Pre-visualisation

[MattKing]

I always took Minor White's use of "pre-visualization" when it comes to how one should approach a photographic opportunity as being the equivalent of the carpenter's "measure twice, cut once".
Or if you will, "visualize once, visualize again, photograph".

 

[faberryman]

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)

Three points:
1. While no one is perfect, thinking about what you are doing generally leads to better results. Thinking is the basis of previsualization.
2. Some people prefer to shoot film for aesthetic reasons.
3. Sometimes do-overs aren't possible.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

I think it happens all the time and the proof is the disappointment when one realizes hat the print looks different from what one hoped.

 

[jtk]

https://books.google.com/books/about/Zone_system_manual_previsualization_expo.html?id=ju5TAAAAMAAJ

Minor White taught AA previsualization... something that can be learned through practice. Has little to do with 35mm Vs sheet film, though the latter gives more individual control With 35mm one changes approach to exposure and development according to needs in a particular roll. Led me to want low contrast negatives since most of my 35mm is in high contrast situations (e.g. artificial light, bright sunlight etc). As well, when I see a subject I immediately visualize it in B&W, which is closely related to previsualization. When I use digital cameras I RARELY look at the screen. Leica had that in mind when it designed the digital M model that doesn't provide ability to "chimp."

My prints usually look the way I anticipate/intend.

 

[jtk]

I always took Minor White's use of "pre-visualization" when it comes to how one should approach a photographic opportunity as being the equivalent of the carpenter's "measure twice, cut once".
Or if you will, "visualize once, visualize again, photograph".

Exactly..except that Minor taught that with practice one would actually visualize the B&W print rather than doing complex metering to begin with. .

I think Minor's prints are more exquisitely realized than Ansel's.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Three points:
1. While no one is perfect, thinking about what you are doing generally leads to better results. Thinking is the basis of previsualization.
2. Some people prefer to shoot film for aesthetic reasons.
3. Sometimes do-overs aren't possible.

4. View cameras have groundglass on which to compose, far better than a tiny electronic preview screen.

 

[jtk]

4. View cameras have groundglass on which to compose, far better than a tiny electronic preview screen.

"Composing" is not even related to "previsualizing." Composing is a rudimentary way of organizing the image. Easy as pie, primative graphic rules etc.

Minor White (originator of "previsualization") taught that one might view the image without any camera, or next to a camera on tripod, or hand held). Perhaps like za-zen (sitting meditation). After that one might develop the film and print accordingly...hence the "pre" in previsualization.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

"Composing" is not even related to "previsualizing." Composing is a rudimentary way of organizing the image. Easy as pie, primative graphic rules etc.

Minor White (originator of "previsualization") taught that one might view the image without any camera, or next to a camera on tripod, or hand held). Perhaps like za-zen (sitting meditation). After that one might develop the film and print accordingly...hence the "pre" in previsualization.

Which is why I used the word "compose".

 

[jtk]

Which is why I used the word "compose".

One doesn't need ground glass..or any sort of camera or framing device, to previsualize. IMO standard use for "compose" has to do with some sort of intermediary, such as camera or even simply a frame. Therefore ground glass is no better than the most primative digicam for previsualization.

 

[John Koehrer]

And how is it that White taught Adams "pre"visualization when White's book was based on Adams' methods?

 

[HerSmokeySun]

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?

If I understand this post correctly, I believe the correct (pseudo-)term in this case could be "post-visualization". That is, to attach significance or meaning to a photo that wasn't originally there in it's inception.

I've thought about this a bit after a photographer mentioned he shot a roll of film of a friend; plainly without much intention behind the images. Then after processing/printing, he began to assign meaning to them, certain photos signified loneliness for example, or that in another his friend's pose was "Christ-like" and had other symbolism linked within the shot. In other words, this photographer visualized the concept or meaning tucked within an image after (IE, 'post') it's creation.

I don't necessarily prescribe to this philosophy. Shooting film versus digital typically boils down to the intention of capturing the image I've visualized within 12 shots or so. But then again, I wouldn't say the alternative is a con either. Many of my favorite photographs have been made accidentally, and some of the most fun I've had has been setting up a long exposure and letting the results surprise me. And even still, most of my deeply planned/conceptualized photographs don't have much to say besides "I think this looks beautiful." I like to leave any interpretation to the audience. But if you get your kicks by attaching additional meaning to your photos--before or after you leave the darkroom--more power to you.

Just my 2¢.

 

[MattKing]

Sometimes when you are photographing something you feel really excited about the subject and what you are doing.
You have thoughts about how the results might come out, but you also have a desire to go with the inspiration.
The "post-visualization" referred to above may simply be your after the fact attempt to understand how the creative process unfolded.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

One doesn't need ground glass..or any sort of camera or framing device, to previsualize. IMO standard use for "compose" has to do with some sort of intermediary, such as camera or even simply a frame. Therefore ground glass is no better than the most primative digicam for previsualization.

You really must think everyone save yourself is an idiot.
Please don't respond to my posts anymore.

 

[jtk]

And how is it that White taught Adams "pre"visualization when White's book was based on Adams' methods?

I won't argue with you. My understanding is that White and Adams worked together in Oakland, that Adams brought science and White brought a psychological discipline to the same science. Makes no difference. I've seen a lot of their work: Adams photographed beautiful mountains beautifully (and some fine portraits and industrial), White made beautiful photos of less dramatic, more subtle subjects. Adams leaned toward technique, White taught photography.

 

[Steve Smith]

The term is often attributed to Ansel Adams, despite the first Chapter of each of his three books, The Camera, The Negative and The Print having Visualization in the tile.

The uses of pre I object to are 'pre-order' which just means order and 'pre-prepare' which is total nonsense.


Steve.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

i ain't gonna say nuthin 'bout real good english no more in this here thred

 

[jtk]

The term is often attributed to Ansel Adams, despite the first Chapter of each of his three books, The Camera, The Negative and The Print having Visualization in the tile.

The uses of pre I object to are 'pre-order' which just means order and 'pre-prepare' which is total nonsense.


Steve.

This may clarify: https://books.google.com/books/about/Zone_system_manual_previsualization_expo.html?id=ju5TAAAAMAAJ

 

[tedr1]

4. View cameras have groundglass on which to compose, far better than a tiny electronic preview screen.

Unfortunately this is starting to acquire the bad taste of a "film vs digital" debate, pity.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Unfortunately this is starting to acquire the bad taste of a "film vs digital" debate, pity.

Good straw man.

 

[pbromaghin]

In their book explaining their cardboard Zone System computer "Zone Systemizer for Creative Photographic Control" John Dowdell and Richard Zakia use "previsualize" hundreds of times. Ansel wrote the introduction to the book. I take that to mean he did not object to their use of the term.

 

[faberryman]

Is the whole point of this thread just semantics, someone pointing out that in the name of linguistic purity the prefix "pre" is not necessary?

 

[cliveh]

OK, as I started this thread, let me reword it, as we don't want to disappear down a semantic rabbit hole.

Is he term visualisation a con to make believe what was envisaged is how the outcome was controlled, when the outcome could be accidental to the MO?

 

[faberryman]

OK, as I started this thread, let me reword it, as we don't want to disappear down a semantic rabbit hole. Is he term visualisation a con to make believe what was envisaged is how the outcome was controlled, when the outcome could be accidental to the MO?

The question is ludicrous. Previsualization (or visualization) is a working method. And there is no magic about it. It is just thinking about what you are doing, like "I think I will use a red filter to darken the skies" or "I will expose normally and develop N-2 to preserve the highlights". Of course, like anything else, someone could lie about it. But someone lying about it doesn't invalidate the method for the true practitioners.

 

[Bill Burk]

I “previsualized” this. Certainly the idea of holding a mental image of how a print will look is not a sham or fraud. I knew that this shot would look good with a high contrast graphic effect. The entire roll was taken in overcast conditions so I knew that it would be appropriate to give more than usual development. I developed the film 17 minutes in D-76 1:1 at 68-degrees F, aiming for a high contrast index between 0.75 and 0.80
The print on Grade 2 Galerie holds detail in the cluster of dead mistletoe while the sky is nearly white. It was gray sky in reality.

 

[Vaughn]

...Is (t)he term visualisation a con to make believe what was envisaged is how the outcome was controlled, when the outcome could be accidental to the MO?

No, but just because what I visualized and what actually happened is different, I will not toss the negative away, LOL! I'll assume it could be true of AA also. Revisiting old negatives can result in very different results -- hopefully even better than one's orginal vision, as one's work becomes more refined and informed through experience.

I made an image just down from the base of a NZ glacier -- I used a red filter to increase the exposure in an attempt to make the water match the rock on both sides of the river. Instead, the water turned into fog, which complemented the rocks instead of matching them. it is difficult to visualize something one can not see (the effect of long exposure, for example)

I just made a quick snap of an umounted 16x20 print of it (original with 4x5 TMax100, 150mm lens):