Poor man's previsualization

[awty]

Is it really got to be complicated? I think the authors of the books just needed something to write about.
Compose your shot, work out what depth of field you want, check your light meter adjust the shutter speed, take the shot, dont shake the camera if you want a sharp picture. Develop as per manufacturer recommendation.
Its in the darkroom where you make the actual picture and that requires a lot of experience to do well.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Perfect!

I think so.

 

[albada]

Even simpler is to take the exposure for the shadow which has detail that you want, put it in Zone 2, Zone 3 or Zone 4 the adjust the overall exposure by increasing 3-, 2- or 1-f/stop. The adjust the exposure for any filter factor. Develop normally. Voilà the Zone System exposure.

Ansel Adams called that procedure, "placing an element on a zone."
As soon as you do so, you have visualized (previsualized) what the print will look like, meaning that you have decided what shade of gray that element will be.

A warning: zone 2 doesn't show much detail. For full detail, place a metered shadow on zone 3 (by reducing exposure 2 stops).

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ansel Adams called that procedure, "placing an element on a zone."
As soon as you do so, you have visualized (previsualized) what the print will look like, meaning that you have decided what shade of gray that element will be.

A warning: zone 2 doesn't show much detail. For full detail, place a metered shadow on zone 3 (by reducing exposure 2 stops).

I rarely use Zone 2. I experimented with it when I first started playing with the Zone System but I found it not all that useful. If I use the Zone System I will use Zone 3 more often then Zone 4.

 

[albada]

I rarely use Zone 2. I experimented with it when I first started playing with the Zone System but I found it not all that useful. If I use the Zone System I will use Zone 3 more often then Zone 4.

I'm still a relative newbie to printing. But a few minutes ago, I printed a negative by metering two important spots on the easel and placing them on zone 5 (shaded skin) and zone 7.5 (sun-lit skin). That was my visualization of the print. The controller computed LED-powers based on those two zone-placements, and the print looks fine, just as I visualized it. I'm getting the hang of proper visualization. Based on my past failures, I know it's harder than it sounds. Or maybe I'm a slow learner.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm still a relative newbie to printing. But a few minutes ago, I printed a negative by metering two important spots on the easel and placing them on zone 5 (shaded skin) and zone 7.5 (sun-lit skin). That was my visualization of the print. The controller computed LED-powers based on those two zone-placements, and the print looks fine, just as I visualized it. I'm getting the hang of proper visualization. Based on my past failures, I know it's harder than it sounds. Or maybe I'm a slow learner.

Much of the Zone System chatter has worked to make it sound much more complex than it is with the operative word being obfuscation.

 

[bernard_L]

Previsualization exists irrespective of the zone system and its evangelists. It is just mentally envisioning an image that can be produced from the photographic capture of the scene; that is possibly different from a literal representation; and making sure that there will not be technical obstacles to producing that (so far only) mental image.
The "Pre-" that sounds redundant to some just expresses that the envisioned image is not yet realized. See #9 above.

 

[Vaughn]

Ansel Adams called that procedure, "placing an element on a zone."
As soon as you do so, you have visualized (previsualized) what the print will look like, meaning that you have decided what shade of gray that element will be.

A warning: zone 2 doesn't show much detail. For full detail, place a metered shadow on zone 3 (by reducing exposure 2 stops).

I tend to look at the over-all range of light on a scene (Scene Brightness Range/SBR, or also called SLR...L = Luminance) as my primary consideration, with the light-value relationship between elements being as (if not more) important than the elements themselves.... My exposure and development is determined to enhance/maintain that relationship on the negative in a way that will translate into my envisioned print (alt processes)...and of course keeping note of how much exposure will be needed to produce the detail I want in the shadows

I have a narrow range of negative contrast (rather high) I like to work with in each alt process (platinum or carbon). Each process has its contrast controls, but often with a change to the over-all characteristics of the print when making big changes in contrast with the printing material.

I jokingly say I print my carbons prints to have a Zone -I (No, the Romans never had negative numbers). My prints have a raised relief, with the blacks being thicker layer of gelatin and raised up above the thinner highlights. There really is no good Zone term for it, but in the darkest areas of a carbon print, one can have a pure black (it will get no blacker with more exposure), yet have information in it...in the form if a raised relief instead of differences in light value.

An example: I made a photogram of a feather using the carbon printing process. I way over-exposed it and the print was all uniformly detail-less black. A total Zone 0 if I ever saw one. However, it one tilted the print to the light, one could easily see all the detail of the feather in relief on the surface of the print. Wonderfully crazy. I bring this up just to show that one can tweak the Zone System to fit one's needs and improve one's understanding of the light. Or turn it into a scientific/religious text or a demon's surmon, I suppose.

 

[gone]

Ansel was a LF shooter, so he had plenty of time to pre-visualize a shot. He also used to sit there all darned day until things looked like he wanted.

That whole thing isn't for everyone, and it looks way too slow and unnecessarily complex for me. I'd just shoot the gear until I was quite familiar w/ what sort of prints it would make in the darkroom and go by that, especially with different films and papers.

There really is no other way, because, trust me, pre-visualizing a Tri-X shot is not going to be anything like pre-visualizing a color shot. Even different B&W film emulsions are going to produce considerably different darkroom prints. Then there's the variance between different developers, filters, lenses, etc. Know your materials well, that's what's needed.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Ansel was a LF shooter, so he had plenty of time to pre-visualize a shot. He also used to sit there all darned day until things looked like he wanted.

Adams was also a commercial photographer who made money by delivering a quality image day after day. If you ever get a chance to look at some of his commercial work, its visual quality is wonderful. Systematizing his shooting to know what he would be delivering to a client made sense; adding some foofie terminology to bamboozle the Art Crowd in Carmel and San Francisco was a small step. Most every successful commercial photographer knows how to deliver a 'look.' Few of them knew how to, or cared to, write books that explained the basics of the word-of-mouth apprentice knowledge in ways that could be used by others.

 

[Paul Howell]

"Ansel was a LF shooter, so he had plenty of time to pre-visualize a shot. He also used to sit there all darned day until things looked like he wanted."

AA as noted above made his living as a commercial/industrial photographer in his diary he talks about making a trip to New Mexico in the 30s, spent months lining up porturit sittings, he hustled to get grants, he did make money selling his work at shows as well. He had full time darkroom assistant who would follow his directions, he made his money taking photographs and spent as time as he could in the field. Only rather late in his career did he make any real money selling books, prints and holding seminars. I had a calendar in the 80s with a picture of AA taking a picture of a kindergarten class, the caption was Even Ansel Adams had to make a living.

 

[eli griggs]

Don’t pre-visualize, just visualize.
I have no idea what the “pre” is about?
Visualize before you visualize?

Visualize should be enough.

Pre-visualize is the process of seeing in the mind's eye, the resulting image from your camera choice, plus lens selection, apature, shutter speed, iso, filters or/and light effects, through the developing process, developer, paper, enlarger settings/approach, contrast filters, split contrast or no, burn and dodge, time in developer, split or single stage, stop, fixer(s) toning, HCA wash, etc, to "die down" of the final print.

You are no pre-visualizing the image so much as pre-visualizing the learned/practiced PROCESSES that will give you that pre-visualized result, in a print.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Pre-visualising just confuses things. Pre-visualise is just a pommy word for visualisation. You visualise... then there may be some post visualising. How many times did we change what we initially visualised, in post? It's the same when I'm drawing or painting.

Irregardless, people will continue to make this same mistake.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Is it really got to be complicated? I think the authors of the books just needed something to write about.
Compose your shot, work out what depth of field you want, check your light meter adjust the shutter speed, take the shot, dont shake the camera if you want a sharp picture. Develop as per manufacturer recommendation.
Its in the darkroom where you make the actual picture and that requires a lot of experience to do well.

I agree. It's being overcomplicated. Most people in the end take a sharp picture of a fuzzy idea, as Adams would say.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Irregardless, people will continue to make this same mistake.

You never heard painters say, Oh I pre-visualised blah blah blah. I've heard them say (myself included once upon a time), I visualised...or I pictured a... blah blah blah. Most of the time I had a basic concept, and then put it together as I went along...like a puzzle. I wonder what was running through EW's head whenever AA was banging on about pre-visualisation? Or did he also accept that term?

 

[Vaughn]

Don't think AA used previsualization...that's White.

previsualize = visualize for all practical purposes.

Its in the darkroom where you make the actual picture and that requires a lot of experience to do well.

In the way I work -- this is not at all true. I do not make pictures...I make prints that have pictures (images) on them that are equally the result of the work done outside the darkroom and inside the darkroom.

YMMD

 

[250swb]

Don't think AA used previsualization...that's White.

previsualize = visualize for all practical purposes.



In the way I work -- this is not at all true. I do not make pictures...I make prints that have pictures (images) on them that are equally the result of the work done outside the darkroom and inside the darkroom.

YMMD

Yes, Adams never pre-visualised anything, he only used the term 'visualisation'. It was indeed Minor White that used pre-visualisation and I guess we all know what he meant even though it doesn't make logical sense since how can you pre-visualise what you visualise? Maybe a case of too much meditation or substances.

 

[Vaughn]

Too much empty worry about semantics...

 

[Paul Howell]

Yes, Adams never pre-visualised anything, he only used the term 'visualisation'. It was indeed Minor White that used pre-visualisation and I guess we all know what he meant even though it doesn't make logical sense since how can you pre-visualise what you visualise? Maybe a case of too much meditation or substances.

When I took White's summer program in the 60s I had read Adams and asked White what was the difference, from what I recall Pre Visualizing was prior to releasing the shutter, then the final print was visualized in the darkroom and post darkroom, toning. Not sure why he did not make that clear in his book. He might have given a different explanation to others as well.

AA wrote about shooting with Edward Weston, AA was using his zone system, EW would look at his Weston meter, mutter a bit then add 3 stops. What ever process EW used he worked for him. Remember that the majority of EW's work was contacted printed, his negatives would look very different from those of AA who projection printed with a diffusion enlarger.

Over the years the zone system got a bad rep, those who used the zone seemed to spend more time plotting curves than taking pictures, zone folks had their own special language, and seemed to have forgot that AA developed to enhance the creative process not to become a slave to the process. Other myths is that the zone system produced a perfect negative. In his book about the making of some his better know works AA gave the number of burns and dodges it took make "Storm Clearing." The negative was not perfect, it was workable.

Most photogpghers did not and do come from a painting background. I did not, I had to learn what painters seem to possess, the ability to see a composed image, without thinking about it. Shooting a news story, no issue, the action, the event, the person, the place or thing is the subject, shooting on the fly just get it in focus and in the frame, and with luck get the right moment. My wife can pick up a camera, look though the viewfinder and see the composition of the frame without thinking about it. She is a trained artist who before going to work as a journalist worked as a commercial artist. I have to think about it.

 

[250swb]

When I took White's summer program in the 60s I had read Adams and asked White what was the difference, from what I recall Pre Visualizing was prior to releasing the shutter, then the final print was visualized in the darkroom and post darkroom, toning. Not sure why he did not make that clear in his book. He might have given a different explanation to others as well.

AA wrote about shooting with Edward Weston, AA was using his zone system, EW would look at his Weston meter, mutter a bit then add 3 stops. What ever process EW used he worked for him. Remember that the majority of EW's work was contacted printed, his negatives would look very different from those of AA who projection printed with a diffusion enlarger.

Over the years the zone system got a bad rep, those who used the zone seemed to spend more time plotting curves than taking pictures, zone folks had their own special language, and seemed to have forgot that AA developed to enhance the creative process not to become a slave to the process. Other myths is that the zone system produced a perfect negative. In his book about the making of some his better know works AA gave the number of burns and dodges it took make "Storm Clearing." The negative was not perfect, it was workable.

Most photogpghers did not and do come from a painting background. I did not, I had to learn what painters seem to possess, the ability to see a composed image, without thinking about it. Shooting a news story, no issue, the action, the event, the person, the place or thing is the subject, shooting on the fly just get it in focus and in the frame, and with luck get the right moment. My wife can pick up a camera, look though the viewfinder and see the composition of the frame without thinking about it. She is a trained artist who before going to work as a journalist worked as a commercial artist. I have to think about it.

The whole point of Adams was to visualise the print prior to pressing the shutter, or what was the whole of the Zone System about as explained in the three books? It wasn't just to make a negative and then happenstance ponder what to do with it in the darkroom. It was to make the negative ready for how you wanted to print it in the darkroom, from the exposure and development of the negative and from exposure to the development of the print. And to be honest the idea that Zone System users spend all their time plotting curves is outright bollocks, when the initial calibration between the equipment and materials is done it's all plane sailing and routine.

 

[Paul Howell]

The 3 books were not about the Zone, book 1 was about cameras and lens, book 2 the Negative was about the Zone and Viszualtion while book 3 The Print discussed how turn the negative based on the ZS into a print, applies to working any negative not just a negative derived from the ZS.

Your right, once done it should be smooth sailing, but there were a number of Zone folks who seemed to get wrapped up in the plotting, different films different developers. In the late 80s after I left the wires a friend invited me to a local camera club meeting, the presentation was from a member who had tested TriX and HP5 with a bunch of different developers, more than 5 fewer than 10. Only had test prints, when asked which one he was going to use the said he needed to do more testing. I test films, new to me, or if I stumbled across a developer I want to try, not often. Without a densitometer, I shoot a crippled ring around looking for best Zone 3 shadows, then adjust the development time for zone VII highlights, then I'm done. With the cost of film going up I don't plan on testing additional films, will stick with Tmax 400, and Foma 400. I was planning on testing Catlabs new 320+ pro, but decided to skip the cost and buy more Tmax 400.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The 3 books were not about the Zone, book 1 was about cameras and lens, book 2 the Negative was about the Zone and Viszualtion while book 3 The Print discussed how turn the negative based on the ZS into a print, applies to working any negative not just a negative derived from the ZS.

Your right, once done it should be smooth sailing, but there were a number of Zone folks who seemed to get wrapped up in the plotting, different films different developers. In the late 80s after I left the wires a friend invited me to a local camera club meeting, the presentation was from a member who had tested TriX and HP5 with a bunch of different developers, more than 5 fewer than 10. Only had test prints, when asked which one he was going to use the said he needed to do more testing. I test films, new to me, or if I stumbled across a developer I want to try, not often. Without a densitometer, I shoot a crippled ring around looking for best Zone 3 shadows, then adjust the development time for zone VII highlights, then I'm done. With the cost of film going up I don't plan on testing additional films, will stick with Tmax 400, and Foma 400. I was planning on testing Catlabs new 320+ pro, but decided to skip the cost and buy more Tmax 400.

Some Zonies get into the trap of endless useless testing and never take a photograph again because all that they know is about useless endless testing.

 

[albada]

The whole point of Adams was to visualise the print prior to pressing the shutter

Well said.
The core of the zone system is deciding the gray-shade a scene-element will be in the print. That's visualizing the print.

 

[Pieter12]

Why is all this the "poor man's" previsualization? Do wealthy individuals have a different method? Maybe an assistant who figures it all out for them?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Zones 3 and 4 aren't really serious shadow values unless your film has a very limited contrast range like Pan F, or if the scene itself is relatively low contrast. No wonder those alleged ZS gurus who preach that have so much trouble with overexposed blown-out highlights. I could mention a couple of well-known names, but somebody will no doubt get offended that I swatted their favorite sacred cow.

But I guess people just gotta try it. Even ole Ansel recognized more usable shadow gradation real estate down there than that. But it all depends on the specific film and exactly how you expose and develop it, as well as how you intend to print it. Roll film could be used for bracket testing relative to Z2, vs Z3, vs Z4 to at least get onto first base. But without test printing the results too, it's hard to know if you're on the right track or not. Practice makes perfect.

I don't know how anyone "previsualizes" if they don't know what to look for yet. Sounds like a dead-end alley even if they do know. The point is, you want to end up with a VERSATILE negative, which is amenable to a reasonable range of printing options. Even the apotheosized saints of Zone lore understood that, despite all their die-cast ideologue manifestos. A hole in one print is rare.

If you want to ask Minor White personally something, he's probably on some UFO seeking the ashes of Timothy Leary so he can learn color photography too.

But everyone does well with the basic simple advice already cited : expose do the shadows, develop for the highlights.