• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Pre-visualisation

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Billy Axeman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
That "special talent" is called "craftsmanship". It's relatively easy, if you know how your materials and chemistry work.
 

It seems that stuttering can be a learned capability.
 
Please send me a bit of whatever you are ingesting!
 
I do not post process my post-pre-visualizations.
 
Usually while I am taking a photo, I have a fairly clear picture in my mind what I want the final product -the print- to look like. This helps me work efficiently and also cuts down on wasting film.
I suppose one could call it pre-visualization.
 
And one could also call it pre-pre-pre-pre-visualization.
 
Oops... I've been one-upped. Or is that pre-one-upped?
 

maybe ...
but maybe not
its a book written b y minor white
https://www.amazon.com/Zone-System-Manual-Previsualize-Pictures/dp/B000LCYQJ8
 
Not a big deal... just a Minor mistake.
 
benjiboy said:
I agree it's being able to visualize the eventual outcome on the printing paper before you release the shutter.
Click to expand...
I don't know what the big debate is about.
A machinist knows what the finished part will be, to literally hairsplitting tolerances; a sculptor "sees" the finished object within the block of stone, a carpenter within the wood, etc..
Taking a picture without some idea what the finished image will be is like throwing darts blindfolded.
 
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.
 
"Visprep".
"Proactive" is another, phrases such as "x year anniversary", "removed out of" etc., all are beloved by the not-quite-literate.
 
I always figured previsualization was simply understanding what shade of gray to expect something in your subject will appear on the print.

And the Zone System "Zones" are a good way to relate the meter readings to the print.

When you can see something in your picture will turn to black (or less), you can think whether you should make a different picture, modify the light or accept the shades of gray that you are going to get.

 
cliveh said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 

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)
 
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.
There is no modern digital eqivalent of the view camera, so it's the ONLY way I can get what I want, every time.
Visualisation works, period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register