This is not a spectacular dawn, as our winter dawns go, but it is richly textured and elegant.

The smaller photo, below, was the camera’s default interpretation, an average reading of the light.

In the featured photo, I reduced the light entering the camera to accommodate the brighter areas, while letting the darker area grow darker. In effect, I sacrificed detail in the shoreline opposite in order to preserve detail in the areas of interest, the brightly lit clouds and the sun. In so doing, I added drama, also.

As I have mentioned before, not the camera, not the computer screen, and certainly not a print, can be relied on always to reproduce the full brightness range of the real world, so some part of that range may have to be sacrificed. In such a case, the photographer will make an artistic decision.

As I’ve argued in the past, no photograph is a literal rendering of the subject. How the light entering the camera is interpreted to form an image depends on the goal or style of the photographer, which he or she achieves through the technical means available, that is, by the settings on the camera, and by post-camera processing, if needed, in photo-editing software.

The two photos were taken a minute apart, at 7:19 and 7:20 am respectively, on February 3, 2013. Click an image to view it full screen, and click the back arrow to return. Cursor over for a description.
__________________________________________________________________________
Related: Spare Dawn, Tubular Dawn, Photography as Art*.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *