By observing and editing the pictures, I think the result is better on the pictures that are focused on a smaller part of the visual field. By zooming on a detail for example, the real and virtual part of the image connects better and the difference is not at all obvious.
Another problem of the documentation was, as I said before, the angle from which I took the photo and of course the actual spot chosen for this. I found out by this procedure that the visual result was better in the pictures where I placed the prints upon something solid, for example on the ground or on a rock, than in the cases where I held the print vertically, trying to capture the site behind. This was also difficult because of the light shining on the transparent material.
These thoughts made me think that maybe a large transparent piece of art, printed on a material like the transparent films, may not be the result I am looking for. Zooming on a detail may produce interesting results, but a large scale work will not have this quality. If placed horizontally on the ground it may be better visually, but I think in that case large scale will loose its power.
My original idea was a sort of translucent print on a material like plexiglass, that would have a certain thickness and would stand alone in an environment, in a “sculptural” sense. In this case and after this experimentation, I think that I would choose a less transparent material, to achieve a more blurred mixture. The problem is that this idea could cost a lot, I am also not sure of the result and I will definitely have a problem sending something that big and non-foldable to London for the final show. Another problem is that, although the zoomed pictures have a certain quality, in general I am not that satisfied with a foldable material like the transparent film. So I am probably not going with the transparent material idea, and will keep on working on the 3D meshes for a large scale normal print or video work.