Previsualization

Christopher Walrath · Oct 1, 2009

Wirelessly posted (BBBold: BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.297 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

Well, two things. First, as I mentioned I am not familar with White's methodology so I am perhaps the furthest from qualified to make a judgement on it. And second, to be honest, I just wanted to know if someone would bite. Sorry, I'm incorrigible. Well, maybe not ALL of the time.

I am aware, through AA's writings that Minor White's work, while advocating 'a' use of the Zone System, was apparently completely at odds with Adams' rigid, dogmatic technical acumen. According to what I have read, I get the impression that it went so far as to grate his nerves.

keithwms · Oct 1, 2009

Christopher Walrath said:
According to what I have read, I get the impression that it went so far as to grate his nerves.

That is consistent with my impression as well.

Q.G. · Oct 2, 2009

keithwms said:
Not so fast Q.G. and Chris! [...] Now, whether you agree with White's methods or not, I think you cannot possibly come away with the impression that his process and Adams were the same. So... does it make sense to try to describe Adams' and White's approaches with the same word???!

So no, it's not tomato tomato. Not in my opinion.

You know, your idea of a good meal and my idea of a good meal may very well be very different.
Yet we do know what we mean when we're talking about a good meal.

When you explain to us what a good meal is, we all instantly understand that what you tell us is what your idea of a good meal is. When we do not agree, we do not start questioning our understanding of the words "a good meal". And we do not need a new word to describe your idea of a good meal to make clear that it is your idea of a good meal.
When i then in turn describe what a good meal is, we all instantly understand that what i am telling you is what my idea of a good meal is. When you disgaree, you do not start questioning your understanding of the words "a good meal". We do not need a new word to describe my idea of a good meal to make clear that it is my idea of a good meal.
Etcetera.

People, including White, who would like to communicate would do good using words, and not invent a technical jargon consisting of new words.
At least not when they want to be understood.

Now, this is not really a big thing, this visualisation vs previsualisation usage. So not a big problem. But also not quite necessary.
It is a tomato tomato thing.

I agree completely, buy the way, that Adams' approach is purely technical.
But i suspect that is because he is describing, not the passion, but only the technique. Leaving the rest to us.

mark · Oct 2, 2009

Q.G. said:
People, including White, who would like to communicate would do good using words, and not invent a technical jargon consisting of new words.
At least not when they want to be understood.

Tell this to Twitterers, Bloggers, and Texters. Words have their origin in the need to differentiate between things or concepts and to identify something. Look at it this way: Why is the meal people eat in the morning called breakfast and the one in the evening called dinner? They are both meals so they should be called meals and we should be done with it right? The answer to both questions is easy, there was a need to differentiate between the two.

tomato and tomatillo.

keithwms · Oct 2, 2009

mark said:
tomato and tomatillo.

I agree with this. And if I wanted to be really snide, I could say, well maybe those people who don't see a need for separate terms aren't actually capable of distinguishing them. Maybe they truly think tomatos and tomatillos are one and the same. As for me, I am a gardener, I have 5 different kinds of tomato and tomatillo in my garden and eggplants too....

The thing is, we photographers don't just invent terms for the heck of it; the way we think is evidenced in our output. Just look at Adams' and White's output... and look at Weston pre- and post Adams' influence, and then return to this question of whether we need separate terms.

Or... if we want to make the discussion more personal, we could look at the work by people who've written opposing points in this thread. As I said before, I am willing to go through particular pieces from conception to print and discuss the process in full detail. I am also willing to describe those images that I have previsualized. But frankly I am not sure it's worth my continued (and sincere) effort unless someone arguing the opposing point is similarly willing to lay bare his/her creative process and show the net effect on his/her imagery.

Or... to put it more succinctly... why not put up or shut up? We're photographers, for crying out loud!! Let's talk about images... rather than talking about words. Why not take this to neutral turf, post anonymous images, discuss them in full detail, and then find out what process produced them? (I suggest anonymity because if it becomes White vs. Adams or Mortensen then it's going to get bloody!)

mark · Oct 2, 2009

Sounds good

Sirius Glass · Oct 2, 2009

:munch::munch::munch::munch::munch:

c6h6o3 · Oct 2, 2009

mark said:
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.

The only previsualizing I do is to decide where to set up the camera so that I have the best chance of visualizing an image (in other words, photographing) when I get under the darkcloth. My images are conceived, gestate and are born on the groundglass and nowhere else.

I can never visualize a photograph with my eyes and have any hope of capturing it with a camera later. Never. If I'm not seeing the image through a viewfinder or on a groundglass, I'm not photographing.

keithwms · Oct 2, 2009

c6h6o3 said:
I can never visualize a photograph with my eyes and have any hope of capturing it with a camera later. Never. If I'm not seeing the image through a viewfinder or on a groundglass, I'm not photographing.

Very interesting. Really, I find this interesting. And would you say that this is because you don't want to previsualize, or truly because you cannot or just haven't experienced it yet?

Not to put words in Adams' mouth, but I do think that a 'straight' photographer might want to make the case that previsualization disrespects the subject itself, to some extent, because it can strongly affects how you will look at it. If, for example, I were to previsualize a particular emotional impact and then start working with a subject, then the subject would be painted with my own thoughts rather than the subject's own qualities. A famous example that comes to mind is Newman's portrait of Krupp, which suggests to me that Newman had all kinds of underlying motives before he set the shot up. Surely Newman had previsualized that juxtaposition.... it's just too perfectly constructed to have been a quick, opportunistic snap in the factory. No?

In any case, I take previsualization to be a way to integrate or also to separate my own thoughts from the subject. There is no rule that the previsualized shot has to match what you actually shoot... you could embrace the previsualized image or avoid it. Much of what I previsualize is what I would call a cliche and then I avoid it. I am also aware of my own tendency to front-load my composition, i.e. to overthink it and not just let it be. But whatever the case, thinking about these things made me more aware of my own thinking and how that creeps into the final image.

Q.G. · Oct 2, 2009

mark said:
Tell this to Twitterers, Bloggers, and Texters. Words have their origin in the need to differentiate between things or concepts and to identify something.

Words also 'have their origin' in the need to 'group' similar things.
One, same word can be used to mean things that are different.

What's a "tomato", for instance?

Q.G. · Oct 2, 2009

keithwms said:
I agree with this. And if I wanted to be really snide, I could say, well maybe those people who don't see a need for separate terms aren't actually capable of distinguishing them. Maybe they truly think tomatos and tomatillos are one and the same.

Maybe they do not need many different words to know what is meant.

keithwms said:
As for me, I am a gardener, I have 5 different kinds of tomato and tomatillo in my garden and eggplants too....

Yet you use the one word "tomato" to tell us you have 5 different kinds of them in your garden.
And we do know what you mean.

keithwms said:
The thing is, we photographers don't just invent terms for the heck of it; the way we think is evidenced in our output. Just look at Adams' and White's output... and look at Weston pre- and post Adams' influence, and then return to this question of whether we need separate terms.

That's exactly what i mean.
If you know Adams and know White, you do not need two separate words to know that they both not mean the same thing would they use one and the same word.

keithwms said:
Or... to put it more succinctly... why not put up or shut up? We're photographers, for crying out loud!! Let's talk about images... rather than talking about words. Why not take this to neutral turf, post anonymous images, discuss them in full detail, and then find out what process produced them? (I suggest anonymity because if it becomes White vs. Adams or Mortensen then it's going to get bloody!)

But that is the thing.
We are photographers. And as such sometimes come up with real and valid questions like the OP's.

RalphLambrecht · Oct 2, 2009

Q.G. said:
...
One, same word can be used to mean things that are different...

How convenient. Then you can say whatever you want and later claim you meant something completely different! Beautiful, ain't it?

RalphLambrecht · Oct 2, 2009

Q.G. said:
Maybe they do not need many different words to know what is meant.

Yet you use the one word "tomato" to tell us you have 5 different kinds of them in your garden.
And we do know what you mean.

That's exactly what i mean.
If you know Adams and know White, you do not need two separate words to know that they both not mean the same thing would they use one and the same word.

But that is the thing.
We are photographers. And as such sometimes come up with real and valid questions like the OP's.

Q.G.

I think you just don't have enough appreciation for the beauty and variety of language, and whatever you say or write, it won't stop some of us to use the many words it offers and contains for good reason. Some folks get away with a vocabulary of a thousand words, but trust me, talking to them will often leave you wondering what they really meant. You need to widen your horizon a bit. Just try it, it may surprise you!

mark · Oct 2, 2009

I talked to a someone who felt this way. The guy I talked with said he would literally drive some place rather aimlessly then methodically set the camera up, focus at infinity then pan and tilt the camera all over the place until he saw something that caught his fancy. He would play with the focus so everything was just out of focus as he panned. Said he was looking for shapes. I tried it and it drove me nuts. I have a suspicion that something made him stop where he was and set the camera up. Maybe he was just not fully aware of what he was doing or the fullness of his own process. Maybe he just never thought about why he stopped.

Q.G. · Oct 2, 2009

RalphLambrecht said:
Q.G.

I think you just don't have enough appreciation for the beauty and variety of language, and whatever you say or write, it won't stop some of us to use the many words it offers and contains for good reason. Some folks get away with a vocabulary of a thousand words, but trust me, talking to them will often leave you wondering what they really meant. You need to widen your horizon a bit. Just try it, it may surprise you!

Ralph,

You got hold of the wrong end of the stick completely.

It is not about the number of words, or about definitions. It is about how we use words.
It appears that people get stuck debating words without any apparent appreciation of what they are for, how they are used.

A whole thread about whether "previsualisation" is a word, or could be. Entirely unnecessary if only you "widen your horizon" and look beyond dictionaries, and just deal what with they mean or are meant to mean.

So the only thing that surprises me is that someone who clings to dictionary definitions as if his life depends on it would advice other people to widen their horizon.
You know who i mean.

I keep wondering: what exactly do you fear might happen when you let go of your dictionary definitions?
Why not embrace the real world out there, the one people shape to their intent and purpose? A world full of people who decide themselves what they mean, and who bend and shape language to fit that, if need be.
Try it. Instead of looking words up to see if they really are words.
Instead of not understanding what the OP means and faulting him for using a 'non-word'.
Do what your advice says, and widen your horizon. You might like it.

RalphLambrecht · Oct 2, 2009

mark said:
I talked to a someone who felt this way. The guy I talked with said he would literally drive some place rather aimlessly then methodically set the camera up, focus at infinity then pan and tilt the camera all over the place until he saw something that caught his fancy. He would play with the focus so everything was just out of focus as he panned. Said he was looking for shapes. I tried it and it drove me nuts. I have a suspicion that something made him stop where he was and set the camera up. Maybe he was just not fully aware of what he was doing or the fullness of his own process. Maybe he just never thought about why he stopped.

Mark

I think there are two types of photographers, the hunter and the creator. They guy you spoke to is obviously a hunter. That method does not work for everyone, but many landscape photographers fall into that category. Model photographers are more often in the other camp. Not that one is better or more valuable than the other, they are just different.

RalphLambrecht · Oct 2, 2009

Q.G. said:
Ralph,

You got hold of the wrong end of the stick completely.

It is not about the number of words, or about definitions. It is about how we use words.
It appears that people get stuck debating words without any apparent appreciation of what they are for, how they are used.

A whole thread about whether "previsualisation" is a word, or could be. Entirely unnecessary if only you "widen your horizon" and look beyond dictionaries, and just deal what with they mean or are meant to mean.

So the only thing that surprises me is that someone who clings to dictionary definitions as if his life depends on it would advice other people to widen their horizon.
You know who i mean.

No, I don't know what you mean, but I think someone who thinks that these conversation are 'meaningless', 'unnecessary' and 'useless' should just stay out of them, and leave them to the people who enjoy the exchange.

Q.G. · Oct 2, 2009

RalphLambrecht said:
How convenient. Then you can say whatever you want and later claim you meant something completely different! Beautiful, ain't it?

You're sliding into pure siliness here, Ralph.

Q.G. · Oct 2, 2009

RalphLambrecht said:
No, I don't know what you mean, but I think someone who thinks that these conversation are 'meaningless', 'unnecessary' and 'useless' should just stay out of them, and leave them to the people who enjoy the exchange.

And i think (while enjoying the exchange) that someone who doesn't get into what the OP's question was, decides to talk about whether a word exists or not instead, should stay out of the conversation.

Who's right?

It's also good to notice that a person so hell-bent on using language properly answers "i don't know what you mean" when it is implied that you know who i mean.

RalphLambrecht · Oct 2, 2009

Q.G. said:
You're sliding into pure siliness here, Ralph.

Will I find you there?

RalphLambrecht · Oct 2, 2009

Q.G. said:
...Who's right?...

Is that really important?

c6h6o3 · Oct 2, 2009

keithwms said:
Very interesting. Really, I find this interesting. And would you say that this is because you don't want to previsualize, or truly because you cannot or just haven't experienced it yet?

Not to put words in Adams' mouth, but I do think that a 'straight' photographer might want to make the case that previsualization disrespects the subject itself, to some extent, because it can strongly affects how you will look at it. If, for example, I were to previsualize a particular emotional impact and then start working with a subject, then the subject would be painted with my own thoughts rather than the subject's own qualities. A famous example that comes to mind is Newman's portrait of Krupp, which suggests to me that Newman had all kinds of underlying motives before he set the shot up. Surely Newman had previsualized that juxtaposition.... it's just too perfectly constructed to have been a quick, opportunistic snap in the factory. No?

In any case, I take previsualization to be a way to integrate or also to separate my own thoughts from the subject. There is no rule that the previsualized shot has to match what you actually shoot... you could embrace the previsualized image or avoid it. Much of what I previsualize is what I would call a cliche and then I avoid it. I am also aware of my own tendency to front-load my composition, i.e. to overthink it and not just let it be. But whatever the case, thinking about these things made me more aware of my own thinking and how that creeps into the final image.

All I know is that as long as I tried (and I tried for more than 30 years) to capture what I had seen in my mind's eye while looking at the reality in front of me by then setting up a camera and 'composing' it in an effort to match what I had previsualized, I never took a decent photograph. Photography was a very frustrating experience for me. I felt like Sysiphus.

When I began to take to heart the concept that the photographer's creative process doesn't even begin until he's behind the camera, I began to make photographs that I'm happy with.

Call it what you will.

mark · Oct 2, 2009

RalphLambrecht said:
Mark

I think there are two types of photographers, the hunter and the creator. They guy you spoke to is obviously a hunter. That method does not work for everyone, but many landscape photographers fall into that category. Model photographers are more often in the other camp. Not that one is better or more valuable than the other, they are just different.

I completely agree Ralph. I did not think I said a method different than mine was wrong. I was just pointing out that I cannot work that way.

I still think something makes the hunter go where they go whether it be tracks, scat or the light.

mark · Oct 2, 2009

c6h6o3 said:
When I began to take to heart the concept that the photographer's creative process doesn't even begin until he's behind the camera, I began to make photographs that I'm happy with.

Call it what you will.

In other words you found your Mojo. Good for you. I have met many frustrated people who never find theirs. Whether I have found mine or not remains to be seen but I know I am not frustrated. What frustrates me is the fact that I see the image but when I get back the planets are no longer aligned. Maybe that means the image was not meant to be. I don't know.

RalphLambrecht · Oct 2, 2009

mark said:
I completely agree Ralph. I did not think I said a method different than mine was wrong. I was just pointing out that I cannot work that way.

I still think something makes the hunter go where they go whether it be tracks, scat or the light.

I was a hunter once. It did not work for me very well. I admire the folks it works for, but it's just not for me.
I prefer the studio. Actually, I sit down and sketch by hand (yes, pencil and paper) and put down what I want to create photographically. I guess Keith would call this 'previsualization'. Then, I send these sketches to a few models, who I think would be ideal for the job. After mutual agreement, we get together and try to replicate the sketch and envision the print, at which point, things may change quite a bit, because there is more visual information. Keith, help me out, this must be the 'visualization' part, right?

I attached an example.

Previsualization

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency