Pre-visualisation

[jtk]

fwiw, I was taught how to "previsualize" and that "how" was a good discipline for me.

Previsualization is a teaching tool as much as photographic technique.

The greatest works of both Ansel and Minor were their teaching, not their photographs or techniques.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

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):

Ahh yes, Vaughn, but next time you'll visualize what moving vacillating rising lowering water will look like in that lighting and with long exposure.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It's visualization, not pre-visualzation (which makes no sense).

Irregardless.

 

[Bill Burk]

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.

Zone Systemizer “relied heavily on... Minor White”

I like to think that Minor White coined “previsualization”, but don’t get sidetracked on the meaning. I like the sound of the word.

 

[Bill Burk]

If I understand your concern, cliveh... You wonder if “seeing the print in the minds eye” doesn’t really happen but is a story made up after the fact.

I don’t think it’s rationalization. Vaughn and I have shown examples of thinking about what the result might be, and I think we’re being honest about it.

I really did plan to overdevelop that roll of film. In fact I got more than I envisioned. I thought the graphic effect would be a stark silhouette. My own eyes could not see the detail in the dead mistletoe, so I didn’t expect any detail.

So I got more than I previsualized, and it made me happy.

 

[jtk]

If I understand your concern, cliveh... You wonder if “seeing the print in the minds eye” doesn’t really happen but is a story made up after the fact.

I don’t think it’s rationalization. Vaughn and I have shown examples of thinking about what the result might be, and I think we’re being honest about it.

I really did plan to overdevelop that roll of film. In fact I got more than I envisioned. I thought the graphic effect would be a stark silhouette. My own eyes could not see the detail in the dead mistletoe, so I didn’t expect any detail.

So I got more than I previsualized, and it made me happy.

Previsualization is a personally learned idea, a mental/visual technique or process, not a philosophy. It does require practice. like meditation or singing. It does not require a spot meter or densitometer (those tools were Ansel's personal adaptive devices (like hearing aids or crutches)...he had a personal need to make things more technical...that's the way his brain worked, like the brains of certain other photographers. The idea was full-blown without those devices when it was first named.

It's not a semantic game. The notion of "honesty" seems to bring a judgemental flavor to consideration of the idea.

 

[Vaughn]

Ahh yes, Vaughn, but next time you'll visualize what moving vacillating rising lowering water will look like in that lighting and with long exposure.

I exposed that sheet of film on the 6th of February, 1987. At f/64 at 4 seconds on Kodak Super XX, not the TMax100 I mentioned earlier -- I had used up the TMax100 I had brought and switched to my Super XX. So yes, in the past 30 years my visualization skills have (hopefullly) improved.

I just happened to have that print handy as I took it with me to my artist-in-residence at Zion -- part of which was a talk to a university photo class. I like to use it as an example of visualization gone different (not gone wrong). As one of Ted Orland's "Photographic Truths" says...Expose for the secrets, develop for the surprises.

 

[Steve Smith]

Irregardless.

Not a word!


Steve.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

This (pre) visualization of which you speak, in photography, refers to exposure of the scene and its relationship to the film processing as it serves the print.

It is a matter of seeing the range of tones in a shot as they will come out in the print and exposing for that. The second major consideration is the contrast within the scene and how you are going to process the film to manage that. If it is a high-contrast scene the developer is used for less time, if low-contrast then the developer is used longer. Exposure must render the shadows as development has little effect on the thinnest part of the neg. The brighter tones (the dark ares in the neg) are the most chemically reactive. By this method, their density can be reduced or increased respectively. So you flatten a high-contrast shot and bump-up for a low-contrast shot to work within the technical limits of the paper to render what you saw.

My own limited shooting (teacher, administration, you know...) outside of studio work is a matter of discovery, most frequently at a subliminal level. I'll be walking down the street and some tableau will reveal itself. I don't think about concept to identify it, to talk about it; this is a visual communication, after all. Very often I have no understanding of what I'm about to shoot, though I do consider framing. After that I just make sure I get the right exposure. Tonally, everything else will fall into place if the dynamic range of the scene is within the film's range, irregardless (hee-hee) of any concept or accident.

"Happy accidents" are gifts. You might find a surprise detail, object, action, or grand concept, but that has nothing to do with the Zone System and visualization, pre or otherwise. Happy accidents are not accidental as far as exposure and processing goes. If the neg is properly exposed, whatever "thing" happens to emerge, you will be able to render it in the print.

For my part, there are no "happy accidents" in my exposure, digital, or chemical processing. As a photographer I have control of that. I just have visual ideas that have no name. The print allows me to experience those ideas and reveal their meaning.

BTW, "pre-visualization" is a real word defined by the Oxford Dictionary:

NOUN: The visualization (now especially through the use of computers) of how something will look when created or finished.
Origin: 1950s; earliest use found in The New York Times. From pre- + visualization.

However, Previsualization is referred to as a subset of Visualization, the second subset being Postvisualization.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I think a person has to be careful though that he doesn't get caught up only in tones and exposure. While those things add to the picture, content is primary. We often get swamped by the technical because we do so much of it. We miss the aesthetics and content that excite the viewer who cares little how we got there with the result. Good balance between content, aesthetics and technical are very important.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Agreed. This is why I stress deeply practicing camera operation. The quicker you can get to the exposure you need, the more time you can spend on content.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I can only visualize. I can't pre-visualize. I feel so... so... so... pre-inadequate.

 

[JWMster]

I've been visualizing my pre-inadequacy with respect to my pre-visualization, but then I found myself in a loop. Is it endless? If I could pre-visualize, I wouldn't have to wait until the next time around to tell you.

 

[Bill Burk]

Berkeley Mike,

Welcome to Photrio!

Your observation is thought provoking, thanks. I personally believe pre-visualization as taught by Minor White and Ansel Adams is what makes exercises of the Zone System worth the trouble.

Many people take it to Ansel Adam's goal of a technically correct negative, but I like to see Minor White's end of a negative that suits your idea of what the print should look like.

It's a fine distinction, because you are following pretty much the same steps. But when you have abstraction in mind, it is worth knowing the choice of development notation, and exposure place and fall can be picked for outlandish results, and the negative you get will more easily achieve that outlandish print.

 

[barzune]

I've been visualizing my pre-inadequacy with respect to my pre-visualization, but then I found myself in a loop. Is it endless?

Yes, it is probably terminally endless.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Yes, it is probably terminally endless.

Yes but mostly like walking halfway to a wall, then halfway again and halfway again, ad infinitum, and never really reaching the wall.

 

[avb]

Yes, it is probably terminally endless.

Did anyone see Jurassic World II? Jeff Goldblum's characters says "I can most assuredly assure you that..."

 

[NB23]

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?

You’re like a teacher asking kids questions?

Why don’t you try ans and give and answer?
Sounds like trolling to me.

 

[NB23]

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?

Why don’t you try and and give an answer?
Sounds like trolling to me.

 

[cliveh]

Well since you ask, my answer would be for some people yes, but others no.

 

[JWMster]

Not a troll, but I do favor photos of bridges for some reason. And there seems an irresistibility to a phrase from time to time that may attract the internet's version of a smile or a grin, but fairly can sound not just like a mixed metaphor, but have an abundant flavor of snark when the smile emoji might have been better. My apologies.

 

[darkroommike]

Ansel Adams one of the originators of the Zone System used the word "visualization".
Minor White used pre-visualization, he taught the Zen System. https://theawakenedeye.com/pages/minor-white-and-the-quest-for-spirit/

 

[Sirius Glass]

I've been visualizing my pre-inadequacy with respect to my pre-visualization, but then I found myself in a loop. Is it endless? If I could pre-visualize, I wouldn't have to wait until the next time around to tell you.

I have a computer with such a fast processor that it can do infinite loops in 20 seconds.

 

[MattKing]

Yes but mostly like walking halfway to a wall, then halfway again and halfway again, ad infinitum, and never really reaching the wall.

You asymptote you!

 

[jtk]

Ansel Adams one of the originators of the Zone System used the word "visualization".
Minor White used pre-visualization, he taught the Zen System. https://theawakenedeye.com/pages/minor-white-and-the-quest-for-spirit/

I understand your use of "zen system" however... However (of course) he was also into Zen to an extent. And Catholicism.
I think his interest in motivation, sex, and psychology were foremost for him.