Wading your way to a photo: The Arch at Campiecho, Asturias

Vieri · Apr 8, 2018

It takes wading in the ocean, water chest high, to get to the Arch at Playa de Campiecho with high enough tide for the cave to be filled with water, and then some more wading into the cave to get the photograph: but the feeling and the view from in there are simply amazing! Taken at sunset in Asturias last year with Leica SL, Voigtlander 15mm and Formatt-Hitech Firecrest filters.

Thank you for viewing, best regards

Vieri

Jeff15 · Apr 8, 2018

Great lighting, lovely image............

Dean_Gretsch · Apr 8, 2018

Wow. That one took some effort, but well worth it I see.

Jeff G · Apr 8, 2018

Now that is dedication! Looks like it was well worth it, beautiful shot.

Fujidave · Apr 8, 2018

Stunningly beautiful shot, great lighting and love the water just flowing in.

WesternGuy · Apr 8, 2018

Great shot and well worth the effort. I like that you have the more distant arch framed by the closer one. My only "nit" is that the horizon appears to be right in the centre of the image, but that is probably not that important in this shot.

WesternGuy

Vieri · Apr 10, 2018

Jeff15 said:
Great lighting, lovely image............

Thank you very much Jeff, glad you enjoyed it!

Dean_Gretsch said:
Wow. That one took some effort, but well worth it I see.

Thank you very much indeed Dean!

Jeff G said:
Now that is dedication! Looks like it was well worth it, beautiful shot.

Thank you very much Jeff, glad you liked it

It was actually fun to walk in the ocean!

Fujidave said:
Stunningly beautiful shot, great lighting and love the water just flowing in.

Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed the photograph and the water treatment!

WesternGuy said:
Great shot and well worth the effort. I like that you have the more distant arch framed by the closer one. My only "nit" is that the horizon appears to be right in the centre of the image, but that is probably not that important in this shot.

WesternGuy

Thank you very much WesternGuy, glad you enjoyed it!

Best regards,

Vieri

waday · Apr 10, 2018

Great shot!

WesternGuy said:
My only "nit" is that the horizon appears to be right in the centre of the image, but that is probably not that important in this shot.

Just my quick thoughts on this... If the horizon were in the upper half/third, the arches would be cut off. If the horizon were in the bottom half/third, the rushing water would be cut off.

WesternGuy · Apr 10, 2018

waday said:
Great shot!

WesternGuy said:

My only "nit" is that the horizon appears to be right in the centre of the image, but that is probably not that important in this shot.

Click to expand...

Just my quick thoughts on this... If the horizon were in the upper half/third, the arches would be cut off. If the horizon were in the bottom half/third, the rushing water would be cut off.

I see your point, but I think that the horizon could move up or down, probably down (?) even a centimeter more or less - doesn't have to be in the "thirds" position. As I said, it is just a "nit" and thus not that important. I just have a personal pre-occupation with horizons in the centre of an image :biggrin-93:

as, for me, this "chops" the image in half. In this case it isn't that important for reasons you specify if you go to the "thirds" position and also that the horizon is not necessarily that important a component of the image because the sky isn't an important part of the image - it is the arches and the rushing water as you note and I agree.

WesternGuy

Vieri · Apr 11, 2018

WesternGuy said:
waday said:

Great shot!

WesternGuy said:

My only "nit" is that the horizon appears to be right in the centre of the image, but that is probably not that important in this shot.

Click to expand...

Just my quick thoughts on this... If the horizon were in the upper half/third, the arches would be cut off. If the horizon were in the bottom half/third, the rushing water would be cut off.

Click to expand...

I see your point, but I think that the horizon could move up or down, probably down (?) even a centimeter more or less - doesn't have to be in the "thirds" position. As I said, it is just a "nit" and thus not that important. I just have a personal pre-occupation with horizons in the centre of an image as, for me, this "chops" the image in half. In this case it isn't that important for reasons you specify if you go to the "thirds" position and also that the horizon is not necessarily that important a component of the image because the sky isn't an important part of the image - it is the arches and the rushing water as you note and I agree.

WesternGuy

Well, I definitely see your point re: horizon, and in general I'd agree with you that not having them in the middle (unless is a perfect reflection, or something of that sort) would be better. In this one it's not exactly in the middle, by the way, but slightly above - however, even if it were, to me it's not a real problem here due to the nature of the subject matter. The horizon being divided by the cave, plus the larger size of the sea compared to that of the sky, in this case for me makes the horizon's position - even if it was in the middle - unimportant. Plus, having more sea in the frame would have meant cutting the top of the arch in the right window, and having more sky would have increased the risk of getting the camera splashed...

Best regards,

Vieri