230:
have 20 meters visibility underwater it is very good, you can not expect a picture underwater to be like a picture on land, if you had fog making you see 20 meters on land all pictures would look lousy and you would just wait for the next day and take a clear picture, underwater thsi is always the case, this picture seams to be taken in good conditions, I would guess that the visibility is even better than 20 meters, but still you will have reduced clarity even in very short distances, compare the fish that is close with the fish that is far away, they are not clear either, but if that is the criteria for features pictures it would be very hard to get underwater pictures passed. See
559:(Am I allowed to comment on my own work?...) I greatly appreciate and value the scrutiny given here; if I might just comment that minor artifacts (such as the dome bubbles, particles in the water, shoals of other animals, etc.) represent the true, natural conditions and circumstances of the image subject; this is not an idealized piece of "art" in a vacuum, and I believe it should be viewed in the greater context of its surroundings, "real-world", as it were. (But that's just me...)
247:, this happens when you have partciles in the water and uses a flash, my guess is that this is actually bubbles, quite close to the lens reflecting the flash light, it is hard to avoid, also a fact of life in underwater photography, can be made less by placing the flash further from the camera but sometimes with lots of particles it just does not help enough, not sure in this case, but the water looks to have lots of buibbles in it.
69:
41:
311:. Though I would've preferred not to have the splash in the background, this is a fine image. The fish show the shark is in his natural habitat, and it's crisp and in focus. (There's such a thing as a focus plane. You can't have something in the background as clear as something in the foreground especially if it extends several feet and is subject to underwater light scatter). -
61:
624:- I strongly support the original, or the first edit without the spots (with preference probably to the edit), but i feel that the tracker is important in showing that these fish are being monitored. Also the fish are not distracting as it shows the animal in its natural conditions, and in no way subtract from encyclopedic value.
604:
in a tabbed browser and you can see that there are different 'artifacts' in each picture. (which should not happen if it was artifacts from the camera setup) Since I did not take the pictures i'm only guessing, but it looks to me that these are taken just a few seconds after each other, so no time to
229:
As for the tail to be out of focus, it is not (out of focus that is), my guess is that it is particles in the water, you must understand that you can not get the same clarity in underwater shots as when you take pictures in the air, water is very dense and it has lots of things floating in it, if you
206:
of fish below the shark is very distracting for me, as is the splash on the right side of the image. The entire rear half of the shark is out of focus (though perhaps that's because its tail was moving at the time the picture was taken). I can't figure out if those spots (near the top of the picture,
381:
Edit one, original as a compromise only. The encyclopedic value this shot overwhelms the already mentioned techincal imperfections, as the encyclopedic of the recent shots of the sea turtle and whale shark did not. I am somewhat concerned about the encyclopedic value of whatever that is at the base
718:
My special support for GREAT pics like this!! The reflection of the lights on the shark are just a tad distracting, but it is definitely bearable because at the same time, it looks cool, like Sonic!! The fish are not a distraction either because they actually serve as a great scale in how big the
386:
18:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC) I oppose edit two, with the tracking tag and part of the dorsal fin scarring removed. That does detract from the reality of the image. Removing the unfocused spots (and leaving lots of bubbles and other real things) just makes the picture better and doesn't damage its
568:
I see what you are saying, but if it takes away from the main subject which we need to focus on, maybe it wouldn't be so horrible to modify it just a little. BTW: If there is an artificial tracking tag, maybe even that should be removed to better show what the sharks really look like?
540:
That's right, Stefan. If you use a browser that allows tabs (Firefox, IE7, and many others), you can also open the two versions in two different tabs and switch back and forth between them so the pictures are in the same place. Then you will for sure notice the difference.
467:
Just big enough; beautiful sharpness, composition, colors, and lighting; great WOW value; one of the best pictures I've seen of this fish; minor distractions can't stand against all the positive things about this picture. Excellent!
420:
Nice composition. Shows the shark in its natural habitat without depicting it as the typical "killing and eating machine." A great picture, especially considering that the photographer was in the water with the shark at the time!
34:
667:
first edit; would give weak support for original. The spots were a bit distracting and removing them added to the shot without taking anything away; I would oppose the second edit with the tracker removed.
605:'clean' the lens (which you can not do under water anyway), also look at some of the other pictures on the flicker account, and see that this guy knows how to take pictures, compare the deeper pictures
710:
234:
which recently passed, it have the same isse but much more (remember this shark is 3+ meters, turtle estimated to 50+cm) but still the end of the turtle starts to look a bit blurred.
182:
Per H, the shark is smallish but otherwise impeckable. There also seem to be a few distracting blown pixels near the splah; there are only a handful so they can be adjusted by hand.--
285:
I'm not distracted by the school or the splash either, and the detail on the shark is quite nice. Shame it's so small, though, it'd make a great wallpaper otherwise. --
273:
dramatic! school of fish and splash I find not distracting - they show they prey (and prey behavior) and the splash shows the energy exerted by the shark respectively.
516:
Call me visually insensative, but I actually cant see the difference between the original picture and the edited one. Can you pint out to me the actual differences?
786:
677:(the original image is already a JPG, so all these additional edits would conceivably be recompressing, thus reducing the quality overall...? Just a thought.)
776:
481:
While I think that the original is worthy of FP, the edit removes a negative element (the spots or bubbles) from the picture and should replace the first.
686:
I saved using 100% jpeg quality each time. When viewed at full size and switching between the pictures, you cannot notice extra jpeg artifacts.
781:
17:
578:
I made this edit. I know it is deviating from what "really happened," but we have to decide if it's a more "encyclopedic" depiction or not.
382:
of the dorsal fin, but it looks so much like an individual imperfection (scar, whatever) that I think the encyclopedic value is preserved.
344:- Some technical flaws, and unfortunately small, but I don't think I've ever seen a shark image this well-lit and well-composed before. --
326:-- stuns me, interests me, grabs my enthusiasm. Seems to be of good quality. Subject fairly clearly defined. Thats what a FP is, isn't it?
589:
Pterantula, are you sure the bubbles and other stuff I removed in the first edit are simply not specks of something on the camera lens?
150:
220:
608:
which have less bubbles, but bubbles do happen underwater especially close to the surface and there is not much to do about them.
23:
606:
207:
towards the middle) are specks of dust on the lens, or if they're something else (they don't look like bubbles to me). Also, as
643:- The picture does follow all of the requirements for a featured picture and depicts the Great White's entire body and niche.
755:
736:
723:
690:
681:
672:
659:
647:
635:
612:
593:
582:
573:
563:
545:
535:
526:
511:
499:
485:
472:
452:
437:
425:
412:
391:
373:
360:
348:
336:
318:
301:
289:
277:
265:
251:
238:
224:
194:
170:
157:
141:
124:
523:
333:
531:
Look at the white bubble above the fin of the shark, in the middle top of the picture, and 5-10 other simmilar bubbles.
751:
THANK YOU, everyone who took a look and offered their thoughts. I really, really appreciate the feedback. Cheers!
719:
shark is. THe splash is trivial; it's in the corner, for crying out loud!! This definitely would be a COOL FP! --
517:
327:
231:
602:
599:
398:(the thing at the base of the dorsal fin is a research tracking tag, age unknown.) - pterantula, 13 June 2007
656:
316:
216:
202:- I assume this is a somewhat difficult shot to obtain, but I feel like a better one could be found. The
261:
sorry, but there are just too many distracting elements that do not bring much more encyclopedic value.
80:
As good an image as I've seen of a great white. In focus, in frame, and with a bit of action and detail.
707:
720:
298:
286:
186:
422:
122:
312:
212:
86:
45:
370:
345:
133:
49:
752:
703:
678:
669:
560:
449:
434:
191:
183:
106:
68:
733:
644:
630:
625:
117:
770:
687:
590:
579:
570:
542:
508:
496:
482:
469:
274:
208:
98:
507:
Perhaps the featured picture candidate should be replaced with the edited version.
262:
90:
40:
609:
532:
409:
248:
244:
235:
167:
154:
137:
388:
383:
166:
Later comment, support all three version, in order I prefere 2 over 1 over 3.
357:
72:
Another possible edit, without the tracker on the base of the dorsal fin.
60:
655:- Great picture of a Great White. Certainly FP material in my book. --
56:, August 2006. Animal estimated at 11-12 feet in length, age unknown.
53:
448:
Strongest support for second image, although all three are great.
203:
24:
Knowledge:Featured picture candidates/Image:Whiteshark-TGoss5b.jpg
408:; agree that the picture overcomes any technical deficiencies. --
94:
136:effect on the shark. But it is rather small.
8:
598:Should not answer for others, but compare
67:
59:
39:
787:Featured picture nominations/June 2007
433:Beautiful image and a novel subject.
18:Knowledge:Featured picture candidates
7:
297:for Edit 1 than for the original. --
211:noted, the image isn't very large. —
64:Edit without some distracting spots.
151:Knowledge:Featured_picture_criteria
777:Ended featured picture nominations
31:
243:The spots on the top I think is
730:Promoted Image:White shark.jpg
83:Articles this image appears in
1:
782:Featured picture nominations
803:
495:perfect quality picture.--
756:07:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
737:04:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
724:16:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
711:13:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
691:02:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
682:02:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
673:22:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
660:07:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
648:14:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
636:12:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
613:05:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
594:20:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
583:18:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
574:18:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
564:18:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
546:17:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
536:10:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
527:08:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
512:20:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
500:08:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
486:17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
473:03:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
453:18:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
438:02:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
426:20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
413:19:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
392:02:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
374:17:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
361:16:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
349:15:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
337:10:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
319:09:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
302:06:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
290:07:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
278:05:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
266:00:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
252:01:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
239:01:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
232:image:Hawaii_turtle_2.JPG
225:00:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
195:23:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
171:05:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
158:23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
142:23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
125:23:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
132:Fine image, I like the
73:
65:
57:
716:Super Sonic Support!!
387:encyclopedic value.
71:
63:
43:
114:Support as nominator
519:Anonymous Dissident
329:Anonymous Dissident
657:Grandpafootsoldier
74:
66:
58:
139:
87:Great white shark
46:great white shark
35:Great white shark
22:(Redirected from
794:
633:
628:
520:
330:
138:
120:
27:
802:
801:
797:
796:
795:
793:
792:
791:
767:
766:
721:Sonic is Cool!!
631:
626:
518:
328:
299:Herald Alberich
287:Herald Alberich
118:
38:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
800:
798:
790:
789:
784:
779:
769:
768:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
741:
727:
726:
713:
702:- Great shot.
700:Strong Support
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
662:
650:
641:Strong Support
638:
622:Strong support
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
587:
586:
585:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
502:
490:
489:
488:
479:Support edit 1
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
441:
440:
428:
415:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
376:
367:Strong Support
364:
351:
339:
321:
306:
305:
304:
280:
268:
256:
255:
254:
241:
197:
176:
175:
174:
173:
161:
160:
144:
127:
110:
109:
104:
101:
84:
81:
78:
50:Isla Guadalupe
37:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
799:
788:
785:
783:
780:
778:
775:
774:
772:
757:
754:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
739:
738:
735:
731:
725:
722:
717:
714:
712:
709:
705:
701:
698:
692:
689:
685:
684:
683:
680:
676:
675:
674:
671:
666:
663:
661:
658:
654:
651:
649:
646:
642:
639:
637:
634:
629:
623:
620:
614:
611:
607:
603:
600:
597:
596:
595:
592:
588:
584:
581:
577:
576:
575:
572:
567:
566:
565:
562:
558:
555:
547:
544:
539:
538:
537:
534:
530:
529:
528:
525:
524:
521:
515:
514:
513:
510:
506:
503:
501:
498:
494:
491:
487:
484:
480:
477:
476:
475:
474:
471:
466:
462:
461:
454:
451:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
439:
436:
432:
429:
427:
424:
419:
416:
414:
411:
407:
404:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
390:
385:
380:
377:
375:
372:
368:
365:
362:
359:
355:
352:
350:
347:
343:
340:
338:
335:
334:
331:
325:
322:
320:
317:
314:
310:
307:
303:
300:
296:
293:
292:
291:
288:
284:
281:
279:
276:
272:
269:
267:
264:
260:
257:
253:
250:
246:
242:
240:
237:
233:
228:
227:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
205:
201:
198:
196:
193:
190:
189:
185:
181:
178:
177:
172:
169:
165:
164:
163:
162:
159:
156:
153:, support!!!
152:
148:
145:
143:
140:
135:
131:
128:
126:
123:
121:
115:
112:
111:
108:
105:
102:
100:
99:Portal:Sharks
96:
92:
88:
85:
82:
79:
76:
75:
70:
62:
55:
51:
47:
42:
36:
33:
25:
19:
740:
729:
728:
715:
699:
664:
652:
640:
621:
556:
522:
504:
492:
478:
464:
463:
430:
417:
405:
378:
366:
353:
341:
332:
323:
308:
295:More Support
294:
283:Weak Support
282:
270:
258:
213:BrOnXbOmBr21
199:
187:
179:
149:- Meets all
146:
130:Weak support
129:
113:
91:Shark attack
371:Jellocube27
346:TotoBaggins
245:backscatter
771:Categories
753:Pterantula
679:Pterantula
670:Matt Deres
561:Pterantula
450:TimVickers
435:TimVickers
369:per above
107:Pterantula
734:Raven4x4x
704:Ba'Gamnan
645:Taipan198
119:Yomangani
688:Althepal
632:hris_huh
591:Althepal
580:Althepal
571:Althepal
543:Althepal
509:Althepal
497:Svetovid
483:Althepal
470:Althepal
423:Vhadsell
275:Debivort
221:contribs
665:Support
653:Support
557:Comment
505:Comment
493:Support
465:Support
431:Support
418:Support
406:Support
379:Support
354:Support
342:Support
324:Support
309:Support
271:support
263:Circeus
180:Support
147:Support
134:caustic
103:Creator
610:Stefan
533:Stefan
410:Golbez
259:Oppose
249:Stefan
236:Stefan
204:school
200:Oppose
168:Stefan
155:Stefan
77:Reason
54:Mexico
389:Enuja
384:Enuja
192:oHelp
16:<
708:Talk
601:and
363:Mbz1
358:Mbz1
217:talk
184:Here
95:Fish
313:Mgm
48:at
773::
732:--
706:|
421:--
356:--
223:•
219:•
215:•
116:—
97:,
93:,
89:,
52:,
44:A
627:C
315:|
209:H
188:T
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
