No special talent is required. Just some practical experience. Previsualization need not be complex. It can be a simple as deciding on N-1 development to hold detail in the highlights or using a red filter to darken the sky. What it does require is some forethought about the image you are trying to achieve.In theory I can imagine someone can reliably visualize what the end result is before a photo is taken from a scene, but I guess you must have a special talent for that, so I am skeptical it happens as much as people say.
That "special talent" is called "craftsmanship". It's relatively easy, if you know how your materials and chemistry work.In theory I can imagine someone can reliably visualize what the end result is before a photo is taken from a scene, but I guess you must have a special talent for that, so I am skeptical it happens as much as people say. Personally I shoot mostly intuitively and let my subconscious brain do the work in the background to detect compositions and patterns. It works very fast and in practice I get interesting photo's all the time.
EvH, the problem is your comment was only pre-sarcastic, which affected TL's post-understanding of your post. Had you pre-posted your pre-intention then TL's post-perception of your pre-sarcastic post would have been post-understood. Am I pre-preventing any post post-misunderstandings? Or am I just pre-pretending any pre-pretense of making post-sense of pre-sensible posting?
EDIT: I wonder if there will ever be a Pre-Preparation-H. Would it be applied or pre-applied or post-applied? I pucker to pre-consider the pre-preponderance of such a post-posterior product.
Please send me a bit of whatever you are ingesting!EvH, the problem is your comment was only pre-sarcastic, which affected TL's post-understanding of your post. Had you pre-posted your pre-intention then TL's post-perception of your pre-sarcastic post would have been post-understood. Am I pre-preventing any post post-misunderstandings? Or am I just pre-pretending any pre-pretense of making post-sense of pre-sensible posting?
EDIT: I wonder if there will ever be a Pre-Preparation-H. Would it be applied or pre-applied or post-applied? I pucker to pre-consider the pre-preponderance of such a post-posterior product.
Please send me a bit of whatever you are ingesting!
Isn't that a bit pre-pesumptuous? Besides, we're rednecks, not yankees!You Yankees couldn't handle it.
Isn't that a bit pre-pesumptuous? Besides, we're rednecks, not yankees!
Nor can you spell it.An Adirandack redneck? I can't even pre-visualize such a thing.
(Pre-) or Visualisation: aesthetics, placement, impact and code of arrangement.
Conceptualisation: the basal idea that will lead to visualisation — the image on film, in-camera, on a plate...whatever.
There is no such word as 'previsualisation' used in tertiary art education, certainly not in photography streams. But C&V are key tenets.
I agree it's being able to visualize the eventual outcome on the printing paper before you release the shutter.Correct.
I don't know what the big debate is about.I agree it's being able to visualize the eventual outcome on the printing paper before you release the shutter.
"Visprep".I agree that we can and should visualize what the finalized image should look like. My silly comments were only about the nonexistent word "previsualize". A famous photographer grammatically erred resulting in endless repetition of the same made-up word which makes no sense whatsoever. The word "visualize" is the appropriate word. "Visualization" is already what we do before we take action. How do we prepare for visualization? I suppose we could meditate for thirty minutes in preparation for visualization. That might qualify as previsualization but I'd call that visualization preparation.
there is no such word and the term can simply be replaced with 'visualization, meaning that you are striving for an outcomesimlar to what you foresaw for a final image.Is he term pre-visualisation a con to make believe what was seen is how the outcome was controlled, when the outcome could be accidental to the MO?
I use film, so for me it's about getting it right, the first and only time, on the film. Where I want shadow detail, where I don't, which if any filter to use, what do I have to do now, in the field, to get a negative that will allow me to make the print I see in my head. There's no preview beyond what I see on the groundglass, and the "review" happens when the sheet is developed and printed. With TXP 8x10 now at $12 per sheet, it damn well better be right the first time.
It's not an argument but a description of how I work with large format cameras, 100% of the time. I have a similar often less structured process with mf and miniature cameras.I question this argument.
At the camera while preparing to make an exposure our perceptions and technical skills are guiding the decisions we make. Data is not infinite, thinking is not perfect, time is not unlimited, humans experience mental and physical fatigue. These factors combine to influence our aesthetic and technical choices. The outcome is unlikely to be perfect, no matter what the price of the materials is.
When visual preview and review tools are added to the camera we are able to inspect the captured image before leaving the location, the opportunity to make further adjustments and make another exposure does not decrease the prospect of a "perfect" image, rather it is increased. I submit that with film this does not happen, we are the weak link in the chain, we are unable to process the consequences of multiple adjustments in real time to the required accuracy, with the result that with no image review the image is more likely to include a flaw rather than less likely.
Data memory is inexpensive. (It is batteries that eat up the dollars)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?