Utopian Submarine - 2000W, Indoor, Perpetual
- Thread starter Green Utopia
- Start date
looking very good WP
Aberration
New Member
Re: Post SCROG removal Pics
If you have a camera that makes the standard adjustments, I think you raise the aperture number to increase the depth of field. You will end up with a slower shutter speed though, so if you have a tripod, use it. Of course, by then it's nice to use a remote trigger or timer. I think I'm starting to ramble. Can a camera person chime in and check me here?
And angle the ruler to the right some by rotating around the long axis.
Looking real good WP.
This damn shot with ruler... I've tried about 500 pics so far of all the plants with a ruler and can NOT get the ruler and the plant in focus at the same time, with the ruler in the right place, without the flash glaring out the numbers. Here's the 1 in 500.
If you have a camera that makes the standard adjustments, I think you raise the aperture number to increase the depth of field. You will end up with a slower shutter speed though, so if you have a tripod, use it. Of course, by then it's nice to use a remote trigger or timer. I think I'm starting to ramble. Can a camera person chime in and check me here?
And angle the ruler to the right some by rotating around the long axis.
Looking real good WP.
- Thread starter
- #263
Green Utopia
New Member
Re: Post SCROG removal Pics
Thanks!! That's definitely not rambling. I can never remember when I should use aperture or shutter priority. And I do have a tripod here somewhere that I will dig out - you're right I should have been using it all along.
All the other stuff, I was doing. You should see me trying to hold myself, the plant, the camera, angle the ruler, adjust the settings on the camera one handed, do it again. Was ridiculous. I'd get one thing right and everything else go to shit.
The camera is just a 7mp digital. Not a DSLR and the focal point when zoomed vs wide is exactly at the wrong spot for getting a good shot from arms length. I'd love to have a removable lens.
I have got to figure out a pnemonic to remember that lower aperture = shallower depth of field. Dang T stops and F stops.
SO - please feel free to clog up these pages with photog tips! I'd love to talk cameras.
If you have a camera that makes the standard adjustments, I think you raise the aperture number to increase the depth of field. You will end up with a slower shutter speed though, so if you have a tripod, use it. Of course, by then it's nice to use a remote trigger or timer. I think I'm starting to ramble. Can a camera person chime in and check me here?
And angle the ruler to the right some by rotating around the long axis.
Looking real good WP.
Thanks!! That's definitely not rambling. I can never remember when I should use aperture or shutter priority. And I do have a tripod here somewhere that I will dig out - you're right I should have been using it all along.
All the other stuff, I was doing. You should see me trying to hold myself, the plant, the camera, angle the ruler, adjust the settings on the camera one handed, do it again. Was ridiculous. I'd get one thing right and everything else go to shit.
The camera is just a 7mp digital. Not a DSLR and the focal point when zoomed vs wide is exactly at the wrong spot for getting a good shot from arms length. I'd love to have a removable lens.
I have got to figure out a pnemonic to remember that lower aperture = shallower depth of field. Dang T stops and F stops.
SO - please feel free to clog up these pages with photog tips! I'd love to talk cameras.
- Thread starter
- #264
Green Utopia
New Member
... snip ...
PS: If you're having trouble getting staples into those tiles, pre-drill them with a masonry bit and fill the holes with epoxy!
That's from Usul's journal - but I don't want to clutter his thread any more. But mine on the other hand...
I gotta say that made me laugh out loud. I am just stoned enough that I was reading it seriously until the little guy rolling around laughing. I literally laughed out loud.
OldMedUser
Formerly Known as LabRat
It made me laugh when I thought about it and I'm only high on caffeine at the moment. Lots and lots of caffeine! Time to medicate tho. 
C'ya.
C'ya.
- Thread starter
- #266
Green Utopia
New Member
Bad Lights? and other good update
Morning Update:
All's well in the sub. Except - I am sure that at least one or both of the HPS bulbs is less than 100%. There is a noticeable difference in their colors. And one is brighter, but as weird as this sounds - its hard to tell which is brighter. So, hopefully the hydro store has them in stock and that's a quick $200 I didn't have. More poor planning on my part. I knew I was gonna have to replace them after this grow, I should have done it already - at least had the bulbs here.
LabRat, or anyone else - I have a MH bulb here. I'm in the second week of flower with one batch under the HPS. Do you think I should swap out for the MH now?
LST is going well - I am gonna track down the bulbs, and take care of the day's chores in the room, then I'll post pics from 3 days apart. I'm trying to grow a tall AK around the rim of a 6" net pot. So far so good. Its fun.
Also, the other clones are all doing well. The other moms will get some lst today for the first time, and the flowering clones seem to be chugging along fine. I'll check roots on them later.
The NYCD and AK plants that are a week into flower are doing well. It is really amazing the difference between the Diesel I FIMd vs the others. I gotta wait to see what happens with the LST, but both seem like they are really useful and usable techniques in this size space. I think I may actually end up preferring the LST because I have limited horizontal space as well as Vert, so the LST lets me pretty much grow the plant in whatever shape best fits.
I've decided for the time being that the SCROG is really best used only if you can veg in it. Otherwise the other techniques provide greater versatility and movement - which in a room this size becomes necessary.
And finally, the biguns are looking good. I'm pretty sure the AK will finish a few weeks before the others. At least I hope so. I hope the others take their sweet time and fatten the hell up. The AK buds now are about the size of my thumb. And she really has started to explode with crystals. Still very hairy. I definitely know which plant of my last batch this seed came from. Same crazy hairs and what I would call a very high bud to leaf ratio. Pruning is a snap. She was actually the last to finish last time. But that was 5 AK seeds.
This time around all the plants have stretched much more than last time. I'm really starting to worry about how bad this light has been. But I have also gotten the room far more sealed as regards the CO2 so that may be it as well. And the buds do seem to be gaining weight appropriately. I have never grown 2 out of 3 of these strains so I really have no idea how long they'll go. Its hard to say how long the stretch was cause they were in the scrog for part of it. The dog hair seems to still be stretching a little - judging by distance to the light. This would mean a 5 week stretch for her - which would definitely lead me to believe she could be a Jack Herer. I reallllllllllly hope so. That was the best smoke I got last year and there was one seed in the bag.
Wholly sheeeeeit that was a long one!
Morning Update:
All's well in the sub. Except - I am sure that at least one or both of the HPS bulbs is less than 100%. There is a noticeable difference in their colors. And one is brighter, but as weird as this sounds - its hard to tell which is brighter. So, hopefully the hydro store has them in stock and that's a quick $200 I didn't have. More poor planning on my part. I knew I was gonna have to replace them after this grow, I should have done it already - at least had the bulbs here.
LabRat, or anyone else - I have a MH bulb here. I'm in the second week of flower with one batch under the HPS. Do you think I should swap out for the MH now?
LST is going well - I am gonna track down the bulbs, and take care of the day's chores in the room, then I'll post pics from 3 days apart. I'm trying to grow a tall AK around the rim of a 6" net pot. So far so good. Its fun.
Also, the other clones are all doing well. The other moms will get some lst today for the first time, and the flowering clones seem to be chugging along fine. I'll check roots on them later.
The NYCD and AK plants that are a week into flower are doing well. It is really amazing the difference between the Diesel I FIMd vs the others. I gotta wait to see what happens with the LST, but both seem like they are really useful and usable techniques in this size space. I think I may actually end up preferring the LST because I have limited horizontal space as well as Vert, so the LST lets me pretty much grow the plant in whatever shape best fits.
I've decided for the time being that the SCROG is really best used only if you can veg in it. Otherwise the other techniques provide greater versatility and movement - which in a room this size becomes necessary.
And finally, the biguns are looking good. I'm pretty sure the AK will finish a few weeks before the others. At least I hope so. I hope the others take their sweet time and fatten the hell up. The AK buds now are about the size of my thumb. And she really has started to explode with crystals. Still very hairy. I definitely know which plant of my last batch this seed came from. Same crazy hairs and what I would call a very high bud to leaf ratio. Pruning is a snap. She was actually the last to finish last time. But that was 5 AK seeds.
This time around all the plants have stretched much more than last time. I'm really starting to worry about how bad this light has been. But I have also gotten the room far more sealed as regards the CO2 so that may be it as well. And the buds do seem to be gaining weight appropriately. I have never grown 2 out of 3 of these strains so I really have no idea how long they'll go. Its hard to say how long the stretch was cause they were in the scrog for part of it. The dog hair seems to still be stretching a little - judging by distance to the light. This would mean a 5 week stretch for her - which would definitely lead me to believe she could be a Jack Herer. I reallllllllllly hope so. That was the best smoke I got last year and there was one seed in the bag.
Wholly sheeeeeit that was a long one!
OldMedUser
Formerly Known as LabRat
Hey WP.
Using MH for the first couple weeks of flower is supposed to limit stretch so I'd throw that MH on there pronto. I added my 400W MH to the two 400W HPS for the extra energy but I can't tell after a few days if it makes any difference. I used HPS only for the stretch and I got lots of that. Don't expect to see fat buds until 3 or 4 weeks no matter what light you're using. Even if your old HPS is less than perfect they only drop to about 85% output when the tube is almost all black inside then they usually die.
I would probably do better with the $150 grow bulbs but I go with what I got with no regrets.
Using MH for the first couple weeks of flower is supposed to limit stretch so I'd throw that MH on there pronto. I added my 400W MH to the two 400W HPS for the extra energy but I can't tell after a few days if it makes any difference. I used HPS only for the stretch and I got lots of that. Don't expect to see fat buds until 3 or 4 weeks no matter what light you're using. Even if your old HPS is less than perfect they only drop to about 85% output when the tube is almost all black inside then they usually die.
I would probably do better with the $150 grow bulbs but I go with what I got with no regrets.
- Thread starter
- #268
Green Utopia
New Member
That's very helpful and comforting. The MH is a conversion bulb so it goes in the same HPS fixture - so one or the other for me right now. Although - that's not a bad idea for next week.
Hi Whiskey Papa I did what you suggested and flushed with Clearex .
Now we see what happens.
Now we see what happens.
- Thread starter
- #270
Green Utopia
New Member
Hi Whiskey Papa I did what you suggested and flushed with Clearex .
Now we see what happens.
I don't think it can hurt - that's for sure! I have been following closely in your thread, mostly lurking I guess, but I'm really super curious to see if she kicks in from either the bag or the Clearex. The extra darkness seemed like a good idea, I had not thought of or heard of before. Shame about the winds.
I'm really pulling for you, not that you really need it. But yours was one of the first journals I read and I really relate to the roller coaster ride you have been on for a first grow. I have been around growers since 1991 when I went to college in Petaluma, CA. I grew once in college - what a joke that was. A 150MH in clay. I hung the light in a closet at the top and never moved it. I had 2 beautiful 5 foot tall twigs. I think total yield was a gram of leaf.
I've seen prolly 50 different setups since '92. Talked to many growers. And of course smoked weed on 3 different continents - and basically still had to have an experienced grower hold my hand through my first grow last year. Now I'm on my 3rd and 4th and I am just now starting to feel like I understand most of the basics.
Anyways - power to ya. Here's hoping the clearex makes her jump. And at the very least, I promise she will taste better if you get fed up!
- Thread starter
- #271
Green Utopia
New Member
I know I said I wasn't gonna respond individually - but it just feels too weird. The least I can do is thank you for checking out my gals.
G - your plants are looking Great! I know I said this in your thread - but your house just seems like it has a good vibe to it. And thanks for the added info about the culturing. That was the stuff I was trying to get to. Filled in a bunch of gaps for me.
Screwnuts - Thanks! Your plants are the model of health so I really appreciate the compliment!
MI-grower
Well-Known Member
Dude ur ladies are looking very healthy bro....
Great job!!
Great job!!
- Thread starter
- #273
Green Utopia
New Member
Thanks! I really like both your journals. I think we have similar ways of looking at the plants, and I've certainly gained more than a little help from your stuff.
- Thread starter
- #275
Green Utopia
New Member
Thanx, your grows and answers are a joy!
Well that makes it a win-win. Cause I certainly get satisfaction from sharing my thoughts. I have a tendency to sound like I'm sure of something when I'm not. Its very helpful when folks like yourself that are in the know, give me a little reinforcement.
Also, is the Hospitality Team a new promotion for you? I know I always enjoy your comments everywhere I see them, but I never noticed the title before.
edit: I was gonna delete the above line, but then I figured I'd man up and apologize. I confused two names - Joe Coffee and CocoJoe. So, that having been said - thanks double triple times again CocoJoe.
P.S - And Joe Coffee - you would make a great addition to the hospitality team as well.
Well, what can I say man. You are a very talented individual. I just read your grow from start to finish. AMAZING is all that comes to mind. Keep it up! I will be paying CLOSE attention to this one.
Although a lens can only bring objects at a single distance from the camera into critically sharp focus, other parts of the scene in front of and behind the most sharply focused plane appear acceptably sharp. The area in which everything looks sharp is called depth of field. Objects within the depth of field become less and less sharp the farther they are from the plane of critical focus. As the distance increases, things eventually become so out of focus that they no longer appear sharp at all. The near and far edges of your depth of field are usually not visible as exactly defined boundaries. Instead, sharp areas imperceptibly merge into unsharp ones. At normal shooting distances, about one-third of the depth of field is in front of the plane of critical focus (toward the camera), and two-thirds is behind it (away from the camera). When the camera is focused very close to an object, the depth of field becomes more evenly divided.
To see the depth of field on an SLR-type camera, you press a depth of field preview button that stops down the aperture to the one that will be used to take the photo. On point and shoot digital cameras, the best way to check depth of field is to take a trial picture and then play it back on the monitor where most cameras will let you zoom it and then scroll around it to examine details.
Often it doesn't matter so much exactly what you are focused on. What does matter is whether or not all of the objects you want to be sharp are within the available depth of field so they appear sharp. There are reasons you may want parts sharp or not. You may want only a part of the setup in sharp focus to give it emphasis against a softer foreground or background. On the other hand you may want everything sharp to show details. To control how deep or shallow depth of field is, you have three factors to work with.
* Aperture size. The smaller the size of the lens aperture (the larger the f-number), the greater the depth of field. The larger the aperture, the shallower the depth of field.
* Camera-to-subject distance. As you move father from the subject you are focused on, you increase depth of field. As you move closer, you decrease it.
* Lens focal length. Zooming out to a wider angle of view increases depth of field. Zooming in decreases it.
Each of these three factors affects depth of field by itself, but even more so in combination. You can get the shallowest depth of field with a lens zoomed in on a nearby subject using a large aperture. You get the deepest depth of field when you are farther from a subject, with the lens zoomed to a wide angle, and using a small aperture.
When you get the camera really close, don't expect much depth of field. It's best to arrange the objects so the most important part falls on the same plane. That way, if part of it is in focus, all of it will be. Another thing to try with a zoom lens, is to use a wider angle of view. This will give you more depth of field if you don't also have to move the camera closer to the subject (doing so will offset the advantage of the wide-angle lens).
Shallow depth of field has its own benefits, so you don't necessarily have to think of it as a problem. An out-of-focus foreground or background can help isolate a subject, making it stand out sharply.
Hope that this helps!
Aberration said:
Although a lens can only bring objects at a single distance from the camera into critically sharp focus, other parts of the scene in front of and behind the most sharply focused plane appear acceptably sharp. The area in which everything looks sharp is called depth of field. Objects within the depth of field become less and less sharp the farther they are from the plane of critical focus. As the distance increases, things eventually become so out of focus that they no longer appear sharp at all. The near and far edges of your depth of field are usually not visible as exactly defined boundaries. Instead, sharp areas imperceptibly merge into unsharp ones. At normal shooting distances, about one-third of the depth of field is in front of the plane of critical focus (toward the camera), and two-thirds is behind it (away from the camera). When the camera is focused very close to an object, the depth of field becomes more evenly divided.
To see the depth of field on an SLR-type camera, you press a depth of field preview button that stops down the aperture to the one that will be used to take the photo. On point and shoot digital cameras, the best way to check depth of field is to take a trial picture and then play it back on the monitor where most cameras will let you zoom it and then scroll around it to examine details.
Often it doesn't matter so much exactly what you are focused on. What does matter is whether or not all of the objects you want to be sharp are within the available depth of field so they appear sharp. There are reasons you may want parts sharp or not. You may want only a part of the setup in sharp focus to give it emphasis against a softer foreground or background. On the other hand you may want everything sharp to show details. To control how deep or shallow depth of field is, you have three factors to work with.
* Aperture size. The smaller the size of the lens aperture (the larger the f-number), the greater the depth of field. The larger the aperture, the shallower the depth of field.
* Camera-to-subject distance. As you move father from the subject you are focused on, you increase depth of field. As you move closer, you decrease it.
* Lens focal length. Zooming out to a wider angle of view increases depth of field. Zooming in decreases it.
Each of these three factors affects depth of field by itself, but even more so in combination. You can get the shallowest depth of field with a lens zoomed in on a nearby subject using a large aperture. You get the deepest depth of field when you are farther from a subject, with the lens zoomed to a wide angle, and using a small aperture.
When you get the camera really close, don't expect much depth of field. It's best to arrange the objects so the most important part falls on the same plane. That way, if part of it is in focus, all of it will be. Another thing to try with a zoom lens, is to use a wider angle of view. This will give you more depth of field if you don't also have to move the camera closer to the subject (doing so will offset the advantage of the wide-angle lens).
Shallow depth of field has its own benefits, so you don't necessarily have to think of it as a problem. An out-of-focus foreground or background can help isolate a subject, making it stand out sharply.
Hope that this helps!
- Thread starter
- #277
Green Utopia
New Member
Velodrone - that's awesome info. And thanks for the compliments, I have been enjoying your journal immensely as well.
I have a complete mental block on being able to get those combinations of aperture, shutter speed and focal length clear in my head.
You and Aberration can prolly know BEFORE you change the setting what you will expect the camera to do. For me its more like flipping a coin. About half the time I get what I expected. Then I make smaller moves from there.
I am fascinated by digital imaging so please - anyone who has any thoughts on this stuff - speak up.
I'll start a further convo by asking:
1. - Why is one called an F stop? Why is one called a T stop? I could google this but I'll ask it here.
2. - The real goal when I'm adjusting those things is usually to try to get as much light to the dark areas as possible, while not blowing out the image. I'm rarely using the depth of field for effect - its a result of setting the other stuff. Do you guys have a good way of thinking about that process? ie try to set one or the other first? And btw - the more I think about it - the more I realize a tripod is not really optional if I'm gonna try for predictable results.
I have a complete mental block on being able to get those combinations of aperture, shutter speed and focal length clear in my head.
You and Aberration can prolly know BEFORE you change the setting what you will expect the camera to do. For me its more like flipping a coin. About half the time I get what I expected. Then I make smaller moves from there.
I am fascinated by digital imaging so please - anyone who has any thoughts on this stuff - speak up.
I'll start a further convo by asking:
1. - Why is one called an F stop? Why is one called a T stop? I could google this but I'll ask it here.
2. - The real goal when I'm adjusting those things is usually to try to get as much light to the dark areas as possible, while not blowing out the image. I'm rarely using the depth of field for effect - its a result of setting the other stuff. Do you guys have a good way of thinking about that process? ie try to set one or the other first? And btw - the more I think about it - the more I realize a tripod is not really optional if I'm gonna try for predictable results.
Well that makes it a win-win. Cause I certainly get satisfaction from sharing my thoughts. I have a tendency to sound like I'm sure of something when I'm not. Its very helpful when folks like yourself that are in the know, give me a little reinforcement.
Also, is the Hospitality Team a new promotion for you? I know I always enjoy your comments everywhere I see them, but I never noticed the title before.
edit: I was gonna delete the above line, but then I figured I'd man up and apologize. I confused two names - Joe Coffee and CocoJoe. So, that having been said - thanks double triple times again CocoJoe.
P.S - And Joe Coffee - you would make a great addition to the hospitality team as well.
I love your name change. Yes it is new for me. I try to tell the truth, but in this hobby there is alot of gray, instead of black and white. If we meet are needs growing, we're all good. I'll try to stop by as much as I can, but thar is aloot to cover! Joe Coffee is a great guy too. sorry about the confusion, even gets me somtimes. Laters!
MI-grower
Well-Known Member
WOW
man!!I guess all you learned from me is what not to do....lol...
I glad you have learned some thing from me....Please inform me of what that was bro....hahaha
Best of luck to ya man.....
Aberration
New Member
I'm just an amateur with an expensive camera, but I hang out with several photographers. That's why I asked someone to check me. I like the name change too.