andrewdawsongallery

Er, I think what Mike was trying to say is increase your *shutter speed* to something like 1/250th, if it's possible with your rig. Sunburst or rays start to really lock in at that speed, and get even better with faster shutter speeds. Since many cameras only do flash sync at 1/250 or less, it's not always a slam dunk. And for whatever reason, digital still doesn't capture them as well as film, but that's hit and miss too. Have fun...

Greetings from the land of Ben & Jerry's...

Just one of those mind-bogglingly clear days in Fiji... Taken at

about 120 feet, where the sea fans aren't beat up by wave action.

Cheers...

Really nice Gazzaroli... Anything done in Antarctica is automatically amazing in my book; I understand the effort involved in getting there. I'd agree it could use a litlle more PS work but it's still great!

ASD

Great, Mark! You made use of the forced perspective on that fisheye lens perfectly; you wouldn't know it was only a juvenile. I think you could work on the scan and improve it a little, but nice work.

Really nice Miles... Sometimes natural light really is all you need. To nick-pick, the scan seems a little contrasty; there might be some more detail to be had in the fish. Cheers... :>)

What's wrong with the b/g? It gives more of the mottled appearance that he's trying to blend in with. Really a cool fish; I didn't know they are found at Cocos, though I remember them from Galapagos. :>)

Just FYI, there are no underwater mushrooms. This looks like a group of animals called corallimorphs (related to corals), though I don't know the exact species offhand. Cheers...

Really nice Johannes... I love diving with seals/sea lions, they are such a blast! Seems like the exposure overall could come down a bit, strengthen the silo's and get a richer blue. Then again, the monitor I'm writing from is far from calibrated. Cheers...

Er, not to be too picky, but those are Azure vase sponges, not coral. They come in a range of colors depending on the algae that lives in their tissues. Cheers... :>)

Thanks Matthew! I don't have my own site yet, still getting my *@%# together on that... Just got back from a week in the Bahamas, I'll post something soon.

>>Underwater pics taken like this at about 25 meters or so will

always look a bit dead if taken with no flash<<

 

Robert, I'm sure this was taken with flash. The "monochrome"

look comes from the lack of color in the subject, though there is

a bit of color in the small fish. Johannes (correctly) used just

enough strobe to help the contrast and detail come through.

 

I don't see the ecological aspect as being an "east vs. west" or

"humans are bad" kind of message. Shipwrecks always conjure

up some kind of irony, with mad-made objects having been

"defeated" by Nature, but I'm not sure it has to be that negative.

I don't wanna harp on the fish issue too much, but the ones in

the shot don't exactly "pop out" at you. Hearing that there are

often big schools in the area makes me imagine an image with

a little more impact, but it's a matter of taste. How about

combining the BMW with the pile of toilets--that would make a

big statement... ;>)

Let me start by saying that as a fellow "u/w" guy, I think Johannes' work is terrific, and I'm glad to see it's getting some attention!

 

With that said, this particular shot isn't one of my favorites, and I think I know why. The subject matter is quite unusual, and I agree that it makes an ecological impact statement. I'm not so crazy about the downward angle. The "rule" about using upward angles in u/w photography isn't an absolute one, but it does carry some advantages. You tend to get better contrast, and you often end up with more interesting backgrounds (note some of J.'s other wreck shots). That would help--perhaps--with the complaint that there doesn't seem to be any other point of interest in the image. Ideally, some fish would make it a slam dunk, by providing a sense of scale, and some irony with the yucky toilets thrown into Nemo's backyard. :>)

 

Sounds like it wasn't the easiest place to dive or make images, but maybe it's worth revisiting and trying it some other ways. Cheers...

Strong points: beautiful light, nice unobtrusive background, plenty sharp with good detail

 

Not so good: bullseye composition (seems to happen alot with birds), would've been nice to have a more "head-on" angle with better eye contact

 

I won't weigh in heavily on the feeding issue, except to say it isn't "cheating" if you're honest about how the image was taken. Cheers...

Thanks for all your comments on my stuff, Johannes! You have a lot of beautiful work on here, really nice... Good to see more serious u/w photography appearing around here too. No offense to anyone (I hope), but I get really tired of mediocre aquarium shots being passed off as "underwater"... Anyway, all the best--maybe I'll see you at one of these fabulous locations someday! Cheers...

Hi Lyndell--he's perched on some hard coral; it gets it color from the symbiotic algae living in the tissues. :>)

I had no idea that giving my opinion would set off a firestorm, but since you seem to be taking it so personally, I'll let you know my line of thinking.

 

At some point, you clicked on a button saying "request critique", so I'm not sure how I was to know to keep it to myself. If you don't like one of the critiques you got, I can't really help that, but maybe you could fixate on one of the positive ones. I stand by my criticism of this shot. I don't believe you've created anything other than a reproduction of someone else's artwork. If I took a full-frame shot of the Mona Lisa and presented it as a "portrait", I would be laughed out of the room. You've taken a full-frame shot of someone's cartoon version of a shark, and called it *your* underwater photograph.

 

I can accept that it was some kind of a joke, but don't expect everyone to find it funny. There are some of us who put alot of time and effort into making underwater photographs. To top it off, you present it as a joke, but then want people to rate it like it's a real image! I have no idea why some others on photo.net bought into it, but I'm not going to.

 

I understand there's no money involved, but here is something to consider. There was a well-known artist named Lassen who made millions selling cheesy paintings of ocean wildlife. Eventually, several prominent photographers noticed that his paintings were almost exact renderings of their photographs. In other words, he took someone else's artwork, and reproduced it in his own medium. There was a huge lawsuit, and Lassen was forced to settle for a large amount of money. Ironically, you have done this reverse; taking someone elses artwork and re-doing it in a photograph, but the principle is the same.

 

I'm sure this shot isn't the best work you've done--or will do--so why even bother? You were at an aquarium that day--how about some images from that?

 

Just in case you're wondering what Vincent is referring to, the link can be found here: "Underwater shot".

Vincent--

My apologies; you did take a photograph of something, not just steal a digital image. However--

 

a) The "shark just happens to be there"?? He's there because you put him in the shot.

 

b) It isn't about money, it's about creativity. All you did was recreate someone else's artwork, even if it was promoting a movie.

 

c) People do go underwater and take pictures of sharks.

 

d) You did enter this in the "underwater" category

 

e) "people like you without any humor and but a lot of mean spirit" If you say so--but when was the last time you got paid for comedy?

Never thought I'd see the day. Stealing artwork from Pixar Animation and calling it your own photograph, yikes...

I'm a big fan of making use of patterns in nature, but this doesn't strike me as an outstanding example. As a technical experiment/creation I think it's fine, but I'm a little baffled by the gushing reactions from some. What's the big deal about the resolution? Like nobody's ever done medium/large format close-ups of leaves before?

The sea stars seemed to avoid the tentacles...

It is indeed the shark rodeo at Walker's Cay; the bait ball is right in the center of the picture. It's tons o' fun, about 40-50 sharks cruising around...

Lunchtime...

Yes Michele, the irony is not lost on me... A shot I took while taking a walk after dinner ranks higher than the ones I travelled around the world to get! In the end, the difficulty of getting a shot shouldn't matter to the viewer, but you'd think the unusual subjects might make a difference. I've noticed a general trend in photo.net that way; landscapes and bare breasts get the high ratings, and everything else is 2nd fiddle. Good thing we enjoy photography for the right reasons... :>)