Can you whip underwater?

[rckmtl]

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d98/rckmtl/acrocrop1.jpg

Allright, exif info is below. I choose this photo for critique becuase I'm pretty happy with it. But I'm not sure if I'm happy with it cuz it's got good elements, or if it just happens to be pleasing to my eye. I'm aware of some of the technical issues about the photo. Lack of sharpness, DOF, and I think it's a bit pixilated around the edges...I think most of those could have been fixed if I had used a tripod, instead of freehanding it.
I'd appriciate any input at all on the photo, but I'd especially like to hear critique about the compostional elements. Is this a pleasing photo? Does it capture ones attention? Is it something that a person might care to look at often?
I don't have photoshop yet, so all that was done was some cropping, and tones/curves adjustment, and a tiny, tiny touch of sharpening.
Thanks in advance for everyones time, I appreciate it!

Exif info-
Camera-Konica Minolta Dimage Z10
Shutter-1/125
Aperature-f3.3
ISO-80
Multi-segment metering
No flash

[ChrisJ]

I like the colors and textures, but there's nothing that really grabs me. I want a little fishy swimming in and out through the stalks. If you hadn't said that it was underwater, I might not have known.

The picture seems sharp enough, but a larger version might help. For ISO80, it appears noisy, but that may be the water effect.

Just my 2 cents. I also enjoy taking underwater shots, and know it's challenging.

[Frog Lady]

like Chris, I'm not sure I would have realized it was taken underwater unless you said so in the title and I think missing that element takes away from the picture.

Also, imho, I think that the top of the coral needs to be a bit more in focus as my eye tends to be initially drawn to the region of highest contrast. And once you've captured the viewers interest, some of the detail helps hold it, and again, I think the detail in the different parts of the coral polyps are lacking.

However, I do like the range of pink colors against the dark bkgd and it is "comfortable" in an abstract sort of way. It may just be my background in marine bio that wants me to get more detail out of the picture.

[rutt]

i'd like to see some texture in that coral. It does have texture and this shot is close enough to show it. The shape is interesting, but nice surface texture would add a lot here.

[wxwax]

It's certainly an unusual thing, and so it catches your interest. I've never shot underwater, dunno what the challenges are.

Here are the things that come to my mind, rc.

As you say, it's quite soft. As Chris said, it's not terribly striking. It works fine as a shot a scientist might want, but it doesn't have the compositional flair to make it visually striking. For example, is there a way you can place the camera to give more of a sense of the depth of the thing? Maybe find a pattern that works with the Golden Ratio? Again, I think Chris' suggestion about a fish giving it perspective and adding a visual element, is a good one.

The other thing that strikes me is how much of the image is dark. Not just the background. But also big parts of the foreground. The bits that are well lit are only a small part of the overall image. For me, that means it's not very inviting, I have to work to see what's in the shot. It's not unusual to see a shot which capitalizes on scant highlights. Here, I don't feel that it works.

I'd love to see you go back and shoot lots of different angles, play with the light, see what you can get, because you've definitely found something that hs a lot of potential.

[rckmtl]

Thanks to everyone who's replyed so far, I really appreciate the input.

ChrisJ- Thank you for commenting on the noise, sometimes I am not sure if I am just being too nit-picky, or if the pixilation really is noticable. I think that the reason why it's so noticable at the low ISO is mostly from not having a tripod, but also cuz I zoomed in a lot for the crop. I think I would have had better results using a tripod and manual focus, so I could have taken the shot allready zoomed in closer.

Frog lady- I def. agree that the top of the coral needs to be in better focus. thinking about it more, I realized that when I took the pic, I centered the focus on the center of the coral. Looking at the original, I realize that the sharpest parts are just under where I cropped off. Opps! So next time, I think I'll take shots with the focus centered on diff. parts of the coral, so that whichever crop I go with, it's in focus.

wxwax- Good point on the darkness in the foreground. I am so used to seeing the coral lit with just a strong toplight, that to me, it looks natural to have the undersides of the stalks dark. But looking at it more from outside that viewpoint, it seems like having the dark on the foreground just makes the blurryness and over-contrastedness of the tips stand out more.

The original actually didn't seem so out of balance, but since I do not have photoshop, and no 'fix blemish' tool, I darkend the contrast quite a bit to get rid of white spots on the background caused by floating particles in the water. this was soemthing I could not fix at the time of the shooting, as I was taking the shot at a store, and not my own tank.

rutt, and everyone, on the comments on texture- I'm actually glad to hear you guys say that you'd like to see more texture, cuz that means I got enough for you to notice that there should be some. I was actually very supprised as much textured showed in this shot as it did. I know if I go back and re-take the shot, I can get a -lot- more. These corals are just full of texture.

Thank you to everyone as well for the notes on the composition. Again, I'm so used to thinking 'It's a coral, its underwater' that I would have never thought about it being hard for a person to figure that out. I think I'm going to be taking another trip out, and like wxwax said, trying some different types of shots, not just a front-on view.