I am puzzled . . .

[alanhill]

This is one of my first successful aquatic photos. I took it on 24th September 1983 (before some of our members were born :))

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v322/alanhill/Other%20Fishes/ElectrophorusRescan.jpg

It is an Electric Eel photographed at Chester Zoo Aquarium, where the tanks were lit by daylight through a glass roof. The camera was an OM1 with a 55mm lens (if I remember correctly) using High Speed Ektachrome film (160 ISO). I used a rubber lens hood to brace the camera against the aquarium glass, so I guess that the shutter speed was about 1/15 s and the aperture f/2.8 or f/4.
I sent this photo to Fishbase several years ago with a number of others, which I thought were far better - but this is the only one people ask to use. It has appeared in several educational publications and on one or two websites with my permission (and on the website of Schonbrunn Zoo without my permission - they apologised after a polite e-mail).
I realise it's an interesting subject, but I don't think it's a particularly good shot - so why do people like it? Am I missing something?

Alan

[paradise]

I dont get it either, I think it's terrible :) J/K Alan :)

I think it's a great photo. I dont know if I love the edges being so blured, but the pose of the fish is excellent, it looks like it's hunting from behind a corner. Like it's just waiting behind a corner for pray to come closer. Nice 'hunter" shot. It's just very natural looking. Not a scientifically perfect shot, but yet very easy to look at. Does that make any sense?

[steve535]

I was 25 in 1983.Could it be the eel is so unique?Its kinda like taking a photo of an old man,every line and crack in his face adds character to the subject.

[The Kapenta Kid]

It is a nice pic, but I think we would have to see other pics of the electrophorus which were rated less desirable to know why this one was preferred.

[CDM]

A clear pic is more than enough for those applications. Composition wise is just BTW. Guess they lacked of photos for the specific species. Anyway, this is a nice shot already.

[benny]

By classical photography criteria, the composition for this picture could certainly be better.

However, we are talking about an audience who is more interested in fish than photography. In 1983, a lot of the photographs does not give justice to the fishes that they portray. This one is an exception to the usual offering.

The subject is well lit, despite it's dark coloration, all details/markings are clearly visible. In addition, the picture looks natural, with no foreign objects distracting the viewers. The background as well as the foreground could well have been from the subject's natural habitat. The sense of depth arising from the blurred forground leads the audience to the subject in a natural manner.

In my opinion, the picture is still as great today as it was in 83 from an aquatic photography perspective.

Cheers,

[alanhill]

I just did a Google image search for "electrophorus electricus" (Google doesn't bother about capital letters). I found this photo 4 times. Schonbrunn Zoo are still using it - with my copyright acknowledged; plus a Dutch site and two in a language I don't recognise (possibly Turkish?) without any reference to copyright or to me. It's rather flattering in a way and I don't know if there's much point in making a fuss. The sites seem to be well-meaning popular science explanations and as a science teacher I am in favour of that sort of thing :)
The Fishbase photo page for this species is here (http://www.fishbase.org/Photos/ThumbnailsSummary.cfm?ID=4535) - I don't think any of them are exactly attractive.

Alan

[CDM]

LOL, agree, yours is the best there, and there don't even has a clear and sharp profile shot. Or you are just those few great photographers who are willing to share some great photos? Now I'm puzzled too.

[alanhill]

Or you are just those few great photographers who are willing to share some great photos? Now I'm puzzled too.

Fishbase works on the basis of sharing photos (in low res jpg format, which really isn't much use if they are pirated). I am planning to write an Article for the forum about it. It can be a shop window for selling images.
But why hasn't anyone submitted a better photo of an electric eel? They aren't rare in public aquaria.

Alan

[CDM]

I visit few public aquarium frequently. And, though they do have some eels, I never have chance to take shot. They always hide in caves or dive in gravels. Besides, the eel tanks are under dimm light which nearly the same as the jelly fish tank.

[RazorBlade]

My first impression of the shot - the head of the eel (and the immediate surrounding area) seems to 'capture my attention'. On further study, it also seems to demonstrate the ability of the eel to 'blend into the background'.

On photo composition, colour, exposure, etc - yes, could do some work (as many others have pointed out). But IMHO, a great shot nonetheless.

P.S. I have no experience with these eels, but I am captivated by the photo. ^_^