L134 - Yellow/black or White/black?

Tuti · Post by **Tuti** » 09 Apr 2005, 22:37

Hello,

We have a discussion here that the L134 also can be White and black, but I think that it can only be Yellow and black. Can anybode tell me more about the true color pattern of the L134?

Thanks!

Line · Post by **Line** » 10 Apr 2005, 00:03

Hello

As youngsters they are yellow / black.
Adults aren't white/black, but beige / black or dark brown. IMHO

Regards
Line

ClayT101 · Post by **ClayT101** » 10 Apr 2005, 00:18

I've never seen one that is white and black. I've seen about 30 specimans in total.

dancingdryad · Post by **dancingdryad** » 10 Apr 2005, 10:02

The ones I had varied, in the day they were more yellow going whiter at night and early in the morning. The larger male was very clearly black and white but with an attractive yellow tint to his fins all the time. When he died the next largest male went from being more yellowy and black to black and white with the yellowy tinted fins. The smaller fish were very yellow most of the time but did change to clear black and white too.

Maybe it's something to do with mood or dominance?

PlecoCrazy · Post by **PlecoCrazy** » 12 Apr 2005, 05:10

I have eight L134's that I got half from two different sources and the yellow seems to vary a little bit but they are all yellow. Even all of the fish I did not buy that were still left where all yellow and black/brown stripes. They can become quite flushed out when stressed however. I have never seen or heard of a black and white one.

If there was one, somebody would probably be trying to sell it as a L173 or something.

Fish Soup · Post by **Fish Soup** » 12 Apr 2005, 08:00

This is the whitest one I've seen pictured. Still has some yellow though.

http://www.aquabid.com/cgi-bin/auction/closed.cgi

Don

Fish Soup · Post by **Fish Soup** » 12 Apr 2005, 08:10

Well, that didn't work! Ad was from "Lotsoffish". Shows a very white L134.

Don

Tuti · Post by **Tuti** » 12 Apr 2005, 08:37

Thanks for your answers everybody. I've only seen yellow with black L134's, so that's why I thought it. I think now that it will be depending on their mood or something.

ClayT101 · Post by **ClayT101** » 12 Apr 2005, 14:50

Fish Soup wrote:Well, that didn't work! Ad was from "Lotsoffish". Shows a very white L134.

Don

Well, I've seen that pic, and it looks yellow to me. That is where I got mine from. When I was at his store, he had about 30 of them, and they all appeared yellow/black to me. I was lucky, I got to see all of them and choose the "best" one, IMO

That was 8 months ago, so I am sure that he has new shipments since then.

Fish Soup · Post by **Fish Soup** » 12 Apr 2005, 15:48

Looks mostly white to me.

IMAGE FILE REMOVED BY MODERATOR (PET) DUE TO COPYRIGHT VIOLATION

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 12 Apr 2005, 16:18

I've not seen any L134, white or yellow, so I can't comment on that part of the matter.

However, a picture that is taken with a digital camera (or a film-based camera and then scanned) will have something called a "white-balance". Most digital cameras (and scanners) have manual and automatic settings for this. In automatic mode, the camera will try to interpret the situation, and adjust so that the colours look "natural".

If you use a regular film-camera and your average film that you buy in the supermarket [1], printing without colour adjusting, and take photos indoors with regular light-bulbs, the picture will look very yellow, whilst outdoors on an overcast day, it would be quite "blue". In doing the same thing with digital, both pictures should look "neutral", i.e. neither yellow-ish, nor blue-ish.

Now, the picture of the L134 in the post above, we have no clue as to what processing has been done on it, or what settings was on the camera/scanner. It's sure looking white, but if you set the camera to "indoors" [or the camera thinks that this is the best automatic setting], the lighter colour would have a reduction in yellow, making it look more white. Same if the photo was processed in something like photoshop, and adjusted for white-balance using for instance an "Auto" setting.

Or, if the producer of the picture actually wanted the fish to look more white on purpose, you could certainly use the white-balance setting of the camera and/or the post-processing to make it look whiter. I'm not saying that the poster WANTED this, just that it CAN be done.

[1] Advanced photographers using film will use filters and special types of film, such as "Tungsten film" for indoors. But your average Kodak Gold or similar, will be balanced for average outdoors mostly sunny conditions and work reasonably well with flash.

--
Mats

pturley · Post by **pturley** » 12 Apr 2005, 18:18

Fish Soup: It is considered particularly bad form to use someone's picture without permission and not provide the proper photo credits. In fact, it's illegal as it violates the owner's copyrights to the image.

The picture in your post above was taken by a friend of mine. Remove it...

Fish Soup · Post by **Fish Soup** » 12 Apr 2005, 21:18

I did say that this was from Pete's (lotsoffish) auction. The link would not work because the action had ended. I'm surely not taking credit for the photo. I was just showing an example of a L134 with a lot of white on it as was asked in the original post.

Although I do not know Pete I have bought from him. He's an awesome dealer. In fact he's sending me three A. claro tomorrow. He can email me if he's upset with with me. Sorry if I've upset anyone else. It was not my intention. Just trying to be helpful.

Don

pturley · Post by **pturley** » 13 Apr 2005, 04:52

Simply put: Regardless of your relations with Pete, you are not allowed to use images taken by somebody else on this site without getting permission FIRST, regardless of purpose or intent.

Now please edit the above post or I will. Nothing personal, it's just the rules.

pturley · Post by **pturley** » 14 Apr 2005, 17:14

Edit completed.

stina · Post by **stina** » 14 Apr 2005, 18:03

If you change 30% of the picture, then it is not illegal...usualy it takes only background job...
Not that i have anything to do with that but it is good to know!

Now back to topic, i think this is the same situation as with L333 and L201(regarding white or yellow spots)
- i could be wrong!

regards

Mika · Post by **Mika** » 14 Apr 2005, 18:41

Here is one variant of L 134

From the Rio Jamaxin (Brazil) comes one of the most attractive members of the genus Peckoltia. L 134 is very variably marked: as well as individuals with stripes there are also specimens with large round spots on the body. It is not known whether this difference in colouration denotes sex, but in at least one pair showing the usual sexual differences (longer head and caudal peduncle, as well as enlarged and pointed pectoral and ventral fins in males) the male was striped and the female spotted. The L-number 134 was erroneously allocated a second time, to a Lasiancistrus-like catfish, which later received the replacement number 143. Our L 134 fish were imported with a shipment of mainly L 360

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 18 Apr 2005, 09:47

stina wrote:If you change 30% of the picture, then it is not illegal...usualy it takes only background job...
Not that i have anything to do with that but it is good to know!

I don't think that's correct (99% sure). If you haven't got the right to use the picture in the first place, then you have NO RIGHT to modify it for any purpose, and thus you can't publish a modified version of it.

--
Mats

LeopardFrog · Post by **LeopardFrog** » 18 Apr 2005, 11:48

The DMCA is one of the most ridiculous peices of legislation conceived (barring the PATRIOT Act... and Oliver Cromwell banning dancing...). It crushes freedom of research in favour of corporate greed; it's a licence to print money for old rope and punish the little guy.

I favour:

BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971)
Article 10

(1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries.

(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union, and for special agreements existing or to be concluded between them, to permit the utilization, to the extent justified by the purpose, of literary or artistic works by way of illustration in publications, broadcasts or sound or visual recordings for teaching, provided such utilization is compatible with fair practice.

(3) Where use is made of works in accordance with the preceding paragraphs of this Article, mention shall be made of the source, and of the name of the author, if it appears thereon.

So, now I am going to put my money where my mouth is:

Here are some L-134s. Anyone can do anything they like with them so long as they credit me as the author and do not make any profit from them... Go, spread em everywhere! Let the beautiful butterflies of peace dance freely through the digital undertow etc etc etc...

Problem solved!

[/b]

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 22 Apr 2005, 22:41

I don't think that's correct (99% sure). If you haven't got the right to use the picture in the first place, then you have NO RIGHT to modify it for any purpose, and thus you can't publish a modified version of it.

OK, but say I take a photograph of the picture spending lots of effort on making it look a bit different. It's a weak argument. Perhaps the bottom line is that the law is behind technology.

Jools

LeopardFrog · Post by **LeopardFrog** » 23 Apr 2005, 08:25

Ok, I acknowledge the forum rules here and personally have a certain amount of understanding for the need of them. But also being a Glaswegian I like a good rammy hahahaha!

There is a fine line in all legislation by its nature. I think few artists would find IP legislation at all sensible (plaigarism aside). And then, there is the logical question of whether somebody can truly own an image of a fish, since I could legally take a picture of that same fish with the same camera and under IP law that image is then mine.

I think the lawyers have gotten their oars in way too deep here (see "lunatics taking over the asylum"). We now have a situation where people are actually scared to share information for even research purposes... and that would be just plain old silly if it wasn't such a serious position.

On a personal level I fail to see how someone can claim moral ownership of a fish, let alone its likeness. We need to resist this corporte bullying and get back to common sense!

*rant over*

BACK TO TOPIC:

My leopard frogs (l-134) seem to be usually creamy yellow with almost orange fins when happy. They naturally have darker striping at night and when unstressed. The yellow can become quite pale; but I have yet to see an L134 that I could describe to be truly black & white like a Zebra or Arabesque.

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 25 Apr 2005, 11:00

Jools wrote:
I don't think that's correct (99% sure). If you haven't got the right to use the picture in the first place, then you have NO RIGHT to modify it for any purpose, and thus you can't publish a modified version of it.
OK, but say I take a photograph of the picture spending lots of effort on making it look a bit different. It's a weak argument. Perhaps the bottom line is that the law is behind technology.

Jools

Now, if I display a photograph in a public place, and you take a photograph of my photograph, then you have every right to that. However, you have no right to the ORIGINAL photo that I put up there.

More importantly, if I put a photo on a web-site, it doesn't give everyone else the right to go copy that photo and use it for their own personal purposes. If they ask me first, fine [assuming I say yes]. Or of course, if I e-mail/send a CD/etc with one or more photos, that I give permission to use...

But just because it's on "the 'net", doesn't mean that it's not copyrighted, correct?

LeopardFrog: If I take a picture of something, and you later on take an identical photo of the same thing, then you have the rights to your photo, and I have the rights to mine. There's nothing in the law that prevents you from doing so. But, when it comes to the crunch of it, you'll probably better be prepared to PROVE that you took the photo (for example by providing a negative, or original from the digital camera). Or for instance show that the shadows are different, the fish has moved, etc.

I'm not afraid of sharing my photos. They are here (when it comes to "Fishy ones). But that doesn't mean that OTHERS can use them for their sharing... I spent time on taking those photos (and money buying the camera/lenses used). If anyone actually want's to use any of those photos, let me know, and I won't cause a fuss.

--
Mats

LeopardFrog · Post by **LeopardFrog** » 27 Apr 2005, 12:35

Mats,

where do you think the law would stand if you took a photograph and I composed a photograph that in a blind test was indentical??? I just find that we are being bullied into an emergent legal system designed merely to suck every penny out of anything that moves (i.e. the US Compensation Culture: "Where there's blame; there's a claim")

We get stupidity like Bob Dylan successfully suing Apple for using DyLAN... despite the fact he was born Zimmermann and pinched the moniker off some dead bloke called Dylan Thomas...

The more serious side of the US bludgeoning its own legal lunacy on the rest of the world (through the WTO/World Bank) is companies terrorising 3rd World countries into paying them royalties for drug derivatives and GM grain (and even forcing countries into having GM grain) through the WTO; when they can't really afford it.

Under the Berne convention no-one needs to assert their copyright. But not all countries have signed up to that legislation (try asserting your copyright in the Middle East for laugh! Though we can expect Iraq's shiney new "democracy" to toe the line... already forced into Monsanto GM) This however hasn't deterred the US from acting as though its DMCA legistlation is International Law (see Adobe E-book debacle).

Don't get me wrong, I am not against people protecting their livelihood, but I feel the situation has exceeded commonsense. We now have a situation where the notion of Intellectual Property is constraining research and progress (see ridiculous proliferation of patents and anti reverse engineering laws); is bullying people to protect monopolies from natural redunancy (see Napster)... Intellectual Ambulance Chasing would be a more apt description of the practice of IP legislation.

I mean, how was this fish seller materially damaged by some guy posting his picture (and crediting him)??? Does he make a living selling that little jpeg??? Seems to me that having that picture and credit there would actually be more of a material benefit: more people will see the nice fish and some will want it; people will be a little more informed about the fish. Fair enough if someone took the image and stuck it in their book and made money off it.

On that basis, I can see that it would be fairly easy for a plaintif to prosecute a Takedown Notice with an ISP but would be very shocked if a judge would even entertain the idea remedying damages. Who lost what???

So, I can understand that websites get twitchy about posting other peoples stuff... but I feel that in this case it was just used an excuse for some little guy to swing his billyclub. Which is pretty sad.

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 27 Apr 2005, 13:42

I'm not going to comment on every point you make, but just quickly reply with this:

I'm not a personal fan of all things that you mention, far from. However, I believe it is the photographers (and code-writers, engineers, etc) right to say when, how and why his/her image or work is being used. This used to be fairly easy in the old days, because you couldn't really (trivially) use someone elses image without having the original slide or negative. In todays world, it's different, because digital images are as good after a hundred generations of copying as they were in the first place.

But just like a hammer is a great tool that if used incorrectly can be used for murder, doesn't make the tool evil, I don't think a decent copyright law is evil in and of itself. It's the way (some) people USE the law that is possibly evil.

I'm definitely not a fan of the "compensation culture", and I don't think it's right to sell GM crops to poor countries, that are specifically genetically modified to not generate a second crop from saving some of the seeds of the plant from previous year, for instance.

Likewise, an example that you may appreciate, is the Linux/Free software foundation code-base. This code is Copyrighted (or copyleft as it's sometimes called), but it's also available for anyone to use, EXCEPT if you want to use it in a product, you have to supply source code for this product for administration charges. Without a copyright law, this would not work from a legal perspective.

--
Mats

blackcountryboy · Post by **blackcountryboy** » 07 Jul 2017, 12:06

I know this is an old post but i have a young L134 black and white 1.5 inches long

YSR50 · Post by **YSR50** » 07 Jul 2017, 14:29

Just color variations

L134 - Yellow/black or White/black?

L134 - Yellow/black or White/black?

Re: L134 - Yellow/black or White/black?

Re: L134 - Yellow/black or White/black?