Poor man's previsualization

[hankchinaski]

Being not the new Ansel Adams (check my previous posts...) and above all not having a darkrooom at my disposal right now, wanted to ask you if there are pre-measured tables or something of the kind where I can tell, for a given film (especially b/w) if, given a delta of x stops from middle grey, I will have detail or not? Maybe for a certain type of paper, which then I can translate into monitor viewing (I target monitors invariably)?

 

[Dan Daniel]

Just assume 4 stops up and 4 stops down. There are lots of factors at play here. Ranging from digital possibly using a different definition of 'middle gray' than film photography to differing levels of silver used in today's emulsions and papers that can require shifting the scale down a bit for full shadow detail from what might have been the standard before (hence 4, not 5, stops in the shadows). Development time related to film exposure index used and how highlights are affected. The digital imaging system to render the file for processing on a computer. And then you have the fun of how to deal with actual viewing monitors which can take all your hard precise calibration and processing and gank it into a blown out mess tinted some horrid shades of green or magenta...

4 stops of shadows, central gray, 4 stops of highlights. For Zones 0 and 10, if you get anything, consider it gravy. Actual shooting and processing through to the finsihed image is, all in all, the best way to learn.

 

[bernard_L]

Actual shooting and processing through to the finsihed image is, all in all, the best way to learn.

+1
Plus, keep notes: for each pic, how did you meter? this wall in zone 5... average reading on open shadows in zone 3... etc This way you will hopefully learn from your mistakes.
Plus, bracket your exposures +1/-1 (no need to bother with 1/3 stops). Then perform critical A/B comparisons with both images on-screen. Plus one stop: does the shadow tone separation improve? Is there a compression of light values (unlikely)? Can you get away with one stop less?

 

[hankchinaski]

Wow thanks for the fantastic advice!

 

[Dan Daniel]

I'll reinforce bernard_L's recommendations, especially on taking notes. It may seem annoying at first, but it is probably the best investment in getting a handle on film exposure you can make. Take notes on each shot, then look at the developed film and proof images with your notes. It will all start making sense when you close that loop between shooting and final images.

The original of the following document is not on the web, and this version loses much of the original formatting. But it is still worth reading for his discussion of the basics of metering and exposure. Remember, however many matrixes and AI nanobots are used, there are only three factors in the actual exposure- film speed, shutter speed, and aperture (consider filters as a modification of film speed). That's it.

The Ultimate Exposure Computer [pon2wd0v3yn0]

The Ultimate Exposure Computer [pon2wd0v3yn0]. ...

idoc.pub

 

[Nitroplait]

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

Visualize should be enough.

 

[Saganich]

I'm a note slacker so sometimes I'll use my cell phone to grab a picture for comparison later. I find this also helps.

 

[bernard_L]

@ Dan Daniel. The Ultimate Exposure Computer is an interesting read. One small quibble: the author calls Exposure Value (EV) what is actually light value (LV). This appears clearly on the last page (16) when, to convert "his" EV to lux, he has to specify "ISO 100". More explicitly for the benefit of a novice who would happen to read this: LV measures the amount of light available on the scene; EV measures the combination of aperture and speed; the choice os film speed shifts the relation between these two scales. The numbers in the table p.12 are actually LV; ditto in the table p.13, where one line corresponds actually to a single EV equal to the number shown under ISO 100. And on p.16, it is LV that has a direct, fixed correspondence with lighting in lux or foot-candles.

 

[bernard_L]

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

Let me try to explain.
First. before I press the shutter release, I imagine being in my darkroom with the negative; will I feel motivated to spend an hour or so to produce a half-decent print, or is it just going to stay in the negative file? If the latter, I just pass.
Second. From one negative one can make a variety of prints. Expose for these nice cumulus, and let the shadows fall into black, or prefer a more postcard rendering. Ditto from a given scene. When I exposed the picture below --ISO 100, 1/250, f/22, orange filter--, I had already in mind the final picture, not exactly what was before my eyes.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

 

[Paul Howell]

Adams used the term visualization to describe the process of looking at given scene then visualizing the scene in black and white. Then a step further, to visualize the scene not as a record shot, but how he felt the scene should look to invoke it's emotional meaning that he felt at the time.

Minor White for a reason I was never able to pin him down on used the term pre visualization which in his book he describes in the Zone System Manual page 13.

"Previsualzation refers to the learnable power to look at a a scene, person, place or situation and "see" at the time on the back of the eyelids or sense in the mind or body the various ways photography can render the subject. Then out of the potential renderings select one photograph. Such selection makes up a large share of the photographer's creativity."

Of course people are free to use visualization and pre visualization as they wish, but none of this has anything or only in vague way in which Adams and White use the concept. Both believed that visualization happens in the field or studio, before the shutter is released. The zone system was developed to allow for exposing the scene and development of the negative to match the visualization, a technical feat, but minor to visualization.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm a note slacker so sometimes I'll use my cell phone to grab a picture for comparison later. I find this also helps.

I am having trouble using the Zone System on my cell phone. Please help.

 

[MattKing]

I am having trouble using the Zone System on my cell phone. Please help.

It wasn't implemented in your model.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Another interesting use of visulaization was by Minor White in the first edition of Aperture magazine. He referenced the pre-visualization where the photographer has a 'vision' of the final image before he fires the shutter. Then he discusses post-visualization. Where you shoot like a banshee, using 35mm film, and figure out what you were up to afterwards. Remember, this was in the mid-50s when 36 exposures on a roll was like your first 128mb compact flash card- way too many!!! Not sure if he was making fun of the new 35mm film shooters like Robert Frank (28,000 frames for 83 images), or was seriously proposing such an approach (the article was serious in tone and seemed to be supportive). But this was about the time of John Cage. And as Jasper Johns said when someone asked him abut the accidental drips on his canvasses, 'They may have happened by accident, but I choose to keep them.'

A couple of important thing to remember about photography: mid-20th century, it was still a pathetic bastard child in the world of fine arts struggling to be recognized. And two, photographers love systems and techniques. Never heard a painter talk about their so-called creative process to the extent that Adams and White et al did to try to legitimize their endeavors.

 

[aparat]

Being not the new Ansel Adams (check my previous posts...) and above all not having a darkrooom at my disposal right now, wanted to ask you if there are pre-measured tables or something of the kind where I can tell, for a given film (especially b/w) if, given a delta of x stops from middle grey, I will have detail or not? Maybe for a certain type of paper, which then I can translate into monitor viewing (I target monitors invariably)?

I think more and more film photographers find themselves in a similar spot, not having a darkroom at their disposal, so I agree that it's an important question to ask. I think that a film test, however rudimentary, is likely to reveal a lot of the information one typically seeks in previsualization. One way to interpret a film test is to think of it as a simulation of the real-world photographic process - from scene to print (or monitor).

 

[Sirius Glass]

Visualizing [previsualizing] can save a lot of wasted film.

 

[aparat]

Another interesting use of visulaization was by Minor White in the first edition of Aperture magazine. He referenced the pre-visualization where the photographer has a 'vision' of the final image before he fires the shutter. Then he discusses post-visualization. Where you shoot like a banshee, using 35mm film, and figure out what you were up to afterwards. Remember, this was in the mid-50s when 36 exposures on a roll was like your first 128mb compact flash card- way too many!!! Not sure if he was making fun of the new 35mm film shooters like Robert Frank (28,000 frames for 83 images), or was seriously proposing such an approach (the article was serious in tone and seemed to be supportive). But this was about the time of John Cage. And as Jasper Johns said when someone asked him abut the accidental drips on his canvasses, 'They may have happened by accident, but I choose to keep them.'

Only on Photrio do you get Frank, Cage, and Johns mentioned in a single post. I love it!

 

[albada]

before I press the shutter release, I imagine being in my darkroom with the negative; will I feel motivated to spend an hour or so to produce a half-decent print, or is it just going to stay in the negative file? If the latter, I just pass.

This is a good test.

 

[Paul Howell]

A couple of important thing to remember about photography: mid-20th century, it was still a pathetic bastard child in the world of fine arts struggling to be recognized. And two, photographers love systems and techniques. Never heard a painter talk about their so-called creative process to the extent that Adams and White et al did to try to legitimize their endeavors.

As a photographer who came of age at the mid 20th century it seemed to me that the other visual arts of the time did not have the technical challenges that photography struggled with. Painting, oil, acrylic, watercolor, sculpting, the methods and means were well know and taught. When Ansel Adams and Fred Archer developed the zone system in the late 30s and early 40s meters were new and inaccurate, film was slow and grainy, and few photographers understood the science behind the craft. What AA attempted to do was devise a system that allowed the photographer to focus on creativity. It was designed for sheet film, although Adams used both 35mm and 6X6 he never explained at length how to use the Zone with roll film. As film got better, meters go better, and roll film became dominate to some extent the zone was not as relevant as it had been. In my opinion using the zone system to determine a personal E.I or personalized ISO is just overkill. I do use a crippled zone with roll film, based on a ring around test to find zone 3 shadows, I develop for Zone VII, meter the shadows for zone III then print for my highlights. If I have VII when developed I can visualize for zone V to VIII and use VC paper and filters to get the highlight I want. Saying that, if I am using a newer camera with matrix metering, don't find that it is necessary, matrix in case gives a very negative to work with.

 

[hankchinaski]

One thing…if I say “I develop for zone x” where x would bring me to use a time and/or temperature way off from the manufacturer’s recommendations, would I not obtain an inferior image anyway? It would seem to me that, given that I can expose for a certain zone, and then print (or photoshop) for another zone, this two variables would suffice that obtain the zone system, without bringing film out of its area of best performance? Sure, I can also use the third variable (develop for zone x) but to a beginner’s eyes it sounds like just complicating things.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A couple of important thing to remember about photography: mid-20th century, it was still a pathetic bastard child in the world of fine arts struggling to be recognized. And two, photographers love systems and techniques. Never heard a painter talk about their so-called creative process to the extent that Adams and White et al did to try to legitimize their endeavors.

As a photographer who came of age at the mid 20th century it seemed to me that the other visual arts of the time did not have the technical challenges that photography struggled with. Painting, oil, acrylic, watercolor, sculpting, the methods and means were well know and taught. When Ansel Adams and Fred Archer developed the zone system in the late 30s and early 40s meters were new and inaccurate, film was slow and grainy, and few photographers understood the science behind the craft. What AA attempted to do was devise a system that allowed the photographer to focus on creativity. It was designed for sheet film, although Adams used both 35mm and 6X6 he never explained at length how to use the Zone with roll film. As film got better, meters go better, and roll film became dominate to some extent the zone was not as relevant as it had been. In my opinion using the zone system to determine a personal E.I or personalized ISO is just overkill. I do use a crippled zone with roll film, based on a ring around test to find zone 3 shadows, I develop for Zone VII, meter the shadows for zone III then print for my highlights. If I have VII when developed I can visualize for zone V to VIII and use VC paper and filters to get the highlight I want. Saying that, if I am using a newer camera with matrix metering, don't find that it is necessary, matrix in case gives a very negative to work with.

Adams and White et al had to do a lot of explaining to teach the Zone System.

 

[aparat]

One thing…if I say “I develop for zone x” where x would bring me to use a time and/or temperature way off from the manufacturer’s recommendations, would I not obtain an inferior image anyway

Not necessarily. The manufacturer’s recommended time and temperature are just a signpost. You, and only you can determine what works for you, even if it diverges from what's printed on the box.

It would seem to me that, given that I can expose for a certain zone, and then print (or photoshop) for another zone, this two variables would suffice that obtain the zone system, without bringing film out of its area of best performance? Sure, I can also use the third variable (develop for zone x) but to a beginner’s eyes it sounds like just complicating things.

If you want to keep it very simple, just use the "expose for shadows and develop for highlights" idea and go from there, see if it works for you. That's as simple as it gets.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not necessarily. The manufacturer’s recommended time and temperature are just a signpost. You, and only you can determine what works for you, even if it diverges from what's printed on the box.


If you want to keep it very simple, just use the "expose for shadows and develop for highlights" idea and go from there, see if it works for you. That's as simple as it gets.

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.

 

[hankchinaski]

Allrighty, thanks.

 

[aparat]

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.

Perfect!