shark and eeeeel

[pennyjlat 0]

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!

[Scubysnaps 9]

its gorgeous!

[Steve Williams 0]

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

 

Just a beautiful image,

Steve

[stewsmith 14]

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

 

Just a beautiful image,

Steve

 

 

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

 

Stew

[Canuck 3]

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).

[rlx 0]

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

[PRC 2]

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

[pmooney 6]

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 August 2, 2010 by pmooney

[Aussiebyron 57]

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.

[pennyjlat 0]

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!

[Aussiebyron 57]

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

[pennyjlat 0]

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!

Edited August 7, 2010 by pennyjlat

[Panda 3]

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.

[Aussiebyron 57]

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

[pennyjlat 0]

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

[steph 1]

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.

 

Regards

Stéphane

[Undertow 31]

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

[Steve Williams 0]

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

 

Congrats !

Steve

[tdpriest 115]

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

 

[Undertow 31]

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

[tdpriest 115]

"look at this little piece of the world i've captured in a photograph"

 

 

 

Indeed. And since the film or the sensor doesn't see what you see in the water, and your brain is very good at filtering out extraneous information (like the shark in the background), the photographic artist has to exercise creativity. To restrict yourself to working only in camera is to throw away one hundred and fifty years of photographic experience. It's true that large-scale editing rarely works, but I still don't understand this obsession: the camera distorts images and it takes a truly great photographer to compensate for the optical, chromatic and cognitive distortion inherent in the photographic process and create "reality". This is particularly true when shooting fast-moving megafauna in unpredictable circumstances. I contend that most of the great underwater images do not reflect accurately what the photographer actually experienced, but create a different mood, probably a more dramatic one, and certainly increase the chromatic intensity and luminance contrast over what was seen at the time. Most underwater photographs manipulate perspective in ways that would be egregiously obvious above the surface. All still photography converts a fleeting moment into an extended period of contemplation by the viewer. A great photographer once expressed his aim as recreating the emotional experience (as the image was captured) in the viewer at a later time and a different place: I believe that he spent a lot of time in the darkroom. So much of what photography is is discarded by a slavish and incompletely realised devotion to "reality"

 

This isn't "real", you physically cannot experience this sight, though nothing's been added or removed except the black edges of the frame:

 

 

 

There is absolutely nothing laissez-faire about my comment: I think that it cuts to the heart of making photographic images.

 

 

 

Tim

 

Edited September 1, 2010 by tdpriest