Previsualization

mark · Sep 29, 2009

Yes this old horse has been beat to death and is now used for the APUG stickies but I was wondering how many other people have this issue.

Navel gazing time

I am back to photographing after a year or so hiatus. The reason I came back is I started seeing finished photographs all around me. SOme times I would even trip over something seeing an image. I bit the bullet and dug out the cameras. Since it is hard to carry a 5x7 and an 8x10 every where I go everyday I started writing the images down with descriptions, time of day etc.

Problem is, when I go back to take the image, the image is "not there" if you know what I mean. Is inspiration this fleeting for for anyone else.

David Brown · Sep 29, 2009

mark said:
Problem is, when I go back to take the image, the image is "not there" if you know what I mean. Is inspiration this fleeting for for anyone else.

I experience this more often than not. (I don't think this really is a factor of "previsualization" exactly.) It's a matter of when one returns to a sight, the image is different (light, other factors) and one's reaction to the scene will be different. Sometimes it can't be helped.

T42 · Sep 29, 2009

Greetings, Mark and David.

I see your point, David. Things can change. Light for one. It's a good reason to photograph things more than once. Perhaps our notion of the picture within a scene changes with time too.

I wonder how this may relate to what Andreas Feininger was talking about when he spoke of a need to learn to "see" as the camera sees. Sometimes we see, or think we see, things that the camera does not see. Sometimes the camera sees things that we exclude in our initial perception of what the picture would be. For example, we take an image of a scene and then we wonder "Where in the heck did that light pole come from?!"

Happy day.

Henry in Atlanta

Vaughn · Sep 29, 2009

I use the time when I do not have a camera as practice time for the art of seeing -- practice for the times when I do have a camera with me.

But then, I also use the time with the camera as practice for the art of seeing. Makes for a nice circle.

I don't worry about the images I see without a camera -- I just enjoy them. The world is full of images and I will never run out of possibilities, so I don't try to recapture images I saw yesterday and instead, just concentrate on the light that is in front of me now.

Vaughn

AmandaTom · Sep 29, 2009

I tend to photograph the same places over and over again. I know that certain places are magical to me at particular times of day or year. I sometimes chastise myself for my lack of scope but then I think, if it still thrills me after 60 pictures, why not come back?

I too have gone back to places all excited to take a picture, only to find that I feel ho hum about it, or when viewed on the ground glass it isn't very exciting. As a result, I have started taking the viewer from my 4x5 with me and I am always surprised when the picture I think I see is not actually there. It follows that there are also plenty of pictures I am not seeing.

reellis67 · Sep 29, 2009

Most certainly. This happens to me regularly, but I take the stance that Vaughn stated - life is for living. If I don't have a camera on me I think about how that would have looked as a photograph, but I don't let that distract me from just enjoying the view...

- Randy

RalphLambrecht · Sep 29, 2009

Who came up with this (un)word, previsualization?

mark · Sep 29, 2009

When I get the time I want to go back and take the photograph, the way that I saw it. It so seldom happenes.

And yes I see this as previsualization because I sit and think about the way I want the final image to look, so I see what I have to do with development, and then I see what I have to do with exposure. It is pretty darned detailed. When I got back with the camera I set it up look at the GG and pack the camera up. It sucks.

RalphLambrecht · Sep 29, 2009

mark said:
When I get the time I want to go back and take the photograph, the way that I saw it. It so seldom happenes.

And yes I see this as previsualization because I sit and think about the way I want the final image to look, so I see what I have to do with development, and then I see what I have to do with exposure. It is pretty darned detailed. When I got back with the camera I set it up look at the GG and pack the camera up. It sucks.

Mark

That's simply called 'visualization'. There is nothing happening before you visualize an image. At the point of visualization, it does not exist yet, but you are visualizing it. Prior to that, there is not even a hint of an image. There is no such thing as 'previsualization'.

keithwms · Sep 29, 2009

Ralph I must strenuously disagree... I 'previsualize' things all the time.

Visualization, to me, is the act of anticipating what will be photographed... after you have seen the subject and let it work on you. Pre-visualization is much more inward than that; it is inspired by feelings/thoughts/concepts that you would like to express. I.e. the idea comes before the literal scene.

Visualization and previsualization are both anticipatory acts. But the way I would define them, visualization is based on what is seen, whereas previsualization is based on what is forseen.

Anyway, whether you agree with the need for this concept or not... I think it was advocated first by Minor White and his contemporaries.

In fact, my favourite photograph was previsualized and the memory of it continues to haunt me many years after taking it. I was very much stuck in a certain way of thinking, looking for a particular emotion, and all I had was a bit of intuition about how I might get it. But I went out with the camera and my faith that I would find what I was looking for... and there it was. I'd say it was the closest thing to a premonition I have ever experienced. A very nice feeling! Perhaps I was a little bit under the spell of White at the time, I don't know. All I can say is that sometimes inspiration, the light, and all the planets seem to align and I feel like I must commit a certain image to film.... before ever seeing the subject. Currently I have several dozen such images in my head, and when I see them (literally) I hope to have a camera at hand. Some of the images have been bouncing around for years. I guess if I lose patience with some of them then I'd better learn how to paint!

Mark, don't worry, the images will come when the time is right. It's not something that can be forced or precisely timed, we never know when something is going to click and compel us to get out the gear. Sometimes it helps me just to shoot from the hip with an XA or such, just to feel like I am getting something done, but honestly... I think knowing when not to force a photograph might be as essential a skill as editing the rejects into the dust bin.

RalphLambrecht · Sep 29, 2009

keithwms said:
Ralph I must strenuously disagree... I 'previsualize' things all the time.

'Previsualization' is not a word! How do you define your usage of it?

keithwms said:
...I would define them, visualization is based on what is seen, whereas previsualization is based on what if forseen...

Well done, I like folks who can define what they are talking about! Your definition sounds interesting, I need to think about this a bit more.

keithwms said:
...Anyway, whether you agree with the need for this concept or not... I think it was advocated first by Minor White and his contemporaries...

I'm not too sure about that. Can you provide a citation?

removed account4 · Sep 29, 2009

Vaughn said:
I use the time when I do not have a camera as practice time for the art of seeing -- practice for the times when I do have a camera with me.

But then, I also use the time with the camera as practice for the art of seeing. Makes for a nice circle.

I don't worry about the images I see without a camera -- I just enjoy them. The world is full of images and I will never run out of possibilities, so I don't try to recapture images I saw yesterday and instead, just concentrate on the light that is in front of me now.

Vaughn

i tried to say what i was thinking
and realized that you kind of said the same thing.
it is all practice ...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

john

keithwms · Sep 29, 2009

Well, Minor White wrote at least one edition of his zone system book with 'previsualization' in the title... let's see.... here you go: New Zone System Manual: Previsualization, Exposure, Development, Printing

Again I would define it as more anticipatory than visualization. Please go back and read what I wrote again, and if it still is not clear.... I can try to construct a tighter definition, but White literally wrote the book on this subject.

Anyway here is a quote from White:

Minor White said:
The ultimate objective is to be able to previsualize as one wishes, spontaneously or leisurely whichever best serves the purposes at hand. There is a difference in the penetrating power of an image made in a burst of naive enthusiasm and those made in a flash of trained intuition. The first is adolescent, the latter mature and sometimes wise.

This is a very important concept. It is photography's best defense, IMHO, against those detractors who think that we are merely recording what we see... or simply applying a few stylistic effects to what we see. Previsualization is something that other artists e.g. painters claim to do all the time: they see what they want to create not only before it is created but before ever seeing it, because their subject may not even exist in reality. So why are we photographers not allowed to do that too? Photographers are supposed to see something literal and then let the mind go wild and imagine a mat board and frame around it? :rolleyes: That way of thinking just turns us into walking, talking traffic surveillance cameras, in my opinion. Surely this is not what you are saying! Probably you agree with the need for previsualization but are simply not willing to let it into your lexicon... yet...

Vaughn · Sep 29, 2009

I, too, believe that there is previsualization -- it is what goes on before one visualizes a particular image. I think Keith nailed it down very well.

visualize - To form a mental image or vision; to imagine.
www.ackland.org/tours/classes/glossary.html

"pre" is pretty self-explanatory, so to "previsualize" is undertake activities that come before the visualization.

So while I would argue that it is a word, generally I would say that there is not much reason to talk about it...we all do it to various degrees of depth (whether we realize it or not).

Minor White's book title...New Zone System Manual: Previsualization, Exposure, Development, Printing

http://www.amazon.com/New-Zone-System-Manual-Previsualization/dp/0871001950

PS...I believe Jerry Ulsemann (excuse my spelling) came up with the concept he called "post-visualization". And that dang Keith beat me to the book reference!

RalphLambrecht · Sep 29, 2009

keithwms said:
Well, Minor White wrote at least one edition of his zone system book with 'previsualization' in the title... let's see.... here you go: New Zone System Manual: Previsualization, Exposure, Development, Printing

Again I would define it as more anticipatory than visualization. Please go back and read what I wrote again, and if it still is not clear.... I can try to construct a tighter definition, but White literally wrote the book on this subject.

Anyway here is a quote from White:

This is a very important concept. It is photography's best defense, IMHO, against those detractors who think that we are merely recording what we see... or simply applying a few stylistic effects to what we see. Previsualization is something that other artists e.g. painters claim to do all the time: they see what they want to create not only before it is created but before ever seeing it, because their subject may not even exist in reality. So why are we photographers not allowed to do that too? Photographers are supposed to see something literal and then let the mind go wild and imagine a mat board and frame around it? :rolleyes: That way of thinking just turns us into walking, talking traffic surveillance cameras, in my opinion. Surely this is not what you are saying! Probably you agree with the need for previsualization but are simply not willing to let it into your lexicon... yet...

Keith

You are right! It was Minor White! I'm holding that book in my hands right now! You are really making me think, now... hmmm

keithwms · Sep 29, 2009

On the topic of White, that book ^^^ is honestly not so enjoyable to me. The thing about White is that it must be taken in small doses, like any potent liquor. I found the book 'Rites and Passages' much more helpful in understanding his ways of thinking. I'll browse through it when I have time and see if I find any more explicit references to previsualization. The nice thing about 'Rites' is that it also contains writings from a lot of other eminent photographers, mostly White's students, and you get a few nice anecdotes that help break down the pretense that tends to surround White's own writing. Pretense may be too strong a word... but... readers of White will likely know what I mean.

dpurdy · Sep 29, 2009

I think I agree with Ralph that previsualization at least is a word that means something other than for what it is used, regardless of who famously used it. For me previsualization means pulling out my meter and squinting my eyes.
Dennis

keithwms · Sep 29, 2009

Vaughn said:
And that dang Keith beat me to the book reference!

Ah well I was on Amazon at that very moment, I had an unfair advantage

I didn't know about Uelsmann and postvisualization, pray tell what is that? I guess it's the act of imagining an image constructed from fragments already assembled? E.g. the hands and the water etc. uniting together, in print, into something he imagined?

keithwms · Sep 29, 2009

dpurdy said:
I think I agree with Ralph that previsualization at least is a word that means something other than for what it is used, regardless of who famously used it. For me previsualization means pulling out my meter and squinting my eyes.
Dennis

Well Dennis, Ralph may not agree with Ralph by the time we're finished with this

Anyway I think all of us do previsualize as well as visualize... we simply may not analyze and verbalize our processes as much as some of the more prolific writers (Adams, White) did.

RalphLambrecht · Sep 29, 2009

keithwms said:
Well Dennis, Ralph may not agree with Ralph by the time we're finished with this

Anyway I think all of us do previsualize as well as visualize... we simply may not analyze and verbalize our processes as much as some of the more prolific writers (Adams, White) did.

Ralph is thinking... (usually that takes a while).

Vaughn · Sep 30, 2009

keithwms said:
Ah well I was on Amazon at that very moment, I had an unfair advantage

I didn't know about Uelsmann and postvisualization, pray tell what is that? I guess it's the act of imagining an image constructed from fragments already assembled? E.g. the hands and the water etc. uniting together, in print, into something he imagined?

A couple of quotes from:
"Post-Visualization and Combination Printing: The Influence of Photographic Process on Contemporary Photography" by
Kerri Harding and Catherine Pagani, Ph.D. Professor of Art History

In 1965, Uelsmann presented his theory of Post-Visualization to The
Society for Photographic Education. Finding Ansel Adams theory of Pre-
visualization to be restrictive and impractical, he proposed that the nega-
tive is only the starting place for creating a photograph. Instead of using
the darkroom merely as a means to a photographic end, Uelsmann sees it
as a place to explore the possibilities, much like a painter would approach his or her studio.

This one is part of the above paper and is from an interview w/ Jerry in 2007:

The importance of Post-Visualization is that it represents a shift away from the rigid standards of straight photography. While young artists
and students may not be consciously thinking about which theory they
subscribe to, they are allowed to approach photography as a creative en-
deavor. They are free to express their ideas. Art is often an intuitive and
emotionally based process. Those who post-visualize embrace the idea
that photography is not limited to a sort of mechanical representation of
the world but can also be used to express their personal realities.

keithwms · Sep 30, 2009

Interesting. But as we say in the hills, them's fightin' words, right? The last quote implies that if you don't post-visualize (postprocess?) then you are doing something mechanical and not using your own thoughts and creativity. Again, I think previsualization is what elevates photography into the company of the other arts that are not constrained by 'mechanical' reproduction. I think White got this; Adams, I am not so sure, I think it is debatable.

Another question might be what is the difference between post-visualization and post-processing? I realize that the former guides the latter... but as you know, processing is considered a dirty word by many analoguers, especially here. It's almost as if the pendulum has swung back to 'straight' photography in strong reaction to what Uelsmann and colleagues started. I wonder if the counter-reaction has less to do with digital than is usually assumed.

RalphLambrecht · Sep 30, 2009

keithwms said:
Interesting. But as we say in the hills, them's fightin' words, right? The last quote implies that if you don't post-visualize (postprocess?) then you are doing something mechanical and not using your own thoughts and creativity. Again, I think previsualization is what elevates photography into the company of the other arts that are not constrained by 'mechanical' reproduction. I think White got this; Adams, I am not so sure, I think it is debatable.

Another question might be what is the difference between post-visualization and post-processing? I realize that the former guides the latter... but as you know, processing is considered a dirty word by many analoguers, especially here. It's almost as if the pendulum has swung back to 'straight' photography in strong reaction to what Uelsmann and colleagues started. I wonder if the counter-reaction has less to do with digital than is usually assumed.

Just to be clear here. I see AA's name mixed with the term 'previsualization' a lot. He never used this term in any of his books. I looks like a term Minor White came up with. AA did not use it!

keithwms · Sep 30, 2009

As far as I know, Ralph, you are correct that AA didn't use the term. However, he was a close associate of White's for some time, and I think they must have discussed the concept. The closest thing I can offer offhand as proof that AA knew about White's concept is the well-known anecdote about White asking Adams whether he was still using the zone system, and Adams responding with the question of whether White was still using the zen system. At the very least, this story proves that had good rapport and mutual, respectful understanding of each others' methods.

But indeed, I don't think we have specific record of what Adams actually thought of previsualization- maybe he took it seriously, or maybe he dismissed it with humour because he didn't buy it. It is a bit conspicuous that Adams didn't write an opinion on it explicitly, since he wrote extensively and with vibrant opinion on just about every other aspect of the process! Perhaps an ex-student of one of White or Adams can provide more insight. Maybe we are missing some key piece of text.

My own feeling is that White considered previsualization an inherent part of the zone system and might have argued that the technical aspects of that system are intertwined with the philosophical aspects. What would Adams say to that? I am not sure we know.

In any case, I do believe that White's images show the effects of previsualization... or at least the belief in previsualization, as opposed to 'straight' visualization. White clearly lets his emotional 'baggage' into his images, and even features it quite openly; whereas Adams does not. At least that is how it seems to me based purely on the images that we have. But critics have a way of shelving people's work into categories...

dpurdy · Sep 30, 2009

I think you are just talking semantics. I don't think anyone would argue that Minor White or AA or any photographer who has made a thousand prints begins to see what a subject will or can look like when reduced to film and print before they snap the shutter. A pre shutter snap visualization or a pre exposure/process/print visualization is still a visualization. The pre part of previsualization is unnecessary. Like irregardless used instead of just regardless. The idea in visualization previous to the rest of the photographic process is merely to give you more creative use of the process.
Dennis

Previsualization

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency