 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
September 2008
The story behind it
01/09/2008
A simple story until the click. Not so simple after it. I was the only one on the beach, with flat sand, rich textures, lines and contrasts. Heavy rain was to arrive soon and I was 15 minutes away from shelter. In fact, I took 4 identical photos, with differing exposures and a tripod. These were processed using HDR (High Dynamic Range), enhancing the impressionist look, nearly surreal. This is not straight photography, but may be very useful, approximating the capabilities of human sight. There are people that go for the arty HDR, with strong processing like this example. I still don't know. I liked this one and I was impressed. By the way, I didn't get wet.Comment
Technical issues
01/09/2008
It was taken with a digital camera, from combining 4 exposures at -2, -1, 0 and 1 EV, captured in RAW. These were taken sequentially, using bracketing. The tripod was fundamental for keeping exposures coincident. HDR resulted in a single photo, having preferred to enhance the shadows on the clouds, relative to the sea and rocks. Another important factor on this photograph is the lens, with a short focal distance of 12mm. This results in distortion of the ground, near the camera. It also results in the compression of the far horizon. This notion of perspective enriches the photograph and provides more volume. Hyperfocal distance was used, with a diaphragm aperture of f/22, for total focusing. Polarising filter included.Critial review
01/09/2008
The result is at the verge of realism-impressionism. It does not effectively result from the real capture (matter of great controversy on ethics and etymology). I have admitted so from the start. Anyhow, the digital processing was to approximate the effect of a colour-saturating film (as the Fugi Velvia or Kodak VS, on slide), using graduated ND and warming filters.In fact, this photograph is closer to what I saw and felt then. I can't really state if HDR is/is not photography.
Where you should place it
01/09/2008
This photograph, printed large or along a wall, invades the place. It runs the risk of being too strong. In an opinion for placement, which is always subjective, it should not be more than 60cm wide. I see it more as one more detail in a place that has further unique and beautiful details. A light brown pass-par-tout, with a sleek modern frame, will do a good job. Definitively not on a place with many people around. It should be appreciated within a certain distance, even if being small.
