|
Forum: Photographic Technique
07-28-2021, 10:44 AM
|
| |
All of these techniques are intended to compensate for the vast discrepancies between the operation of the human eye and the photographic camera. What seems like photographic artifice is more about overcoming the differences between camera and eye in order to try to replicate what the photographer was actually seeing.
The fact that the human eye can easily handle interior scenes with windows out to sunny exterior but the camera either blows the sunny part or under-exposes the interior proves that bracketing and HDR may be required.
The fact that so many novice photographers make images with trees, signposts, and other clutter adorning the heads of the subjects proves how the human eye mentally separates foreground and background while the camera merges them. Thus, shallow-DoF methods may be required.
The fact that the human eye can dance through the scene to see the bees in the nearby flowers and the houses on the distant mountains means focus stacking may be required.
The fact that the human eye (and head) can easily move to take all the vast array of details in a broad vista means that panoramic tiling with a sharp lens may be required.
The fact that the human eye does not see every water droplet or transient ripple of a babbling brook (just a sensation of a field of motion) means that long-duration images may convey the dynamism of water better than artificially frozen mid-air droplets. (OK, the creamy stream effect is a little overdone, but a droplet-streaking shutter time of 1/4-2 seconds might be good).
Perhaps all these artificial techniques actually increase the verisimilitude of the photograph by overcoming the lack of similarity in the natural eye versus the photographic camera.
|
