3D backgrounds, yay or nay?

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
By definition a 3D background has to "stick out" from the back panel. And that's the main problem with 3D backgrounds imo, especially the thicker ones, you're taking away valuable swimming volume for the fish.

But in a big tank, if fitted correctly to avoid gaps where fish can disappear, there is no denying that they can look pretty spectacular.
 
1730651757741.png
In the 6 ft tank above, I shaved off about 4" from the thickest parts of the background, and filled in some gaps the shaving left bare, with great stuff pond and stone.
I assumed once algae started growing it would look more natural.
But ....I moved before I got a chance to see it, and gave the tank away when I moved.
 
Try the calculator yourself they are ridiculously expensive.

I did the calculation for my 750gal for the 'Thin Rocky' (US$ 1,410) and the 'Massive Rocky' (US$ 2,512) backgrounds. I have the 'Malawi Rock' background from Universal Rocks (US$ 1,545). I looked at Aquadecor backgrounds when I was shopping for one and I didn't like the look of them. I preferred what I saw at Universal Rocks.
 
I haven't done a 3D background as most take up a lot of front to back space IMO. Also, as others have mentioned fish tend to get stuck behind them unless you silicone or do individual show rocks. I do however have a couple sets of Universal Rocks faux rocks. They look great and are lighter then natural so there is not much water loss. I can sleep at night when my fish dig as I don't have to worry about granite/limestone crashing into the glass.
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com