vertical growing

The guy admitted he captioned the picture with the wrong date. How am I wrong when the guy admitted he was wrong and posted false information?Stop acting like a child and get back to the issue. If I can get 1g/Watt in 10 weeks of growth, how much should you get after 16? You should have 1.6g/Watt in case you aren't up on your math. So if you have a vert that gets 1.6 times the g/Watt yield in 1.6 times as long, you are looking at a system that is equal to a standard horizontal one.

RickWhite said:

The guy admitted he captioned the picture with the wrong date. How am I wrong when the guy admitted he was wrong and posted false information?Stop acting like a child and get back to the issue. If I can get 1g/Watt in 10 weeks of growth, how much should you get after 16? You should have 1.6g/Watt in case you aren't up on your math. So if you have a vert that gets 1.6 times the g/Watt yield in 1.6 times as long, you are looking at a system that is equal to a standard horizontal one.

Click to expand...

Funny how you pay no attention to the quotes BTF put up. You said they were different plants? But you aren't going to argue about silly stuff.

Comparing 'your grow' where 'you get 1.0 g/w' to someone else's grow is like comparing apples to oranges. Or at least different kind of apples. (quick what's better a McIntosh or Golden Delicious)

The real comparison is one person doing flat vs. vert.Just becuase you are able to get 1.0 g/w doesn't mean everyone is able to. SO......If I was able to get .5 g/w from a flat grow... then in the same space with the same equipment and the same strain and the same veg time/ total grow time I was able to get .75 g/w... to me that would suggest vert would be better for my situation. EVEN THOUGH neither grow could outproduce 'your grow'.

What are you saying.... that you are better than bigtomatofarmer. That's what it sounds like to me. Why not ask him this?

Hey bigtomatofarmer: Can you compare g/w for your flat grows and your g/w for the vert grows... taking into account total grow time? (that sounds like a question that would actually show something in the 'real world'... not just your academic prowess which resides in your head... the same place 'your grow' lives).

I guess you are not man enough to admit when your wrong, and not man enough to admit you've never grown either.

EDIT: Staying on topic and acting like a child are not mutually exclusive... I think you've demonstrated that quite well for us.

jigfresh said:

Funny how you pay no attention to the quotes BTF put up. You said they were different plants? But you aren't going to argue about silly stuff.

Click to expand...

Funny indeed . Its ok though, I never thought he would. And I found that smiley he wanted <---- There ya go Rick, enjoy yourself!!

I grow for personal use, so I dont bother weighing it. I dont know how many grams per watt I get, and honestly, I dont care. I harvested enough cannabis from that one grow to last me ALL winter . I dont have to start growing again until next year. And thats a great feeling.

Bertha was the biggest and healthiest clone I had. Thats why I named her Bertha. I had another clone I wasnt sure would survive, and by the grace of God she lived. So I named her Grace. She was by far the slowest plant I had. Here is her story........


5/05/09



6/08/09



7/03/09



8/05/09

Hello all, after having been on RIU for several months now and having just read the last 21 pages of this thread, I feel it's time to finally chime in even though this thread has derailed so much but oh well.
In regards to the light intensity and all, Rick White does have it right on. The problem that I think everyone has been having, whether pro vert or not, is that the lumen's per sq.ft. ratio plays such a large part in growing and we are calculating how much is hitting the canopy.
The superiority or vertical growing, is that it allows for a lot more small plants, and the logic in that is that with small plants, you can have a canopy made almost entirely of cola's. How that equates into the lighting is that your lumen's/sq.ft. is going to be directed at more bud canopy (if the term bud canopy seems appropriate) rather than going down past your cola's to only benefit little nugs.
For some simple math, lets say that you have 1 plant per sq. ft. with a horizontal grow, and your cola has only a 4" diameter at the top. that would mean that your bud canopy would be 4"x3.14 per sq ft, or 12.56 sq. inches of 144 sq. inches which equates into roughly 11.4% canopy efficiency. Of course, higher lumen's/sq. ft will allow for more penetration and then you would also need to factor in side illumination but your actual lumens/sq. inch of bud will still be considerably less than if you have a vertical grow using clones vegged for 3 weeks or so packed very tightly on a 45* angle. If packed close enough, you're going to have a lot more bud being hit by the light. If the setup were done correctly, very little light would ever hit the medium of the plants which is a complete waste of light.
It's the same principle that allow's SoG's and ScroG's to be efficient.
If you want evidence as to what is superior, just look at the g/w ratios of vert's using a SoG vs. hor. SoG. But anyway you look at it, the light argument really doesn't factor into the superiority of one over the other because as Rick has pointed out, the lumen's/sq.ft. isn't really changing, we need to step aside on that as Rick has given more than adequate reasoning and logic to illustrate that point and move on to figure out the most efficient ways possible to fill our canopy's with Bud.
Hope that this may help to get this thread on track, and hope that no one finds this to be insulting or whatever, if you do, go hey, he has no posts, he must be a damn noob and continue on with the grows that you're comfortable with and ignore the results of proven and experienced growers. g/w don't lie.

G/W doesn't lie and Heath gets over 2g/w.... doesn't lie. You apparently haven't grown and seen how your light affects a plant canopy.

Vertical growing does grow more efficiently because the lumens are spread equally so you don't have some plants close to the light getting 2x more lux than needed and other plants getting a bare minimum. You also have very little light that is going onto walls (ceiling/floor in a vert) in comparison to what is used in a horizontal set up. If you try to get all the lighting directly onto the canopy in a horizontal setup by putting the light lower... then you are definitely getting way more lux than is needed to the plants near the middle and not enough lux to the plants on the edges which is also wasted light. You also are losing a bunch of lumens from the reflector reflecting the light back at the bulb itself. You also can't deny that no matter how efficient your reflector's labeling says it is, they are still not 100% efficient and ANY loss is still a loss.

You can't escape basic trigonometry and the fact is that vertical growing uses lumens more efficiently no matter how you look at it and wish to deny it. I still have not yet seen anyone post a single logical reason why vertical would be WORSE... you've all tried many times to say that horizontal is just as good but if your reflector is only 97% reflective that is still a 1.5% loss of lighting no matter what just to materials alone... not counting uneven and misdirected lighting.

Now, instead of complaining that horizontal is just as good, prove to me that it is BETTER and that a reflector doesn't cause a loss of light AT ALL.

Redeflect, I believe that you didn't quite get what I was saying, I believe that vertical is THE best way to grow currently known. This thread has gone so far into the ditch from what I believe it's original purpose was that unless we get it back on track now, no one will ever read far enough into it to glean anything useful.
In regards to my comments associated with Rick, his math is solid. The reason why horizontal yields don't compare has to deal with the reflectors and the fact that the footprint of the light isn't going to be even. Plants in the middle get light from all sides where as plants on the edge only get it from a single side.
With Vertical grows, the light is going to be evenly distributed and you can calculate EXACTLY where your plants are place in order for them to receive 5000 lumens/ sq ft where as attempts made to do so in a horizontal setup simply won't work. Plants in center might be recieving 7k+ lumens/ sq ft while ones on the edge are just pushing 3k.
Also, in a vertical grow, no light movers are going to be required to keep the light close to the canopy and g/w ratios given by growers using light movers should include the wattage of the rail in with they're lamps. Same could be said in regards to fans and such but as both grows use them, they will offset each other.
I for one would really like to see what everyone here could come up with to make the vertical grow even more efficient and discontinue any of the arguments against horizontal as they've only served to derail this thread since something like page 7 or 8.
Happy growing to all

This pics for you myxedup, becuase civility is good.

This is 1 Casey Jones plant. The squares in the screen are 2" x 2". The white spots are sulphur powder. We are almost 2 weeks into flowering:

myxedup said:

Redeflect, I believe that you didn't quite get what I was saying, I believe that vertical is THE best way to grow currently known. This thread has gone so far into the ditch from what I believe it's original purpose was that unless we get it back on track now, no one will ever read far enough into it to glean anything useful.
In regards to my comments associated with Rick, his math is solid. The reason why horizontal yields don't compare has to deal with the reflectors and the fact that the footprint of the light isn't going to be even. Plants in the middle get light from all sides where as plants on the edge only get it from a single side.
With Vertical grows, the light is going to be evenly distributed and you can calculate EXACTLY where your plants are place in order for them to receive 5000 lumens/ sq ft where as attempts made to do so in a horizontal setup simply won't work. Plants in center might be recieving 7k+ lumens/ sq ft while ones on the edge are just pushing 3k.
Also, in a vertical grow, no light movers are going to be required to keep the light close to the canopy and g/w ratios given by growers using light movers should include the wattage of the rail in with they're lamps. Same could be said in regards to fans and such but as both grows use them, they will offset each other.
I for one would really like to see what everyone here could come up with to make the vertical grow even more efficient and discontinue any of the arguments against horizontal as they've only served to derail this thread since something like page 7 or 8.
Happy growing to all

Click to expand...

ive read the whole thread and found some great info! i think it's obv. that vertical has the advantage over a normal grow.
i think ill be doing 8 autoflowers in my closet then converting it to vertical, ill be able to fit 24 (3 times the amount)
the pots will be a little smaller 1gal aposed to the 1.5's but i dont think this will make a huge difference,
once my af's show sex id put them in meaning the plants will only be there for 6-8weeks.
i would be seeing atleast a half oz off each plant =12 oz with the 24 1gl. vertical or my 8 oz from 8 1.5gl horizonal(guesstimating,my current pots would produce atleast an oz-dry each, with a good autoflower) if all goes well ill either post my vert setup here or start a journal for it.
thanks for the info and time!

forgot to mention, nice plants everyone
all the fighting should stop.
were here to help eachother not get aneurysms
life's a garden,dig it!

I think you should use what your most comfortable with.

All the chest beating about grams/w and "my setup can beat up your setup" is laughable. There are no verifiable standards, no controls, no designation as to the exact plant material that supposedly was measured, no non-partisan regulatory agency verifying claims or standarizing setups. It's the same ole cannabis forum babble, same ole monkeys.....just hangin' from different branches. Knitting needles anyone?

Grow hard,
UB

AHHH HA! now we are getting some reasonable discussion here. An honest meeting of diverging beliefs does not automatically instigate personal conflict, or at the least it should not.
The problem seems to be is the light used most efficiently AND is the space used SO efficiently that it requires more light. I think Heaths biggest accomplishment is figuring out the right diameter of his vertical column and the appropriate distance that wall needs to be from the light. Its hard to knock the facts of past grows, Heaths/dystopia or Jig's current grow (Vertical Scrog - Casey Jones & Headband clones dwc 650w ) these are pretty hard fact about the efficiency of the setup. Now we really need to understand why its efficient and what its down sides are (like UB had mentioned) and then how do we minimize those downsides. I have settled on this growing style and I will be building a vert grow. I am in the midst of getting a dispensary off the ground and I have been mulling over the idea of having a grow in the waiting room. If the zoning laws will allow a grow, its going to be vert, like a weeping wall. =)

Thanks everyone for trying to get back on track here.

I'm glad we are back on topic.

We are all here to learn and to improve our skills. We should be considering what can be taken away from these conversations, not insulting each other or trying to win at all costs.

Perhaps what is starting to emerge from this thread is that growing a maximum area and staying at the bottom of the LUX sweet spot yields the most bud. Vetrts do this well - that is undeniable. But this can also be done horizontally. Using more smaller bulbs instead of 1 big one distributes the light evenly as do well designed reflectors. Raising your garden perimeter also puts the plants equidistant from the bulb. Light movers also help as does raising your fixture.

The two main criticisms I have with verts is A) That they are complicated and prone to failure in many cases. B) That the shape of a plant (X-mass tree shape) is designed to effectively use light from the top. Efficient side lighting requires training every branch to grow in an unnatural direction in order to avoid shading a full half of the plant. Either that or you must grow high numbers of tiny plants pointing inward. And it is not how the light hits the bud that matters. It is how the light hits the leaves near the bud that matters - that is why they turn sideways if you side light. If you want a demonstration of how top lighting hits more of the plant, get a pine-cone and shine a flashlight on it - first from the top, then from the side. Note how much of the cone is shaded.

Now, granted there are some gains in efficiency with a vert. But I see these as being relatively small and easy to overcome with a horizontal grow as well. The question is, are the gains in efficiency negated by the large area of plant shading. And, are they worth all the hassle of the complex vertical systems.

Alright, I'm enjoying seeing this get on track, now as for the vert having the most even spread of light from the bulbs, I've been working on a grow setup for the last few months that simply can't get off the ground bc of the high startup costs but I suppose we can theory craft here, so....

My thought is to make a flower room involving 3 1k hps running vertically one after another in 8" Cooltubes. the actual grow area will be right at 6ft tall so let's try and figure out a formula so that we are getting right at 5k lumen's/ sq ft to optimize the setup.

Let's go ahead and just simplify it to a single 1k bulb lighting a 2ft tall area. We know that our goal is 5k lumens
so let's go ahead and divide our lumen output by the desired lumen/sq ft value. In this case 145,000/5000 which gives us 29 sq. ft to work with.

Divide that number by the height of your grow. In this case 2 ft. So 29/2=14.5=our desired circumference C=2*3.14*R.
So 14.5=2*3.14*R
R=14.5/[2*3.14]
R= 2.3'

Now if my math is correct, (Haven&#8217;t done much math in a good 7 or 8 years) my grow plants should be placed right at 2&#8217; 4&#8221; away from my bulbs.

Formula for everyone else to figure out they&#8217;re optimum distance from bulbs:
Lumen output/desired lumen saturation=max canopy surface
Max canopy surface/height of grow=Circumference of grow
Radius=circumference/[2*3.14]

O/L=S
S/H=C
C=2*3.14*R ==> equates to R=C/[2*3.14] or R=C/6.28

O=lumen output
L=desired lumen saturation
S=max canopy surface area
H=height of grow
C=circumference of grow
R=radius

If anyone could plz just doublecheck my math and let me know what you all think

Decided to edit again, if 5k lumens/sq ft is the maximum usable, the laws of diminishing returns may make a goal of 3.5k to 4.5k or so more viable for producing more bud but i certainly could be wrong. I do believe however that once my grow is up and running i'll keep my plants approximately 3 ft from the bulbs resulting in about 3.8k lumens/sq. ft. which will allow for a few more plants or a little bit more space for the plants that will already be there if they are too crowded.

Any thoughts on this line of reasoning, plz post

myxedup said:

Alright, I'm enjoying seeing this get on track, now as for the vert having the most even spread of light from the bulbs, I've been working on a grow setup for the last few months that simply can't get off the ground bc of the high startup costs but I suppose we can theory craft here, so....

My thought is to make a flower room involving 3 1k hps running vertically one after another in 8" Cooltubes. the actual grow area will be right at 6ft tall so let's try and figure out a formula so that we are getting right at 5k lumen's/ sq ft to optimize the setup.

Let's go ahead and just simplify it to a single 1k bulb lighting a 2ft tall area. We know that our goal is 5k lumens
so let's go ahead and divide our lumen output by the desired lumen/sq ft value. In this case 145,000/5000 which gives us 29 sq. ft to work with.

Divide that number by the height of your grow. In this case 2 ft. So 29/2=14.5=our desired circumference C=2*3.14*R.
So 14.5=2*3.14*R
R=14.5/[2*3.14]
R= 2.3'

Now if my math is correct, (Haven’t done much math in a good 7 or 8 years) my grow plants should be placed right at 2’ 4” away from my bulbs.

Formula for everyone else to figure out they’re optimum distance from bulbs:
Lumen output/desired lumen saturation=max canopy surface
Max canopy surface/height of grow=Circumference of grow
Radius=circumference/[2*3.14]

O/L=S
S/H=C
C=2*3.14*R ==> equates to R=C/[2*3.14] or R=C/6.28

O=lumen output
L=desired lumen saturation
S=max canopy surface area
H=height of grow
C=circumference of grow
R=radius

If anyone could plz just doublecheck my math and let me know what you all think

Decided to edit again, if 5k lumens/sq ft is the maximum usable, the laws of diminishing returns may make a goal of 3.5k to 4.5k or so more viable for producing more bud but i certainly could be wrong. I do believe however that once my grow is up and running i'll keep my plants approximately 3 ft from the bulbs resulting in about 3.8k lumens/sq. ft. which will allow for a few more plants or a little bit more space for the plants that will already be there if they are too crowded.

Any thoughts on this line of reasoning, plz post

Click to expand...

im too baked to test your math, your mean inches, not feet right?just had to make sure..
are you using a diy cooltube i cant remember if i saw the bake'a'round's here.
hope all goes well

I couldn't follow that.

Circumference has nothing to do with it. Did you mean diameter? To figure your area you use diameter or twice the radius X 3.14 X height. Or 3.14(diameter)(height)

A diameter of 4.1' gives you 5,000LUX at 2' high. At 7.7' diameter you would have 3,000LUX. That would give 48.3' square at 2' high. At 3' high this would give you 5' diameter.

At 5' you get a 15' circumference 3' high so you could grow about 7, 3' high plants. If you get 5oz per plant you will hit 1g/Watt.

myxedup said:

Alright, I'm enjoying seeing this get on track, now as for the vert having the most even spread of light from the bulbs, I've been working on a grow setup for the last few months that simply can't get off the ground bc of the high startup costs but I suppose we can theory craft here, so....

My thought is to make a flower room involving 3 1k hps running vertically one after another in 8" Cooltubes. the actual grow area will be right at 6ft tall so let's try and figure out a formula so that we are getting right at 5k lumen's/ sq ft to optimize the setup.

Let's go ahead and just simplify it to a single 1k bulb lighting a 2ft tall area. We know that our goal is 5k lumens
so let's go ahead and divide our lumen output by the desired lumen/sq ft value. In this case 145,000/5000 which gives us 29 sq. ft to work with.

Divide that number by the height of your grow. In this case 2 ft. So 29/2=14.5=our desired circumference C=2*3.14*R.
So 14.5=2*3.14*R
R=14.5/[2*3.14]
R= 2.3'

Now if my math is correct, (Haven’t done much math in a good 7 or 8 years) my grow plants should be placed right at 2’ 4” away from my bulbs.

Formula for everyone else to figure out they’re optimum distance from bulbs:
Lumen output/desired lumen saturation=max canopy surface
Max canopy surface/height of grow=Circumference of grow
Radius=circumference/[2*3.14]

O/L=S
S/H=C
C=2*3.14*R ==> equates to R=C/[2*3.14] or R=C/6.28

O=lumen output
L=desired lumen saturation
S=max canopy surface area
H=height of grow
C=circumference of grow
R=radius

If anyone could plz just doublecheck my math and let me know what you all think

Decided to edit again, if 5k lumens/sq ft is the maximum usable, the laws of diminishing returns may make a goal of 3.5k to 4.5k or so more viable for producing more bud but i certainly could be wrong. I do believe however that once my grow is up and running i'll keep my plants approximately 3 ft from the bulbs resulting in about 3.8k lumens/sq. ft. which will allow for a few more plants or a little bit more space for the plants that will already be there if they are too crowded.

Any thoughts on this line of reasoning, plz post

Click to expand...

My last two grows have been six 7' trees in a circle around 1kw hps's. One scrogged to a circle of chicken wire the other free standing trees.

The scrog worked best with a 4' screen diameter and I'd suggest 2k not 3 unless you sink the grow containers in your floor or have 9' ceilings. 2k can perfectly cover the area the plants actually have to grow in.

The free standing trees worked out best spaced a good half foot further out though so they didn't crowd eachother out too much. Of course that is strain and training dependant and temp and humidity probably too a bit but I played with things and got a feel for what seemed to work best distance wise on ea.

I'm sold on vertical, the returns are insanely high even with the hack job cheap shit 1k grows I did recently. 2.5lbs per light without even thinking about it 3.5 would have been easily attainable given a more proper setup up to 4 or more had I stacked lights like you are talking about.

For years people have shown what vertical can do and what it's drawbacks are but everything has it's place.

i want to have my pots on shelves (soiless mix not hydro)
and just train my clones over the edge ,to face my light (im using 4 t5's and 2 13inch coolwhitebulbs for veg.)
a couple weeks after training i want to throw them in the vert closet with my hps,
does anyone know about using soil with a vertical grow?
i just want to make sure im not wasting my time
thanks in advance

Myxedup...

Yes, I appologize. I had realized afterwards that you were speaking the opposite of what I had originally interpreted. I was just too lazy to bother editing my post.





RickWhite...

You are forgetting that smaller bulbs are less efficient... 4 150watt bulbs is 60,000 lumens while a 600watt bulb is 90,000 lumens. That's a 50% increase in lighting which makes it the better choice without a doubt. However, for the sake of arguing light distribution... we'll pretend that the 600watt bulbs only give off 60,000 lumens.

Using more smaller bulbs as opposed to 1 big bulb PARTIALLY distributes the light evenly... if the bulbs are 1/4 the lumens then the lux is reduced 2x as fast the farther you get from the bulb.

Assuming that I had a 4x4 area... Plants at the edges of my grow under the bigger light(about 3ft away) would be receiving just as much lux as plants on the outskirts of the 150watt lights (about 1.5ft away). 1/4 the lumens but half the distance gets the exact same lux. You still have the lighting distributed just as unevenly, only rather than the plants farther from the center receiving less lighting, there are parts throughout the entire area 4x4 receiving not as much lighting.

The fact is that even disregarding efficiency, bigger bulbs can be better if you have a full canopy. The only true advantage smaller bulbs have is that they cover multiple angles. In my opinion the higher efficiency of the bigger bulbs is a far greater advantage, particularly because plants can grow larger without worrying about penetration too far from the bulb.



As for your criticisms, vertical lighting is NO MORE prone to failure than horizontal... why would it be? The bulb runs cooler so it lasts longer and is less likely to overheat/break. As long as you don't let your plants grow so big and unbalanced that they fall over then there is no disadvantage vertical growing has in regards to failure.

Next, addressing you stating that it is more complicated. It is more complicated to setup only because you have to know how big your plants are going to get and that you aren't simply putting things on one surface which means you have to think 3-dimensionally as opposed to simply 2-dimensionally. Vertical growing does require some extra planning and some extra investment, but that DOESN'T mean it is more complicated to operate. It is just as simple to grow under vertical as it is horizontal. No offense intended, but just because you may have some difficulty understanding the factors that play a part in setting up a vertical grow does not make it a worse method... simply, a method that isn't for everyone if they can't consider the different factors that will play a part in their grow ahead of time. Your opinion is that it is more complicated, my opinion is that it requires a little more planning ahead of time and in the end is a superior method.



Now, covering the fact that you argued the shape of the plant. The only reason plants grow into a "christmas tree shape" is because they attempt to grow as tall as possible so that they aren't shaded by other objects. You are forgetting that plants grow upwards because that is where the lighting is. Plants given lighting from the side grow to the sides. Clones grow in a "christmas tree shape" only because a particular bud site happens to be closest to the lighting and the auxins in the plant designate that as the site that is the "tallest" and so it grows even more and in the end shows significantly more growth than the other bud sites. I've topped and fimmed and supercropped plants and I can guarantee you that very few growers grow "christmas tree shaped" plants indoors simply because it can be very space consuming and inefficient(the main budsight is usually very close to the lighting and may be receiving more than 10x as much lux as needed while shading a large area farther away). A "christmas tree shape" is only natural in nature because the sun moves and is always of the greatest intensity perpendicular to the ground.

Plants given light from the top shade buds on the bottom. Plants given light from the side shade buds on the opposite side. Lighting plants from the top does not cause any more lighting to reach the plant, if anything lighting a plant from the side that had originally been growing upwards increases lighting to the plant because the plant then covers a larger footprint(the "stretch" is then to the side rather than upwards). The buds on the opposite side of the plant may get little light, but there are more buds on the side closest to the light growing than there would be if you simply grew from the top with the bottom buds in shade.

I don't understand how you can say that from the top there is less shading than from the side... and then argue that there is also more light hitting the plant from the top. If the side growth is shaded more, that is because the plant is effectively taking in the light on one side before it can reach the other. I don't know about you but when I point a flashlight at the tip of a pinecone, it is barely being lit but when I light it up from the side I have the entire length of the pinecone covered in lighting. Perhaps your pinecone is "unnaturally" shaped?

A 3ft tall plant that is 1ft in diameter only absorbs light in less than a one square foot area if lighted from the top. If it were lit from the side it would receive light in a footprint more along the lines of 2 square feet(the top is thinner so doesn't cover as much area)

In my opinion when I look at your "christmas tree shaped" plants from the bottom, they are COMPLETELY SHADED... how is it that u get buds at all with a completely shaded plant? When I look at it from the side, the inner parts of the plant are being shaded from the top. You can't guage how much of a plant is receiving light by trying to judge how much shade it has, but by looking at how much of it is being lit. That is common sense logic. I can guarantee you without a doubt... "A plant taller than it is wide receives more light from the side." Call me Dr. Seuss.

RickWhite said:

If you want a demonstration of how top lighting hits more of the plant, get a pine-cone and shine a flashlight on it - first from the top, then from the side. Note how much of the cone is shaded.

Click to expand...

wow you just dug yourself a hole here!

shine a light from the top, then from the side, and there is more shade created from side lighting.

BUT

there is more light hitting the pine cone from the side too because the quality (intensity) of light hitting from the top is mostly crap.

more light will be hitting a pine cone from side lighting than from top lighting because there is more surface area exposed to the light.

your example makes side lighting look like a better option, while fully missing the point being made by the vert fans.

well done