Shark, Kuramathi Island Maldives, Multi Award Winning Photograph

I was very wrong in believing earlier on that this POW could not occupy our attention or be a good basis for a discussion. It obviously is, due to the many very qualified input. Interesting reading up till now.

 

Anders

You know, I remember the POW of the racetrack a few months back and I thought that was a really original shot. Then, a few people posted some links and I saw - literally - at least 100 similar versions and I realized that, while the picture was certainly new to me, it was hardly original. This is another case though, Mathieu suggests that any diver with equipment and access could do this, but I ask, why haven't they? The angle of this, the clarity of the water, the unique composition ... there are a few hundred thousand pictures here on PN and I haven't seen another one even similar to this. None of the pictures in the link posted above are remotely close to this, although they show similar behavior. By any reasonable measure, this picture is absolutely original.

 

Hips, I see a sense of motion. To me, the fish look like a great swirling mass and, as Marc notes, how could you get more motion out of the fish while still keeping the shark so clear? It's the detail that makes this shot for me.

 

Finally, it's time to weigh in Felix! I think we would all like to know ....

 

1)Were you snorkling or above water when you took this?

2)How big is that shark?

3)How deep is the water?

 

Good discussion for a great picture.

I agree with many of the valid points made by Marc G.

 

Very interesting shot.

 

Cheers

 

M.

One thing I do have to admit, as someone said a bit earlier about how people may view

disparate POW's, is that I tend to look at photographs as pieces of art, not as

documentary, or nature or whatever. I tend to lump them into how I see them artistically.

Sometimes that may fly in the face of the purpose of the creator. But I do still feel that, no

matter the reason for the photo, those principles still apply in the final analysis.

 

A lot of the talk here by those that have responded to this photo in a positive way has

been supported to a large degree by their discussion of subject matter. Some just

commenting on the incredible scene and others seemingly mesmerized by the capture of a

shark. It all made me think back to a somewhat recent POW where we discussed how

much does exoticism, in this case maybe what we might call personal exoticism, plays into

our appreciation of what we look at. As I said in my first post, the subject matter was not

enough to make this photo for me. Maybe I am fortunate-although many times it has felt

more unfortunate-, but I have been around sharks a great deal. I certainly don't study

them, so I can't say I see any particularly unique behavior being documented. I have no

emotional attachment or fear of them, so I can't react on that plane. So I am, again, left

with looking this as a piece of art and how does it hold up for me. It just doesn't without

some other hook. As said earlier, I know what can happen in these situations and I just

don't see it here. Even as a lazy swim and the fish reacting, I am left cold by the poor use

of line, color and depth--yes Marc, there is a post where Felix does indicate he changed

the color in the original postings. Camera angle could have helped this photo to change

the use of line and thus potentially changing the dynamics. The color could have been

presented more natural, instead of being changed, or even selectively modified to possibly

increase the depth. And then there is the moment thing. Could this have been a better

photo, I hope so. Right now it appears to only be effective on possibly the level of

document of a given time and place. But this is my opinion and I certainly don't begrudge

anyone theirs.

 

As to the award thing, I don't know these awards and I know there are many vanity presses

out there with their own "awards". But I generally don't find awards to be determinate of a

piece of arts merits or my opinion of such-now maybe if it was in the collection of the

Louvre or MOMA, that would be another thing altogether--probably not!

Fishes were under water, but not Felix, it's a great capture.

For anybody that owns a boat and uses it on the ocean, this is not that original of a scene.

In fact, I have seen better and could have even captured it. However, certain things were

far more of a priority than taking a photo at that time; mostly cataching the fish.

I think what Mona is saying(and I agree) is that perhaps we are looking at a travel photo, that may be somewhat ordinary, and trying to elevate it to Art status for the sake of this discussion. That is fine but this picture probably won't remain a vital subject for the week. If this shot was in Time magazine or Westways, or even National Geographic it might be acceptable along with accompaning text. On its own as a work that is meant to inspire us and renew itself with each viewing as any meaningful Art would, it comes up short. I would encourage PN staff to find works that go beyond the basic purpose of photo-journalism when choosing a POW.

Moderator note: I recommend that people read the guidelines for posting in the POW forum. PN staff, PN policy and comments regarding the POW picks are not allowed in the PN forum which is a critique forum about the image. Discussion of choices or PN policy should be carried on in the Help and Feedback Forum. Normally I edit out comments regarding "the choice" of POW. I'm leaving the above comment so I can respond and newcomers to the POW forum can be exposed to the policy which they may not be aware of.

As a second note - please do not disparage the photographer for listing the awards. That is not what this forum is about. Please stick to critiques of the image and certainly you can give your "opinion" on whether the image deserves an award or not but please do not to critique the photographer for listing the awards.

Once the oversized black border is trimmed off, the image size is only 516 X 341 pixels, quite tiny, and when enlarged to have a closer look, the detail just goes away. I don't understand the extensive discussion from what is an undersized image that's difficult to see in detail.

For such a small size, you can see both eyes on the smaller fish, it's one of reason that I like this picture.

Nice capture. I like it. Reminds me of a shot of a diver surrounded by

barracuda. Keep sharing, your photos are fantastic.

Just wanted to drop in and say congrats to felix on getting POW and the long list of awards the image has received. I do remember seeing this image before, whether it was in the TRP or in a magazine I can't quite remember.

 

From my perspective as someone who knows next to nothing about 'aquatic' photography, let me say that I enjoy the image... not just because of the technique or the unusual composition, but more so the way felix has captured this moment in time. A moment not entirely uncommon in the life of a fish or shark, but one that is rarely captured and conveyed with such tension and sense of movement (of course a result of the bird's eye view).

 

Actually, when I look at this shot I'm reminded of another award-winning image (which involved flying birds as opposed to swimming fish).

 

Regards,

C.R. Hips : " I would encourage PN staff to find works that go beyond the basic purpose of photo-journalism when choosing a POW. "

 

Such a ridiculous request!

 

Because Photo-journalism is not part of photography or because it has no artistic merits?

 

What about street photography? Or documentary? We shouldn't discuss them either because they are not fine art?

 

I suggest that you try to see every piece for what it is, and understand the artist's intentions before coming to any conclusions.

 

Sometimes accepting works as their face value and enjoying them shows more dept than creating imaginary and abstract critiques.

 

I find the image interesting while I am not in love it....however I can easily appreciate it.

I certainly can appreciate the benefits of considering and discussing this image from a purely artistic perspective that focuses on abstract notions of line, shape, color, etc. Perhaps, from such a perspective alone, the image does not hold up as well. But the documentary aspects of the shot (its context, the story it tells, etc.) are very important too. And, in the end, I think it should be judged on both sets of criteria together. Not just because they both apply; but because for an image like this one they are dependent upon one another. The aesthetic is not just an end unto itself, but serves to further the editorial content of the image as well.

 

I think Felix has done an excellent job here of beautifully documenting the environment within which this shark lives and its relationship with the other inhabitants of that environment. So many nature shots are not much more than animal portraits. Here the aerial perspective, the centrally positioned shark, the curving school of fish that surrounds most of the outside of the frame, the marbled canvas of light and shadow, all work together to provide not just a pleasing portrait of a shark, but a fuller and quite beautiful depiction of the predator-prey relationship that defines its existence.

 

Finally, I disagree with the suggestion that those who've commented positively on this image are simply wowed by its "exotic" nature (it's underwater, involves a shark, etc.). There is perhaps some of that reflected in the comments above, but you also see in the comments a genuine appreciation for the beautiful way that this image speaks to us about the natural world.

Well Hips, I'm with M.H. Isn't the purpose of the POW to stimulate a good discussion? From that point of view, it doesn't even matter if it's photo-journalism or even if it's good. It only matters if it's interesting. From the amunt and quality of comments here, this was obviously a sucessful POW.

 

Furthermore, I don't see how you can denigrate this photo from a quality stand point. I don't agree with the points that have been made about compositon, color and shutter speed choices, but they are understandable. It may not be "meaningful art" (whatever the hell that is) but it certainly provides a vivid and interesting picture of reality, which is an equally valid purpose of photography. I find this to be a completely worthy POW.

M.H. I am sorry, I guess you missed my meaning. Photo journalism is the bed rock of fine

art

photography, as I see it. So many of the most memorable Art photos had there birth as

expressions about all aspects of life and were assignments for or used by excellent

journals

around the world. The best take their subjects beyond and to a deeper level than was

required. I guess if we were doing fish street work this picture would be an example. But

does it tell a story (beneith the surface),? Does it inform us of new insights regarding the

subject? Does it hold our attention for the drama it presents? Can it stand on its own , or

does it need a text by a writer or does the writer need the photo for their text? I am not

sure.

But I do know that this image is not engaging to me. My suggestion was that staff here try

to pick examples that go further than the basic requirements of a shoot. I was not in any

way saying what you thought I said. Sorry for the confusion. Hips

Thread is quite long so please forgive me if it's already been suggested. Here is a flipped version for your consideration. Regards,

Hi Pawel, after you flipped the image, it lost the 3D feeling and the fishes got slowed down by the gravity. That's probably the original view angle, which is less powerful.

I worked for the University of Georgia for 10 years as a pro photographer for the Marine Education Department & have photographed this type subject extensively. Frankly the amount of criticism of this photo is ridiculous IMO. I am addressing my comments to the face value of the piece only � as it should be, also IMO: A stand alone statement.

This is an excellent photo w/ good composition , perfect exposure w/ way tricky lighting, and plenty psychological energy. Damn near 7/7, which I hardly ever give.

I disagree that the flipped version doesn't work. This simple adjustment makes this photo 10 times more interesting and appealing to me. IMO it adds the dynamism it was lacking; the shark doesn't need to 'push' it's way through the fish anymore, it's 'falling' in it, making for a much more elegant photograph. For me, it has more chance to stand on its own this way.

I disagree w/ Mathieu. The flipped version is a no-go w/ a wrong angle artistically, but wait. Part of the fascination w/ swimming sharks is that they �push� and weave their way into a prey�s environment right before they strike with explosive force. The only thing that makes the flip right is the angle on the shark. Check the dorsal fins. In the original the photographer is over the shark pointing slightly toward himself. I think he may have made a flip already.

I'm glad that Hips clarified, because the Hips/Mona "Art" perspective was coming off as a bit pretentious and condescending to my eyes as well. I'll assume Hips speaks for Mona also and that their real problem with this picture is that, whether or not it aspires to High Art, it doesn't make it because it assertedly is essentially documentary and doesn't "go further than the basic requirements of a shoot" as Hips now puts it, which I take to mean that it's a snapshot. I think Hips here has put forth the basic point of disagreement. Several commentators think that this photo goes well beyond those basic requirements, especially those experienced with the basic requirements and aesthetic conventions for pictures of this type.

 

Hug has captured a situation where nature happens to arrange itself into a pleasing geometric composition. I agree it is not the most pleasing conceivable composition, and I agree with Mona and Hips that photos should not be given the benefit of "this was the best one could do" under the circumstances. It's still a solid composition for my money, and well seen in the sense that it is not obvious to every observer or from every viewpoint that schools of fish form a beautiful ellipse around an intruder. (Vincent says he's seen and could have captured it better, but placed a higher priority on catching the fish. He must really like fish to prefer them over winning all those photo awards.)

 

For me there is also dynamism and drama, not [just] in the composition, but in the details. You can tell that the shark's head was pointing a 1 o'clock an instant ago but has just swung to 3 o'clock, and the fish at around 2 o'clock have just realized they are going the wrong way. If you do not see drama here, I pity your inability to imagine yourself as a little fish!

 

But let's ignore that for a while and ask what for me is always the central question: Has the photographer told me something about his feelings about the scene? Here again, I think so. Hug has done so through his color choice, for example. Let's face it, there's no right or true color for a scene like this, and Hug could have chosen anything from a neutral grey (blah) to a more primary blue (boringly conventional - but I wonder whether the prints that won awards and were published were colored differently?). Instead we get a sophisticated grey-green that conveys cold menace.

 

I don't suppose Hug is saying anything especially profound with this picture about love, death, war, horror, the meaning of life, or whatever High Art is supposed to be about. But to me he is saying something more than "Hey, here's something pretty/interesting," which is the message conveyed by a snapshot. His message does not pound you over the head the way many contrived Art photos do. You have to invest a little in an understanding of the subject matter and the situation to pick up the emotional content in the photographer's subtle choices, and maybe not everyone is willing to make this investment in a "travel" or "wildlife" or "fish" photo, or whatever genre box they feel comfortable putting this one in.

 

Finally, I commend Felix on not contributing to this POW thread yet. Let us chatterers have our say, then weigh in at the end. The speculation and navel gazing must be amusing.

August, just to clarify, agree, disagree or whatever, please don't ever assume anyone

speaks for me. CR and I may have similar conclusions about how successful this piece is,

but if I don't say it, it isn't mine. Second, i would hope that my opinion in evaluating a

photo based on how I see it as to the use of compositional elements doesn't sound

pretentious and condescending, this is what we all should be doing and if we get different

results and conclusions, they are just that--I articulate my reasons and I hope others

theirs, by doing so, we are given an opportunity to revisit our own conclusions with new

ideas and perspectives.

 

Finally, I do have a bent towards the artistic merits of a photo. When we shoot a

commercial photo or an editorial photo, both of which I do, there is always an underlying

purpose that stimulates what the subject matter is and possibly even how one must

approach the subject. But that does not give the photographer a free pass to not try and

do the best they can with the situation. The results often are adequate for the intended

use, but not always what we might want to present as our best work. The goal should be

to create work, in any arena, that we would be willing to stand behind as our best and that

is how I look at these photos. As I said, this is an exchange of ideas and I appreciate the

disparate views put forth here and am glad that "nice photo" comments are not allowed

without a discussion as to why that is the conclusion.

gees, you guys are so stuck on your selves. I�ve taught college photography and graphic design and am used to the critique forum and see a lot of attitude here. I can spell it out for you in detail but really, this is an A and any pro knows it.

Moderator reminder: Please stick to critiques of the image and refrain from critiques of other member's critques or responding to other's critiques of your critique - or critiques of critiques of others critiques. See what I mean ;-)

Let's stay on track here guys - everyone is entitled to their opinions. Certainly a little debate back and forth is good but at some point - move on.

Also - please let's not get into name calling... For instance - calling other members "ridiculous" or "pretentious" and so on.

I apologize to all and especially to Mona for any offense. Actually I think that many of Mona's and Hips' comments have been extremely insightful and enlightening. I only wished to make the point that we do not need to "elevate" this "travel photo" to "Art status" for the sake of discussion because, even if it is not Art, travel and Art photos do not occupy different elevations. We are all just playing with our black boxes after all. And there is plenty of expressive content in this beautiful image to which to react.