Real, impressionistic or realistic.

I've used the photograph for this issue because I think that it gives a reasonably good illustration of what I saw.

I want it to appear real to the observer, but obviously it can't be because it is a 2 dimensional representation of what was in fact a multi-dimensional experience.
These 'dimensions' were the three concerned with length plus, at least, time, smell, humidity, sound and temperature.

Another problem is how the brain sees an image.
The eye produces a sharp picture and the brain focuses in on what you want to see, but the brain allows what is outside this area to become vague - not out of focus or darker - just vague.
To make matters even worse as soon as you shift your eyes to look at this area it comes into 'focus' and what was being looked at previously then becomes vague.

O.K. I can hear you say, "get into smelly-vision and very big pictures". True, but that is not what stll photography is about - my problem still stands.


I want to provide the viewer with a real impression of what I saw, so I suppose I'm going to have to try to mimic the visual experience that I had.
The tricks are well documented - out of focus backgrounds, blurred backgrounds for moving shots brightening up the centre of the photo and so on.
My challenge is to do all of this without the picture becoming aryt, oh, and I would like to do this with the camera.

 

So is the picture realistic enough?
Will the person viewing the picture take from it what I saw?
Maybe I'm asking too much, maybe, but isn't that what this game is all about.

>