Shark, Kuramathi Island Maldives, Multi Award Winning Photograph

The photo is great but I find the original presentation awkward; the flipped presentation works much better for me.

 

The covers on Climbing magazine and Rock and Ice often have shots of climbers taken from above and 9 times out of 10 I prefer the flipped version. Here's an example:

 

http://climbing.com/photo-video/gallery/90s/index5.html

 

Congratulation felix!

When I first saw this I thought it was a photograph of a metal sculpture, with a shark

shape hole in the middle and someone looking through...it took me a minute or so to

realise what it was.

 

Now I know what it is, there are two things that put me offthe image - one is the fact that

the shark is below and behind the camera (if you see what I mean) and i found that the flip

done above rectified this and made it easier to look at. The other is the colour of the

shark, which my brain tells me should be grey. Now I may be wrong and maybe this is a

brown shark, but still it bothers me a little. Maybe this is something to do with the

temperature change that caused the colours to look like they did not have the water there

? I must say though that the comment about this temerature change making the colours

more "real" is a little odd. This is surely like a shark looking at pictures of us and thinking

that the colours would be more real if we were underwater ?!

 

It is nonetheless a good photo, and I would be pleased to have taken it, as Vincent is no

doubt pleased that he didn't take a better version. There is definitely movement in it - you

can see the exact point where the bait ball fish are breaking off in different directions.

 

I am also impressed with how many competitions one pic can win !

It is a fabulous sea shot, but:

 

1) the version posted here is too small, a bigger one would have appreciated

 

2) perspective looks a bit innatural, imho it looks better when rotated 90 degree counterclockwise, or totally flipped as above

*** The photo is totally excellent ***

I think the picture would be more appreciated if one could see more detail, because I think there so much to see....the shark, the fish, the structure of the soil.

 

http://www.xs4all.nl/~amadeusd/Photonet/shark2.jpg

 

As for the orientation of the picture: Chacun a son gout. My preference would be as shown above: I like to read from left to right from top to bottom. That feels more comfortable to me :)

Now all we need is a view from the underside of the shark.

Hi guys. Sorry I cant go all in length, as I'm out and about shooting some more "sharks".

First I like to thank for the POW choice, as it allows me to receive so many valuable and

appreciated comments about my work.

 

I just like to say this:

 

1. The shot was taken outside the water from a platform.

2. The color of the shark species is brownish to yellow... not grey.. as some pointed out.

Its NOT a white tip reef shark.

3. The image has no real direction, so anyway you turn it.. fine with me..;-).. honestly its

rather a minor issue I feel.

4. I'm sorry that the image loaded is a bit small... at the time i did it, size was an issue

cause of KB's, but alkso of copyright matters.

5. I dont expect all people to like the image. Its a highly successfull image for what it is

and its a great shot, close to perfection I feel.. and with me many editors, publishers and

judges around the world. But what matters most to me its that it tells the story of the

place and the moment the way i want it to be told...saying all this, its not my favorit

image..;-)... i like some of my people images more, but thats a personal choice.

 

Thats it for now... i might check back later. Thanks again for all the comments. Praise as

much as critique. I wished we all would have the possibilty to get as much feedback on all

our images...

Im sorry for not writing a message thats over 3 million words cause this photo takes them away. Great composition, I love how the shark is surrounded by the fishes, this gives a good impression of sharks� living. This photo really deserves the competition wins that it has got.

great! this photo make fear! congratulation!

everybody has own observation as i have seen so many different ideas n suggestions given also few of fellows attached the modified versions no matter what i like every version of it. i cant point out any flaw in it. Great shot n congratulations.

 

Regards

I have to disagree with everyone so far who has said that the innate limitations of a shot should not play into our assessment.

Some shots ARE harder to get than others, due to lighting issues, movement of subject, etc. Many nature photos fall into this hard-to-get-shot category. Including this one. If I sat out on the platform with the same camera and lens in this location all day every day for months I doubt that I would be able to A. duplicate this or B. create a better composition. To say that this kind of dedication is not worthy of our admiration, or that it is not one of the things that makes a great photographer seems pretty nuts to me. Besides which, I bet that every one of you has at some point discounted a perfectly nice shot because the subject matter was "easy"; examples being sunsets, beaches, flowers, attractive females, etc. Given this, I am continually surprised that there seem to be no incentives for taking on the trickier subject matter.

So I think that this is a wonderful shot. It is not perfectly adherent to the "rules" of composition, but I don't think that the shark would have cooperated if the photographer had asked it to, say, turn its head a little more to the right. And maybe the photographer could have gotten a better angle by getting into the water with the shark, but I can see how that might not be the best idea. Also, I find it commendable that this image does not try too hard to anthropomorphize the sea life. It's just a shark being a shark, and fish being fish, and to me these things are beautiful enough; I don't feel the need to try to attach my own meanings to them. To say that these creatures have no emotion seems a little unnecessary. Hello? They are FISH. I have quite a bit of experience with fish, but I still couldn't tell you whether one was having a good or bad day.

"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."

 

You sound a little like Jacques Cousteau, but anyway, Lanny, one CAN find the shark's shadow, and thus gain a sense of the true depth (not too deep)of the water, plus there is plenty of info in that regard from the shadow of the schooling fish. The shark shadow? It's right there in the image. From top to bottom, it's just below the bottom edge of the fish school above the shark -- you can see it matches the sharks body and pectoral fin perfectly.

 

Congrats, Mona Chrome, prior to your enty, this was all gushing. The nature of the comments changed as soon as you posted your comments -- almost as fast as a school of fish reacting to a predator.

 

I don't see the drama, in fact if you put some whiskers on the shark it'd look a lot like a catfish.

 

I see it as a depiction of one more of nature's little dances. A waltz perhaps.

When I read a comment that suggests that limitations of a shot should play into our

assessment, I wonder why I get up at 4 in the morning and go to bed at midnight, stand in

swarms of mosquitos and brush ticks off for 5 or 6 days straight hoping the elements will

cooperate to get the shot I am after--my assistant wonders anyway. I suppose, under this

type of rationale, I could do it

for one day and if the magic doesn't happen, no one would care because "it was hard"-to

quote a certain politician. I haven't tried that one with clients and galleries yet, tho. At the

same time, I do think we need to take our hats off to someone who does get a seminal

shot in difficult circumstances(is sitting or laying on a platform above the water difficult

circumstances?), or who takes incredible personal risk to record an important event, but

otherwise I just think a shot is either great or it isn't-it just falls where it falls on the

continuum. Sometimes it may even appear to be easy or just luck and fortunate

circumstance, but a

great shot is still a great shot even if we are just driving down the road and happen to

notice the moon above a quaint little New Mexico village.

 

That said, I do want to say, for clarity sake, that I am not saying that I think this is an awful

photograph, it isn't, but it doesn't hold me for all the reasons I have stated before.

Honestly, if I had been there, I might have taken a photograph like this and also waited to

see if others would present themselves, if I had the time and other tourists weren't

pushing me away. Film is cheap(dating myself again), but I probably

would not have felt compelled to exhibit this print. But again, that is just me and I think

everyone has a slightly different aesthetic, which is a good thing.

Well, now that Tom has analogized Mona to a predator and the rest of us to prey, I feel more comfortable responding.

 

First, I don't think that Jenny is saying that we MUST take the difficulty of a shot into consideration. Rather, she is challenging those who might say that difficulty should NEVER be taken into consideration. No, we need not take the difficulty of every shot into consideration, but if someone takes a shot from the top of Everest, then I am going to take that into consideration, especially if it is Edmund Hillary's shot of Tenzing Norgay in 1953 and neither the shot nor the climb has ever been done before--facts which complicate the difficulty by introducing danger and uncertainty. There are certain types of photojournalistic, nature, and adventure shots which derive much of their interest from the situations that they depict, as well as the circumstances of capturing those situations. That said, I have to concede to Mona that many times the shot can and should stand on its own. If aesthetics were the only way of evaluating a shot, then perhaps we could always say that. (War correspondents and photographers of Dachau or Auschwitz, feel free to jump in any time.)

 

Tom, I have said that the water is probably not too deep, and that is about as far as I am prepared to go. How deep it is, and how far above the bottom the shark is, cannot be easily inferred without knowing at the very least the focal length used, sensor/film size, etc. Where was the zoom set when the picture was made? That would affect relative depth perception. We also would want to know something about how much was cropped away before inferring distance, even if we did know focal length and format. I think that you are probably right that we can see the shadow of the shark, but shadows can be elusive and misleading, especially if there are waves. As for catfish, Tom, well, most of them are usually lying on the bottom, and sharks have to keep moving and never lie on the bottom--but, yes, it does resemble a catfish, for what that is worth. I agree that I see less drama and I feel less fear in this shot than some do, but I still find the shot interesting. I still think I see a shark lazing along with fish scurrying out of the way, a rather common occurrence. I only get to see the signs of that when the fish start breaking the surface near my kayak to get away from some bigger fish.

 

With that thought in mind, I think that I will scurry along before Mona comes back.

 

--Lannie

By the way, Tom, although you are surely right that that is the outline of the shark, complete with pectoral fin, the shadow seems to keep going on and on toward the top of the picture, I presume because of refraction through the waves, but also possibly because the bottom changes color.

 

I would like to know if Felix took this shot from the windward or leeward side of the platform that he was on. I still don't know if it would be possible to get a clear shot from above the water if he was shooting on the windward side, where the waves are typically bigger, unless it was just a very calm day.

 

Some look at these photos as primarily art critics, and some look more as lovers of nature. One can be both, of course, but I am a simple lover of nature. I don't know much about art, but I know what I like, and I like nature above all. The worst thing about growing old is that one does not get out into the natural world as often or as easily as before. I'm glad these young whippersnappers can bring these images back for us old men to look at.

 

--Lannie

"I don't see the drama . . . I see it as a depiction of one more of nature's little dances."

 

Precisely Tom. There is no overt drama here. And so, if you come to this image expecting it or looking for it (it is after all a *shark*), you will be disappointed. This is one of the many things that sets this apart from your typical shark shot.

 

Rather, what you have here is a beautiful depiction of (as you say) the slow dance between predator and prey.

"Rather, what you have here is a beautiful depiction of (as you say) the slow dance between predator and prey."

 

I'm sorry, I was referring to the dance between photographer and subject.

 

Thanks for quoting me, though. :-)

"To say that this kind of dedication is not worthy of our admiration, or that it is not one of the things that makes a great photographer seems pretty nuts to me."

 

Dedication surely helps make a good photographer, but aren't we talking about images?

 

Suppose Mona climbs the world's tallest mountain and takes a beautiful picture from the very top of the world but then Lannie flies up in a special, high altitude helecopter and snaps the same damn thing.

 

Is Mona's superior because she climbed up the mountain?

 

Now imagine that, on his way to the Himalayas, Lannie lost his baggage and must recover it before his helecopter leaves because it contains his equipment. Is Lannie's picture better because he went through that whole lost baggage ordeal?

 

Personally, I DO think any photographic achievment is better if it was done on the very top of the world, and even more so while standing on one's head.

my subject line is for you Lannie, somehow I couldn't resist (don't just read the first two

words and think it refers to how some seem to think of my comments tho)

 

Anyway, Tom's comment reminded me of being at a workshop in the early 80's with Philip

Hyde(known for his Sierra Club books, Bruce Barnbaum and Jay Dusard among others.

Hyde and Barnbaun preceded Dusard giving presentations and described arduous treks

into the landscape to get various shots. Dusard got up and said something like this "I

have to take my hat off to Philip and Bruce for their tenacity in getting these shots, but a

long time ago I came to the conclusion that if you can't drive to it, screw it!"

 

Just a thought, it is the photograph that is important, but people do love a good story!

The knowlege gained from the process of the experience will most definatly give the Artist the edge he needs to create from a greater potential. Otherwise experience and sensual memory would be worthless as reference. If something is too easy it usually shows. If the work requires deeper understanding, a casual approach may trivialize it. There is really no substitute for experience in so far as capturing essence. It is true that most images can be doumbed down to accomodate differing perceptable takes, however it must remain the goal of any Artist to strive for the original experience that only they can bring to the subject. Afterall isn't that why we want to express ourselves in the first place. Otherwise we are homogenizing what we do for greater appeal, which spells mediocracy. This next week, I will get to visit the greatest cliche in the natural world. Niagra Falls. I will be drawing and taking pictures. Does anyone think there could be anything new to say about this tired subject? Well I am going to try, because thats the only way I want to do anything.

"Does anyone think there could be anything new to say about this tired subject?"

 

Absolutely! Why else would you be going?

 

I do not have the "photographer's burden," Hell, I still shoot the Grand canyon from the Rim (can you imagine?). I was in tears last spring when I first stood at the edge. I couldn't help it. This is a powerful place. I pity the human closed to such beauty.

 

I can't imagine shooting in nature with the mindset that what I am encountering has been done before.

 

Tony Rice, one of the world's great flat picking guitar players (also a photographer), recently recorded a cover of "House of the Rizing Sun," surely a cliche of sorts for guitar players, yet his version was quite new and fresh.

 

It's about the richness of human experience and sharing that.

 

I suppose this really isn't about the shark of the week is it?

Tom, nicely said. It is amusing how often these POW discussions become as much about what the image is as what it isn't. I guess thats what makes it a discussion and not a speech. Also, I think that the view from the helicopter can be equal to the experience of trecking up the mountain only in that the end results can not be achieved in the same way. One is an intense personal journey, the other is a detached, comparitively safe , but overwhelming view.

Of course, what Tom didn't realize is that if Mona climbed to the top of that high peak, her

altitude sickness would be so bad that she would be tossing her cookies, not

photographing--if she wasn't totally unconscious!

Mona, just another creative challenge! There is nobody I would rather have in that situation,if I was editor. HA HA

Awesome!