Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

shark and eeeeel


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 pennyjlat

pennyjlat

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 24 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 10:31 PM

hey guys just wondering if you had any improvements or comments about this shot. I like it but am curious to see what others think!

Attached Images

  • new_print_shark.JPEG


#2 Scubysnaps

Scubysnaps

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1076 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Central
  • Interests:Diving, photography, Aprilia RSVR, VW Vans! www.scubysnaps.com

Posted 18 July 2010 - 12:28 PM

its gorgeous!
Cheers
Paul

*Nikon D90 with Tokina 10-17 & Nikon 60mm, 105mm, Sigma 17-70, Kenko1.4 * 2 x Z240 & 2 x 12 litres...global! *

www.scubysnaps.com >)))°>

#3 Steve Williams

Steve Williams

    Humpback Whale

  • Moderator
  • 3052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona
  • Interests:Protecting our Ocean, Environmental Education,
    Having fun and Living Well

Posted 18 July 2010 - 02:09 PM

Wonderful job getting the eel and shark both lit well. Can't think of a thing I'd change.

Just a beautiful image, :P
Steve

The Fin Foundation
HSWImages.com        My Images on Flikr

Canon 5D Mk III, 7D & 40D, 60mm, 100mm, 17-40L, Tokina 10-17, Nauticam 7D, Sea & Sea MDX-40D YS-250's ULCS arms, Lightroom


#4 stewsmith

stewsmith

    Giant Squid

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1586 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southampton and Sinai
  • Interests:World travel
    diving
    photography
    winding Drew up

Posted 18 July 2010 - 06:22 PM

Wonderful job getting the eel and shark both lit well. Can't think of a thing I'd change.

Just a beautiful image, :P
Steve



I agree, the only thing thats distracts my eye is the 2nd shark in the background.

Stew

Canon 5D MK2 - Sea and Sea housed - 17-40L 100mm - Sigma 15mm FE - twin YS250 pro's and gadgets galore

 

http://www.euphoticzoneimaging.com

 


#5 Canuck

Canuck

    Manta Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 423 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alberta, Canada

Posted 18 July 2010 - 08:07 PM

Very nice. I think an improvement would have been to frame it a bit further right than you did. The shark would no longer be centred but instead would be entering the frame. And the eel's eye would be on the left rule-of-thirds line. I think it would be more dynamic. A little static right now with the shark centred (actually slightly exiting the frame).

John Davies
Canon 70D / Nauticam / dual Inons
my photos


#6 rlx

rlx

    Damselfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Location:Queensland, Australia

Posted 02 August 2010 - 04:53 AM

Lovely image...just one question: is there a hook in the shark's mouth?

#7 PRC

PRC

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1163 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Guernsey Channel Islands

Posted 02 August 2010 - 05:01 AM

is there a hook in the shark's mouth?


Yes it is - very common, very sad, in the cases where stainless steel hooks are used then it will be there forever ( however long that is ).

Paul C
Nikon D300, Subal, 2 * Inon 240
Water Temp (just cold & Nasty)
My Pictures

#8 pmooney

pmooney

    Orca

  • Industry
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1230 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cairns Australia
  • Interests:Growing Grapes

Posted 02 August 2010 - 05:04 AM

The sad answer is YES that is a hook in the sharks mouth , unfortunately this is becoming a common sight in many shark rich locations.

For my taste I think the shot would have worked better as a vertical.

It's good to have the habit of shooting set ups like this in both formats.
This will give you a cover shot ( vertical ) and the centrespread ( horizontal ) :)

Edited by pmooney, 02 August 2010 - 05:05 AM.


#9 Aussiebyron

Aussiebyron

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 02 August 2010 - 06:36 AM

To me on my monitor (might be different look on a different monitor) the shot has too much red in it for me (thats how i am seeing it).

Colour balance with reduction on Red in the highlights maybe possible of adding a little bit of blue?

Removal of background shark to clear up the frame.
Nikon D7000 with Aquatica housing called "Deedee", Tokina 10-17,Nikkor 60mm, Nikkor 105mm, Sigma 17-70, Ikelite DS161

http://www.flickr.co...s/22898788@N04/

#10 pennyjlat

pennyjlat

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 24 posts

Posted 02 August 2010 - 03:57 PM

To me on my monitor (might be different look on a different monitor) the shot has too much red in it for me (thats how i am seeing it).

Colour balance with reduction on Red in the highlights maybe possible of adding a little bit of blue?

Removal of background shark to clear up the frame.



I have had that same feeling too concerning the red. Its strange, depending on the size of the image enlargement or the format it can seem like there's too much red, however at 100 percent size in photoshop it doesnt appear that way. Strange stuff. Anyways any suggestions about removing the background shark other than cloning. I kind of like it with cuz it adds depth but id also like to see it without the second shark. thanks!

#11 Aussiebyron

Aussiebyron

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 03 August 2010 - 03:14 AM

I have had that same feeling too concerning the red. Its strange, depending on the size of the image enlargement or the format it can seem like there's too much red, however at 100 percent size in photoshop it doesnt appear that way. Strange stuff. Anyways any suggestions about removing the background shark other than cloning. I kind of like it with cuz it adds depth but id also like to see it without the second shark. thanks!


I have often seen that with my own stuff when resizing. But it can work both ways as sometimes it looks alot better resized smaller than orginal.

To remove the second shark a combination of Clone and larger spot removal would do the trick. Maybe selecting the background colour and using a brush to paint over the second shark and then tidy up and rought areas with spot removal tool. But I am sure there are some experts here with a better technique of doing the job.

Regards Mark
Nikon D7000 with Aquatica housing called "Deedee", Tokina 10-17,Nikkor 60mm, Nikkor 105mm, Sigma 17-70, Ikelite DS161

http://www.flickr.co...s/22898788@N04/

#12 pennyjlat

pennyjlat

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 24 posts

Posted 06 August 2010 - 11:51 PM

I have often seen that with my own stuff when resizing. But it can work both ways as sometimes it looks alot better resized smaller than orginal.

To remove the second shark a combination of Clone and larger spot removal would do the trick. Maybe selecting the background colour and using a brush to paint over the second shark and then tidy up and rought areas with spot removal tool. But I am sure there are some experts here with a better technique of doing the job.

Regards Mark


Thanks for the comments guys. its actually part of a "shark shootout" article featured in the september issue of underwater photography magazine. hope this looks better. check out the article!

Attached Images

  • new_print_shark_edited_2_copy.JPEG

Edited by pennyjlat, 06 August 2010 - 11:53 PM.


#13 Panda

Panda

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 265 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Geelong, Australia
  • Interests:Split levels, timelapse, temperate critters.

Posted 07 August 2010 - 02:29 PM

I'd crop out a little more of the sunball and the left side, don't touch the second shark, and lighten up the reef and eel.

anewton.net - UW blog - KAP blog
Victoria Australia. Nikon D7000, Lumix LX3. Ikelite. Inon. GoPro 2


#14 Aussiebyron

Aussiebyron

    Tiger Shark

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 08 August 2010 - 04:12 AM

Thanks for the comments guys. its actually part of a "shark shootout" article featured in the september issue of underwater photography magazine. hope this looks better. check out the article!


Hi Penny.

I like the shot with the second shark removed. Makes the frame less cluttered. Can we see the article online?

Regards Mark
Nikon D7000 with Aquatica housing called "Deedee", Tokina 10-17,Nikkor 60mm, Nikkor 105mm, Sigma 17-70, Ikelite DS161

http://www.flickr.co...s/22898788@N04/

#15 pennyjlat

pennyjlat

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 24 posts

Posted 09 August 2010 - 06:18 PM

Yep its online at uwpmag.com starting the first of September i believe.

#16 steph

steph

    Clownfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 26 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grenoble, France

Posted 25 August 2010 - 10:31 PM

Hi,

For me there is definitly a red cast on both the shark and the foreground on the bottom.
To prove that the fan around the eel looks purple.

I don't know its origine as you don't provide your PP recipe. For the difference with size
and rendering, our brain does a fantastic job to neutralize color cast (everyone can experiment
it when snorkeling). That is why when viewing full size in dark or grey environment without
white reference the cast will vanish in a few second. However remember when after a first
calibration you found your monitor too coold or too warm :) ... A few days later, it seems
normal :).

Well I did a little processing on the shark and the FG without touching the blue. Compare the 2
on full screen with black between pictures.
corrected.jpg

Regards
Stéphane
Nikon D300, Subal housing, GS180, WS45, 8" Subal dome, 4" Zen dome, Subtronic, Inon.
My website : http://www.stephanesandon.com

#17 Undertow

Undertow

    Manta Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 441 posts
  • Location:Bermuda

Posted 31 August 2010 - 09:17 PM

there is a bit of magenta cast in the original. steph's rendition looks better.

I personally wouldn't remove the shark, especially if its being published. A little backscatter is one thing but changing major elements and publishing just seems wrong to me. Maybe everyone does it and i'm just ignorant and old school but it creates a sense of dishonesty in digital photography.

If uwpmag.com is ok with it, that's really disappointing. Its a great photo with the second shark, don't make it a dishonest one. Cheers,

Chris
D200, Aquatica, 10.5, sig 15, 12-24, 17-55, 60, 105
3x SB-105

#18 Steve Williams

Steve Williams

    Humpback Whale

  • Moderator
  • 3052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona
  • Interests:Protecting our Ocean, Environmental Education,
    Having fun and Living Well

Posted 31 August 2010 - 09:48 PM

Looks great in UWP. I was just wondering why Wetpixel didn't get part of the photo credit. :)

Congrats !
Steve

The Fin Foundation
HSWImages.com        My Images on Flikr

Canon 5D Mk III, 7D & 40D, 60mm, 100mm, 17-40L, Tokina 10-17, Nauticam 7D, Sea & Sea MDX-40D YS-250's ULCS arms, Lightroom


#19 tdpriest

tdpriest

    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Solihull, UK
  • Interests:Diving medicine, warm water, scenery...

Posted 01 September 2010 - 10:41 AM

If uwpmag.com is ok with it, that's really disappointing.


Why? A fashion photographer would touch-up like mad, a landscape photographer would expose different parts of the image during printing in dramatically different ways, an advertising photographer might glue 30 or more elements together!
Does the image achieve what the photographer envisioned?

A competition would be another matter, but the sense of the dive, of the environment, might be better with the second shark removed. I actually don't think that it matters here; the second shark is dark and not too distracting.

Tim

:)

#20 Undertow

Undertow

    Manta Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 441 posts
  • Location:Bermuda

Posted 01 September 2010 - 01:08 PM

Why? A fashion photographer would touch-up like mad, a landscape photographer would expose different parts of the image during printing in dramatically different ways, an advertising photographer might glue 30 or more elements together!
Does the image achieve what the photographer envisioned?

A competition would be another matter, but the sense of the dive, of the environment, might be better with the second shark removed. I actually don't think that it matters here; the second shark is dark and not too distracting.

Tim

:)


trying not to delve too deep here - advertising is a different ball game where anything goes.

fashion is so bad that you often cant recognize the real person. i don't condone it in the slightest, though yes, it is unfortunately standard in the industry.

i believe in nature (and journalism - where i started) reality needs to be respected. you're saying "look at this little piece of the world i've captured in a photograph". you start changing and manipulating that, it cheapens all of our work. i seriously don't understand why people are so laissez-faire about this.

i think if you're gonna do it, one should at very least declare the change, its as relevant (or more) as exposure and situational information as captioned below every photo in uwpmag.com. maybe an extra line saying "here is the sense of the scene i captured, but not the real photograph".

perhaps this is food for another thread. I don't mean to hijack this one, your shark photo is awesome and i hope you put the second shark back in. cheers,

chris
D200, Aquatica, 10.5, sig 15, 12-24, 17-55, 60, 105
3x SB-105