cbc_ccc

I like what Patricia has done with the color and contrast (although, maybe, thinking about it, a very slight yellow cast would be better -- something in between the original and the squeaky clean colors of the suggestion). In any event, in pointing to the yellow cast and the lack of depth in the shadows, I think she has identified the source of the quality issues that others have raised.

 

I disagree though with all of the suggested crops. They just don't work. They take what I think is a very fine photograph and strip it bare. The "tension" in the original that everyone seems determined to eliminate, to my eye, distinguishes this photograph and defines its emotional content.

 

I understand the concern over balance, tension points, line mergers, etc. It's certainly something we should be mindful of when photographing. And sometimes, yes, a crop is in order. But, if we let it become an obsession (and I'm as guilty as the next person), it really is a recipe for insipid, lowest common denominator, postcard images.

Landrum, I enjoyed your post -- a very worthwhile contribution to this discussion. It's interesting how much one's personal experience factors into the appreciation of a given image. I'm sure my background in biology had something to do with my enjoyment of last week's shark. If only I'd taken more chemistry while in college.

Mary is hoping to avoid a debate about "emotional impact", but I guess I don't understand why this particular genre of photography (whatever it is; let's say "still life") gets a pass on emotional impact. Shouldn't we expect the best studio "still life" shots to speak to the viewer on multiple levels? Shouldn't we expect this week's POW to stay with us far beyond our "gee-whiz, how'd he do that" initial reaction?

 

For me (once I get past "gee-whiz"), I do find the glowing filament and the trail of smoke, rolling back on itself, to be quite beautiful - but ..., there doesn't seem to be much beyond that. And the upper half of the photo fails to carry the lower, which to me seems rather static and uninteresting. Perhaps if there were, as I think Mona suggested, more of the broken bulb present - maybe enough to frame the light bulb filaments from behind - it might make a difference. I don't know.

 

But, as is, the shot for me just lacks a certain ...

"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.

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.

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.

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 think the main reason that the technical seemed to dominate this week's discussion of Mr. Ranke's very fine image is because he has been so generous in providing the background behind it (from b/w conversion and duotone techniques to stitching methods to even the posting of the original unprocessed captures). So often in these POW discussions, questions are raised as to technique, but they don't get very far because we never hear from the photographer himself or herself. Mr. Ranke should be commended for his active participation in the thread this week.

 

While I, like everyone else, was very curious as to the technical details, I think the root of this curiosity lies in the almost primal emotional impact that the image has on us. The phrase "urban jungle" is an overused one, but here the umbrella-like structure that overshadows the entire image looks forever like the canopy of a tree. We not only see the urban jungle here, but we feel it as well because of the viewpoint - we're inside looking up, trapped by it. Thus, for me, this image -- enhanced by its monolithic blue steel tone -- perfectly captures the look and feel of our present-day (and expected future) human habitat, generating all sorts of thoughts about where we've been and where we're going. For me, that's the staying power of this image - not the technical wizardry that went in to creating it.