Three points: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)
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.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 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".
4. View cameras have groundglass on which to compose, far better than a tiny electronic preview screen.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.
Which is why I used the word "compose"."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".
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?
You really must think everyone save yourself is an idiot.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.
And how is it that White taught Adams "pre"visualization when White's book was based on Adams' methods?
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.
4. View cameras have groundglass on which to compose, far better than a tiny electronic preview screen.
Good straw man.Unfortunately this is starting to acquire the bad taste of a "film vs digital" debate, pity.
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.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?
...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?
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?