


> A high supply of CO2 can help the plant to conserve other essential nutrients, and if CO2 is plentiful, aquatic plants can grow even with less light. We discussed this phenomenon inTAG Vol. 14 No. 1, Jan. – Mar. 2001, where we used submersed Ric-cia fluitans as a study plant. In brief, our study showed that elevated CO2in planted aquaria could maintain the same plant growth but at lower light and nitrogen supply


https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4984/1e626fcadc6081d1549ce1609739f6eadee8.pdf

Bump: OK, one more thing..
NOTE: "high light" refer to *high DLI*.. not err high light..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_light_integral#Normal_ranges


> DLI affects many plant traits. Although not all plants respond in the same way, some general trends are found:[6]
> 
> *Leaf anatomy*
> High light increases leaf thickness, either because of an increase in the number of cell layers within the leaf, and/or because of an increase in the cells within a cell layer. The density of a leaf increases a well, and so does the leaf dry mass per area (LMA). There are also more stomata per mm2.
> ...


And..
https://www.greenhousemag.com/article/gm0915-photosynthesis-plant-light-dli/


https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.c...ltivators-can-factor-dli-into-lighting-plans/


> “The photoperiod during vegetative growth is 18 hours, and then the photoperiod during flowering is 12, as of right now. For the sake of this example let’s simplify the math and say that you applied 500 PPFD in veg and 500 PPFD in flower. You still have two very different DLIs because the length of time that light is applied is very different.”
> 
> An 18-hour photoperiod in veg with 500 micromoles per metered square per second calculates to a DLI of 32, for example. In flower, a 12-hour photoperiod at the same light intensity level is a DLI of 21.
> 
> “When growers … choose the same light level for both stages, they still have a completely different level of light accumulation.


One more.. 
https://www.ledgrowlightsdepot.com/...ight-intensity-factors-for-your-indoor-plants


> Daily Light Integral (DLI)
> 
> PPFD is a point measurement of light intensity, but what the plants really care about is the total number of photosynthetically active photons that they are absorbing each day.


----------



## bbuswell (Oct 21, 2019)

To close this thread out I wanted share the Fluval settings I think need for the desired par. The 72" BeamWorks gives me ~30 par directly underneath it at the substrate. Probably don't even need it but it takes the shadow off the back wall. I'm not sure how to tune the spectrum of the Fluval's so the attached is based on their "Daylight" preset values. Looks like I need to run at approximately 25% of the Fluval values to get down to 50-60 par. I'll slowly bump it up as I get more comfortable with co2, ferts and balancing. Thanks everyone for your help. Cheers!


----------



## burr740 (Feb 19, 2014)

Crank the pink, blue and warm channels. Fill in with the two whites to suit your eyes


----------



## jeffkrol (Jun 5, 2013)

Alternately. try pink, 3 whites equal.. add blue taste..
This is an exercise in look not anything else.

"PAR" should be similar to the "daylight" reading..a bit higher..


----------

