Previsualization

Q.G. said:

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?

Click to expand...

A tomato is a fruit, but I have never asked for a slice of fruit on my burger. I guess if I did, and got an orange slice I could gripe at the poor kid behind the counter for not knowing what I mean.

Words are used to convey an image. If I want a tomato on my burger I say I want a tomato. The person behind the counter knows what that is and has a mental image of it. If i say I want a fruit on my burger lord only knows what I wouldd get. Nice to have a word that says exactly what I mean.

RalphLambrecht said:

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 now. 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.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I mean.

mark said:

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.

Click to expand...

There could be several things going on, Mark, as far as I can tell: (1) the subject itself (or the light, or your perspective) changes so much that you are unable to see what you saw before. (2) equally frustrating, the scene simply might not seem as fresh as it was when you see it the next time. Another thing that can happen is (3) that the gear or the process comes between you and your subject.... and this can be related to (1) and (2) as well.

Does one or more of these possibilities sound familiar? I can think of "fixes" or at least exercises to address all of them, and I am sure others can too.

I don't know if previsualization or visualization or a shot of whiskey or standing on your head is the best cure for any of these things, but... I do think that it is important for us to realize that the exposure time is a very, very brief fraction of the lifetime of a subject. Very brief. That we expect to capture anything remotely representative of that subject in such a brief time is one of the most audacious ambitions of still photography. So go easy on yourself, what you're trying to do is not simple. The more selective you become of what images you will commit to film, the harder your task will become. But so too will the rewards become greater.

P.S. Ralph, I see an interesting quote from you but I am still trying to find the parent message. There is so much inconsequential chaff in between, it may take me a while to find it...! How did this thread get so mashed up...

mark said:

Words are used to convey an image. If I want a tomato on my burger I say I want a tomato. The person behind the counter knows what that is and has a mental image of it. If i say I want a fruit on my burger lord only knows what I wouldd get. Nice to have a word that says exactly what I mean.

Click to expand...

Indeed.
And all that despite Keith alone already having no less than 5 different varieties in his garden.

The act of (pre-)visualisation is the one that makes you do a certain thing because you expect a certain result.
Photography is one of these things that don't happen by themselves.

Adams had a very specific, 'narrow' process in mind: that of controling tones. His use of the word is within that context: the thing he wanted to be the result of his doing things was a specific tonal rendering or translation of the things he saw.
But we all (pre)visualise, the hunters and creators alike. We may not have such a specific aim, but we all go through a set of motions because of the result we expect they will have.
What motions they are, and when you think they start depends, and may be understood differently by different people (see the recent thread about the moment a photograph is created).

RalphLambrecht said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ah okay here is the post I was looking for, interesting.

I sometimes do this kind of sketching too, though I am not so good at it and I usually just rely on what's in my head. I really like the idea of sharing a sketch with a model, that seems a great way to communicate with them and help them understand what goal you are aiming for.

This reminds me of something I did about a year or two ago. I do not have any experience with figure work so it was quite a rambling exercise! I was out walking in the woods and saw a shape that inspired me, so I went back later that day and took a quick snapshot. I took the colour one (left) digitally (sorry but it's cheap and quick!) and I immediately saw it as a b&w subject (right) worthy of revisit with film.



The vine seemed alive and serpentine and wanting to communicate with a model, so that got me started imagining the possibilities. So next came the sculpture.. something I remembered, that seemed to inspire what I was trying to produce.



Honestly I couldn't tell you right now the sculptor nor the title, it was something I searched for and finally found. A scholar of art history will likely recognize it straight away.

And finally, many weeks later and after consulting a model came my attempt at the photograph.... and the print:



So.. the snapshots and my rough mental sketches and finally the classical reference definitely helped reach this particular composition... and it aided the model as well. In the end, I didn't quite get what I was after. In fact the use of the hands is unresolved in the sculpture (I can only assume that an intended cloth and staff are both missing). And my own mental picture didn't resolve it either, so I found myself having to make something up on the spot when the camera was set up! It didn't quite work out. But the model and I did our collaborative best and it was a good experience to have. The final image is still in my head and still untaken... this (above) is the closest I've come.