3D backgrounds, yay or nay?

esoxlucius

Balaclava Bot Butcher
MFK Member
Dec 30, 2015
3,925
15,052
194
UK
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.
 

duanes

MFK Moderators
Staff member
Moderator
MFK Member
Jun 7, 2007
21,492
27,397
2,910
Isla Taboga Panama via Milwaukee
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.
 

ken31cay

Dovii
MFK Member
Dec 25, 2022
360
647
105
Cayman Islands
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.
 

Bwirtz

Feeder Fish
Nov 7, 2024
4
4
3
44
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.
 
zoomed.com
hikariusa.com
aqaimports.com
Store