Shark, Kuramathi Island Maldives, Multi Award Winning Photograph

realy a pleasing photograph, very tough to capture such scenes has been successfully done by felix hug in a creative way with excellent composition and great details...

I didn't see this coming! I honestly thought everyone would just gush over this photo and Im a little surprised by all the critiques, all valid points I never would have thought of myself.

 

One thing that grabs me ... a lot of people are criticizing this picture for not capturing a sense of motion. David, for instance, wants to see a blur of tail. But, if one thinks about how sharks and fish react in the wild, this is a very accurate depiction, I think. In general, sharks are very slow and deliberate. Of course, they move quickly when they attack, but most of the time, they just lazily cruise in circles. By the same token, fish don't run away from danger in the way that, say, deer do. They don't just haul ass out of the area. Instead they flit and circle and move quickly, but for very small distances. That's what's going on here ... the shark is lazily cruising around and the fish are circling out of his way. Both are watchful, but neither is really doing anything yet. You are all criticizing him for not photgraphing the storm properly when what he photographed was the calm before the storm. Yes, the storm may have been a better picture, but that wasn't what he saw. That, Sam, is why I like this so much.

 

Yes, Mona, sometimes we just have to accept that the picture that was in front of us is what we get and it's not all that it might have been. But, where does one draw the line with that sort of thought? It would have been better with the shark in a different position, sure. It also would have been better if there had been two sharks! Or three! Or a narwhale! For me, the question is, did the photographer do the best that he could with the scene in front of him? Could he have gotten a better composition with the elements that were there? It's impossible to say without seeing a wider view, but I think he did a damn fine job.

i suspect this would work a bit better if (for purposes of presentation) the photographer would rotate it 90 degrees clockwise. it still doesn't solve the problem of looking like a rubber shark at the bottom of a california movie mogul's aquarium. OK, if that's too harsh, how about an impotent vegetarian shark in a failed bond villain's under-sea aquarium and the result of some misguided genetic experiments. any way you slice this: sure the tiny fish are avoiding it, but not with any urgency beyond shuffling around a sea sponge tumbling along the sandy floor.

 

sometimes things don't quite work out in the best possible way and the photographer is not to blame. that said, a diagonal shark could have been produced simply by twisting the camera a bit.

Bill, I think the line is where we don't accept it just because it was the best we could do. The

goal should be to have all of the elements come together-the moment, the composition, the

execution etc. Maybe a moment was missed here or maybe there was never a better

composition to be had, we don't know that, but we know if the photo works for us or it

doesn't and shouldn't that be the line?

Point to you, Mona ... you are right. It's a hard line between judging whether the photographer did the best that he or she could do and whether the photo is the best that it could be. How much credit should one give the photographer for trying in a difficult circumstance and how much should one say "screw that ... I'm sorry if it was difficult, but all I care about is the end result." Although it sounds harsh, the second response is the more correct one I feel and I do too often err if favor of appreciating the work involved instead of the end result. That said, I still think this works for me as it illustrates, not the action but the silent moment and the restrained power before the action.

It certainly is a striking photograph regardless of how it was made. I like the fact that it doesn't conform to "Camera Club rules. The only thing that seems a little "Fishy" to me is that if the capture of the image was from a natural environment and not created on dry land, why is there no shadow of the shark or diver on the bottom? Also, the shadow cast on the body of the shark by the dorsal fin suggests an artificial light source coming in at an oblique angle unless the sun was under water. Is the image a composite of more than one photograph?

Maybe it's because I'm not a photographer (John Seward and I are competing for rank amateur of the year, by our own admission), and I haven't studied rules of composition and what makes a good photograph, but I tend to the view that this is a superb shot of an incredible natural phenomenon. Life (and especially wildlife) isn't always a feeding frenzy, there is also beauty in the calm laziness of a cruising predator.

To those who criticise this shot for it's compositional failures, I would just suggest that you try to look past the trees and see the wood. The whole is often greater than the sum of its parts. If you drive a Hummer, then don't complain about the pain in your wallet *wink*

 

If you look very carefully, up and slightly to the right, around about where the edge of the shoal is, you can make out the shadow of the shark on the sea bottom. Looks like very strong, bright sunlight striking from the high and lower left to me...

Me sorprende la originalidad que aporta el angulo cenital, que permite observar la

distancia critica con respecto al depredador.

 

Tambien me seduce el mensaje parabolico que nos habla de la soledad de los poderosos,

que estan constantemente rodeados de gente que les teme.

 

Excelente se mire por donde se mire.

 

Enhorabuena.

I just read the thread and saw there was a lot of criticism about the composition so far. For example: "There doesn't seem to be any imminent danger. There's no tail blur - no sense of speed. The crowd feels very detached from the shark." - David Roossien. Or : "There is no connection made between the shark and the smaller fish." - Mona Chrome."This one doesn't grab me, and I think that is because of the fairly static composition." - Sam M-M. On the other side of the rainbow, this picture has received multiple awards, and here is what Nick Scholte wrote: "In my opinion, this is among the BEST compositions I have ever seen - precisely because it does bend the "rules" with respect to composition."

 

So, what about this composition ? Firstly, I would like to observe that a picture is not JUST a composition. It is also the CHOICE OF A SUBJECT MATTER, a CAMERA ANGLE, and THE CAPTURE OF A MOMENT IN TIME, etc. I think, if we are to understand why this picture received several awards, we have to be a little humble and wonder what the strong points about this picture would be. Imo, the subject matter is a real stunner. That alone sets it apart and above many other photos in a competition. What are the odds for someone to find himself ABOVE a shark in the first place ? And then what are the odds to have a little story going on with many small fishes swimming away around this shark in an almost perfect oval shape ?! I find really weird, that some people who criticized the composition of this POW would not even mention about the picture's great originality.

 

Now, let's talk about composition... To me, this picture is hardly composed at all. I don't think it's a great composition, but I think it WORKS great for the purpose of the picture. The purpose, as I see it, being to simply tell us the story of a shark surrounded by its potential victims, which wisely swim away. We all understand this story, don't we ?

 

Some of you thought this picture should have been MORE DRAMATIC & MORE DYNAMIC. I'm simply asking: why so ? Do we really need an increase of our adrenaline ? I thought, that's what sex was for, no ? :-)) I agree that this picture is fairly QUIET, but so is the sea... and why does it matter so much whether the shark is horizontally or diagonally placed within the frame ? Try moving the shark diagonally using PS, just for the sake of this study, and you will note then, that the picture won't have gain much in terms of dynamism. What gives this STATIC feel, indeed, to the photo, is simply the symetrical (centralized) composition, where the main subject is furthermore surrounded by a circular (oval) shape. Such centralization is unavoidably going to deliver fairly static images. So what ?! What's wrong with a fairly static representation of a dynamic subject in motion ? I find it rather interesting - something different.

 

I can't agree with those who said that there was NO CONNECTION between shark and small fishes. Unless you mean that there is no connection between the perimeter of a circle and its center... The connection is geometric, here. The shark is in the middle and all small fishes try to escape in a geometrical pattern. That's exactly the connection, and I believe we all see it. So why ask for another one ? The composition of this picture simply co?ides exactly with the essence of the photo - its story. I get a sense of peace and natural order here. I even get the feel that the sun is peacefully watching above this scene, thanks to these beautiful sun reflections. Are they "distracting" ? By no means ! They are NATURAL. They are just a couple of bright areas in the background, visually far less powerful than the shark, and than the oval shape around. They don't get my direct attention. They just add a little silence and peace in the sea. I love this paradox of a quiet and natural, expected, daily, murder scene, taking place in a silent world, with no screams at all.

 

"A rubber shark at the bottom of a california movie mogul's aquarium". How would such a camera angle possibly give you the sense of urgency you are asking for? Why do we need to feel this urgency in the first place? What gives you the impression of this being a rubber shark? Would the color of the shark be partly responsible for this?

 

The shark stands out in the dead center already, so the visually very strong color of the shark in contrast with these grey surroundings, ends up really nailing the shark in the middle as the center of attention. This adds to the static feel imo, and it even gave me, at first sight, the impression, that a color manipulation might have taken place here. But, no... This picture wasn't manipulated, according to the data sheet. So we may now wonder whether this impressive color contrast is a good or a bad thing. It surely adds to the static feel. And I see this as a part of this picture's great originality, which consists in showing in a quiet way what everyone would expect to be depicted as something dramatic. The laws of nature are not dramatic- that's a human judgement -: they simply are what they are.

 

As for the choice of this POW, among a couple of other great shots in Felix's folders, I'd like to imagine that originality is what set this one apart, and why this picture received several awards... I think this POW is really one of the most unusual and interesting POWs we ever had. Asking for more drama and dynamism here is asking to the photographer to stop thinking out of the box. Let'm swim ! :-)

Congratulations Felix, on POW and the recognition that accompanies this honour. If nothing else, being chosen as POW offers exposure of your fine work to those of us who havenﾒt been fortunate enough to see it before. Thanks to the elves for that once again.

 

As usual, it is with great delight that I have waded my way through the clichéd critiques of the regular ﾓmoanersﾔ that frequent this forum. I disagree with most of their ﾓimprovementsﾔ and criticisms not because they are technically incorrect or unfounded, but because my appreciation of this photograph, seemingly unlike their's, is a subjective one rooted in an emotional connection with the subject matter. I believe that a photographﾒs impact upon an individual is dependent upon an emotional connection of some sort at least (even if itﾒs just your imagination) without which, the image is purely a collection of tones and colours, whether random or contrived, merely invoking the technical ramblings of those in pursuit of a scribe or hero icon.

 

Sam M-M requested ﾓfor those of you whom it strikes and grabs, please let me know whyﾔ. So this is what this photograph does for me, Sam. I have spent my life at the beaches of the east coast of Australia and have witnessed this wonder of nature, as described by Nikos Moraitakis in his June 2004 critique of this photograph, during the yearly en-masse migration of bait fish to the gutters and shoals of the beaches and the predatory response of the local shark population. Itﾒs a publicized yearly event here and is covered by the local news services with aerial video from choppers and sub-surface footage from intrepid divers. Thereﾒs always some die hard board riders dangling their legs in the ﾓsoupﾔ of bait fish as itﾒs carved open by a meandering shark. Itﾒs really exciting stuff. When viewed from the air, these schools of bait fish present a black void, in the blue/green of the ocean foreshore, extending for kilometers along beaches and hundreds of metres wide. The sound from in the water (with head submerged) is a rustling sort of clicking sound that changes pitch in time with the directional changes of the school. When added to the adrenalin rush of all those scary sharks about, itﾒs quite a buzz.

 

So Sam, when I view the POW, I get to relive all those sights, sounds, feelings and emotions (not forgetting the smell and taste of the salt water). I see a familiar sight and the familiar erratic movement of the schooling fish. I can almost anticipate the movement of the ﾓindecisiveﾔ fish in the photograph at 1 oﾒclock to the shark. I feel I know the path they have followed and the path they will be driven to take in this symphony of survival. And below, the meandering shark continues to ﾓyank their chainﾔ. Maybe he wonﾒt feed today, maybe he will. There it is Sam.

 

For me, the colour temp is a moot point because in the wild you donﾒt necessarily see things in ﾓactualﾔ or ﾓappropriateﾔ colours when youﾒre scared, excited or in awe. As for the ﾓIﾒve seen a better or more dynamic sceneﾔ argumentﾅ. show us how you captured it in cameraﾅ.it always looks different to the eye (unless itﾒs contrived). As for ﾓthe angle of the shark needs to be this way or that wayﾔﾅsave it for the nudes critique forum.

 

A top shot of a wonder of nature that, regrettably, not many forum frequenters seem to have had the sheer delight of experiencing.

 

Great capture Felix. Nice choice elves. Nice critique Marc G. Iﾒm going back for another look!

I can relate to this photo on two levels, as a photographer and as a sea kayaker. I have seen water this clear near the reefs off the north coast of Cuba (near Camaguey) in a sit-on-top "kayak" that I rented from the locals. I find it a credible and a powerful image. The ocean can look exactly like this near coral reefs. It does not evoke in me the sense of looking down into the aquarium, but of looking down into ten- to twenty-foot deep water in the open ocean near shore or reef. I also love schooling fish, whether I see them in the ocean or in an aquarium. One can't capture their movement in a still photo, but one can capture that sense of the way they move together. Sharks often laze along, and schooling fish typically simply get out of their way. Somestimes one can look straight down and see every sea urchin on the bottom. This photo speaks to me. I love it.

 

Congratulations, Felix, on having this named Photo of the Week.

 

--Lannie

You are right about the sense of calm, which is the typical state of nature. the fish don't need video games to be happy and generally just swim along quietly and without any sense of urgency. yet somehow the shallow water and so much sun robs the image of any deep sea solemnity (or my steretypic expectations), though i suspect getting more detail in a larger version would probably cure that too. in all, it is a very nice picture, but not something to go nuts over the way some people are.

 

one thing i am curious about is where the photographer was standing/swimming when he took this. why is there no shadow of his presence, given that it appears the sun is very much overhead. not an accusation of a montage, just wondering how it all came about.

First of all, congrats Felix on a great capture. I think the technical elements are all in line. I would see this photograph in National Geopgrahic no problem, as part of a documentary series.

 

A problem with POW is the lack of context. The POW is never pigeonholed and some folks may have difficulty changning their foothold from a certain type of photography to the next, documentary, fine art, architecture, etc...

 

As a natural documentary shot, your representation is tops.

 

I do have a comment on originality however...

 

Marc G. wrote:

 

"I find really weird, that some people who criticized the composition of this POW would not even mention about the picture's great originality."

 

I feel that underwater pictures always get a certain WOW factor from the general audience because a large percentage of the population doesn't dive often or not at all. The fact that we don't see a certain scene in our normal activities doesn't make it more orginal by any stretch. That kind of objectivity is difficult to reach, I admit. But this is what sharks do and I bet any photographer here that would spend the time in the right location with diving training could get the same result (not to downgrade Felix's work). IMO, accessibility is what made this image win many contests...

 

On the 'static' issue I have the following to say: I think our brain 'knows' what this image represents and yearns it to continue in time. But we're halted by the physical limit of photography. So in general, I believe a scene like this will inadvertantly be a lot better for most in a filmed format. For those, I suggest viewing the spectacular documentary series 'The Blue Planet'. Perhaps you'll even enjoy this image more after. For the rest, let's marvel at a fine piece of nature, captured with respect.

The sun is not directly overhead, but seems to be coming from slightly "below" and to the left, if the shadow of the dorsal fin (on the other fin) is any indication.

 

The depth of the water is indeterminate from the picture alone, although it cannot be too deep, and it is almost impossible to tell how far the bottom is below the fish. The shadow of the shark might thus be in the darker bottom area to the top of the photo. Shadows also tend to become diffused if the light is coming from many angles, as it will if it has to travel through waves. In truly deep water, artificial lighting would have to be used.

 

The water would have to be absolutely and perfectly still to get this from a standing position, and even then one would tend to get at least a partial reflection from the sky. It surely must have been shot underwater, probably during snorkeling--or through a glass-bottomed boat, but that seems unlikely. (Can the D100 be waterproofed? I presume that the answer is "yes.")

 

The patterns on the bottom indicate that there were waves on the surface, and that the light was the natural light of the sun coming through those waves.

 

I must say that I think that it would be a bit better with a slight shift toward blue, based on my own experience with colors in fairly shallow tropical waters on a sunny day, but it is still very nice.

 

--Lannie

"somehow the shallow water and so much sun robs the image of any deep sea solemnity (or my steretypic expectations)"

 

Interesting... How deep do you all think this water is ? Imo, not very deep at all. I'd say there's also a fairly high chance that this be a baby shark, and that the scene would be far smaller than we may think at first. But do we really need a deep sea here...? What difference would it make anyway, except for the fact that we'd hardly have such a nice and bright sand background, and that we would lose clarity as well - wouldn't we ?

 

"In all, it is a very nice picture". Well, we can at least agree about this one...:-)

Thanks to Mona, Marc G and others for stimulating an interesting discussion here. I can see that from an abstract, purely compositional perspective the photo here might seem a bit "static". But, I consider that one of its strengths. The predatory shark is dictating this natural arching pattern of schooled fish and is doing so almost passively as it moves very quietly and methodically through the water. This natural phenomenon is powerfully conveyed here by placing the shark in the middle of the frame and through the absence of any overt drama (motion blur, etc.). There was no missed flurry of activity that generated this pattern, and there will be no flurry of activity to follow.

 

 

Fleeting natural patterns like these that arise through the interaction of species are fascinating (and, I might add, exceedingly complex). Felix has succeeded through this image in showing us not only the beauty of the pattern itself, but in also giving us a sense of the quiet, almost spontaneous manner in which it was generated and is maintained as the shark moves through the water.

"I feel that underwater pictures always get a certain WOW factor from the general audience because a large percentage of the population doesn't dive often or not at all. The fact that we don't see a certain scene in our normal activities doesn't make it more orginal by any stretch" - Mathieu L.

 

Underwater pictures have a wow factor for some, yes. But not all of them have for me. You may be right, tho, that this picture is in fact less original than I thought. I don't dive, so I'm not sure. But I can tell I've never seen any picture of this subject matter shot this way. Nothing even close. Perhaps I should see more underwater pix then...

I see some of what others (Lannie, Marc) are admiring in this, but I think I'd have an easier time seeing the advantages if this were significantly larger on the screen. For example, the little ripples by the lower fin lead me to believe that there is some motion depicted and that this is shot from over the water, not in it. But I can barely make them out. This may be less "still" than some are thinking, and more "dramatic" than others think.

 

And those reflections are still very distracting - they pull my eye right off the shark every time.

Marc,

 

For some other photos of schooling fish and their behavor around sharks, you can look at this fellows photos: http://www.bigblueimages.com/Sharks.htm

 

(I don't think any of his images match this one, harsh as I may have been above).

 

I have a brother-in-law who has raised schooling fish in tanks in a fish farm - they are fascinating to watch, and can create other interesting patterns. I'm surprised more aquariums don't have good exhibits on school behavior.

Shot from above the water, not in it ? I'd think so, yes.

 

As for the link, it confirms exactly what I wrote above: not a single top view here of this subject, and that's the magic of this POW imo. Never seen this angle before. Regards.

It is true that we always lay our trips on everything we view. The responses to this image

bear that out. But it can be rewarding to let go of everything when viewing . This is quite

difficult, as any Buddhist monk will confirm. The success or failure of any image is an

individual judgement. For us all to agree, the image would need to appeal to some

common truth we all share. It would become as mediocre as last years winning politician.

The pleasure in viewing Art with others is not to find agreement but, I think, to benifit

from the differences. Competing to see who is more right really leads nowhere. This

picture has some wonderful natural elements that bring out our respect for nature. It has

been photographed in a way that is not clear and therefore gives us some mystery. In the

end though we will accept it as Art (or not) based on our own requirements. For me , I am

trying not to be carried away by the subject, at least to the extent that it prevents me from

seeing the photograph. For me this picture is about movement and non-movement as

contrast. And I feel this has not been achieved by the photographer. By putting everything

into focus he has in effect killed the moment, instead of capturing it. The swirling fish

might have been a swirling blur around the static shark , giving the scene more power. I

am reminded of that great image by Salgado of the train station where everything was a

mass of blured humanity except for the one person who was standing perfectly still. It is

the contrast of the scene which Felix let slip. Also , the overall composition of the scene

has not improved with this discussion. I just think that this is a failed attempt at capturing

a natural moment. Felix could have succeeded if he would have controlled the result better

through the technical use of his camera. Of course this is just my opinion. Hips

A "failed attempt at capturing a natural moment" (C.R. Hips)? For the reasons I gave above, I disagree. The "power" of this moment is its serenity. The schooled fish are not in a frenzy as the shark swims through. They are calmly going about their business while maintaining a healthy distance. As each individual fish reacts independently to the shark, this very beautiful natural pattern arises. All of this would be lost if we only saw a teeming mass of grey blur surrounding the shark. We need to see simultaneously the individual fish and the overall collective pattern.

I won't try to add to the overall erudition of this thread, or try to match the word count of some previous posters. One quick thought about the centered-ness of this composition, though:

I find that the near-centering of the shark works here for a couple reasons. First, the swoop of the smaller fish is visually nice. Second, it's a shark. For most of us, a shark is a cynosural force - it demands our attention. It takes "center stage", if you will. So, while another composition might well be effective also, to me this one matches a certain feeling that the experience could offer. Onward.

"By putting everything into focus he has in effect killed the moment, instead of capturing it. The swirling fish might have been a swirling blur around the static shark , giving the scene more power. I am reminded of that great image by Salgado of the train station where everything was a mass of blured humanity except for the one person who was standing perfectly still." - C.R. Hips

 

After writing this interesting bit, I think you need to further enlight us about the way to achieve this blur you are asking for. There is no train here, and no still actor. If you'd want any blur on the small fishes while the shark would be frozen, the small fishes would need to be swimming a lot faster than the shark, and the photographer would have far less than 1/4s to guess right the exact relative speed of both the shark and the small fishes.

 

To get a *significant* blur out of it, you'd need the small fishes to be swimming at least 8 to 16 times faster than the shark. How sure are you that this was actually the case ? And did you even know all this ? I believe you just asked for something, that was totally impossible - technically speaking.

 

It's easy to say what you want at a fine restaurant. Cooking the dish (or the fish) can be a lot more complicated...