Previsualization

[36cm2]

A couple of thoughts to aid Ralph's thinking time

Conceptually, I've read that in his foreword to Adams' "Making a Photograph," Weston described previsualization as the moment when the photographic subject is most significantly revealed to the imagination of the photographer, the moment when its form is most directly seen.

Linguistically, I always understood that Adams used the term visualization (i.e. the title of chptr 1 of "The Camera") and that in a letter to Ralph Steiner he noted that the term "previsualization" was redundant, as well as noting that he found it humorous that the word "visualization" that he used for the zone system was so often misused.

 

[DLawson]

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.

Another factor can be that the "new" has worn off.

My current thing is trails in woods and along streams. A couple times I've rounded a bend and run smack into a "Whoa" view. The next time I take the trail, it's just part of how that section looks. Maybe it wasn't beautiful the first time. Maybe it is beautiful all the time but it it was expected the second time. Hard to say.

 

[keithwms]

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.

I disagree, and kindly don't say 'reduced to film and print'.

Sure, I don't see the final image in complete, polished form, sure.... but I do often see all the most important ingredients, minus a little salt and pepper to taste. And I see the ingredients from different perspectives, vividly, long before setting up the shot or even seeing the subject. If you wish, I can describe some images to you that are in my head right now, images that certainly haven't been shot yet and cannot be shot yet because I simply haven't worked out the technicals. And frankly this is not a boast, I don't see anything unusual or exceptional about this... I think that a resonance between a previsualized image and a visualized, actual, 'seen scene' is something that photographers can and should experience. And one other point, not all or not even many of my own images are born this way... just a few, and they happen to be the ones that I (and others) consider effective. So take my testimony for what it's worth, but....

Now, whether Adams considers previsualization and visualization to be one and the same, that is debatable and perhaps indeed semantic. Maybe he simply didn't see a need for separate terms because he was missing the point, or maybe it was something that is not explainable in his standard technical parlance, so he was uncomfortable writing on it.

I do see a need for separate terms.... it's not just creating new language for its own sake. I mean, frankly, if you haven't experienced the previsualization phenomenon then I truly hope that you do, and then you can call it visualization or visual imagination or eggplant parmigiana or whatever you please! But again, please bear in mind that one of the most persistent criticisms of photography, and the reason why some thinkers don't count it among other fine arts, is the [IMHO flawed] notion that photography simply lenses reality and adds some incidental stylistics. There is a lot more to photography than that, and I do think White's language is helpful in making that point.

 

[Vaughn]

I disagree, and kindly don't say 'reduced to film and print'.

I see your point. If one's art can transcend reality, than it is not a reduction but an expansion. If the image is just a representation of reality, than the Second Law of Thermodynamic Photography kicks in and it will be a reduction.

Vaughn

PS...yes I just made the "Second Law of Thermodynamic Photography" part up...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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...

Keith

AA was categorically against the term 'previsualization'. AA students actually reported him getting upset when he was accused of having coined the term.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

A couple of thoughts to aid Ralph's thinking time

Conceptually, I've read that in his foreword to Adams' "Making a Photograph," Weston described previsualization as the moment when the photographic subject is most significantly revealed to the imagination of the photographer, the moment when its form is most directly seen.

Linguistically, I always understood that Adams used the term visualization (i.e. the title of chptr 1 of "The Camera") and that in a letter to Ralph Steiner he noted that the term "previsualization" was redundant, as well as noting that he found it humorous that the word "visualization" that he used for the zone system was so often misused.

Yes, that is a citation I remember too!

 

[keithwms]

Keith

AA was categorically against the term 'previsualization'. AA students actually reported him getting upset when he was accused of having coined the term.

Very good to know. And not surprising.

 

[Q.G.]

The question however is whether we would understand the OP's post differently, and whether the answer to it would be different, had he not prefixed the word with the redundant "pre".

 

[Christopher Walrath]

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)

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!

Ever read 'The Negative'?

 

[Vaughn]

The question however is whether we would understand the OP's post differently, and whether the answer to it would be different, had he not prefixed the word with the redundant "pre".

Probably the same degree of understanding -- even if he had not used "visualization" at all (with or without the "pre")...but we would not have gone off and had an interesting conversation about (pre)visualization.

Using an 8x10 camera, I have had the light change and had my image disappear before I could get the film holder in the camera -- let alone coming back again to the place on a different day. This does not happen as much when photographing in the open (unless the clouds are moving fast), nor is much problem photographing in the forest on overcast days. But in the forest on sunny days, the light shifts quickly and dynamically.

Vaughn

 

[mark]

The process of visualization, at least for me, is what I do when I set the camera up and direct the shot. As mentioned the previsualization is the emotion, the instant I see something that makes that internal twang, and I KNOW what the final image will look like. From that point on visualization makes it happen.

 

[Chazzy]

Very good to know. And not surprising.

If we're taking a poll, I think that "visualization" is better English, less trendy, and less pretensious.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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)



Ever read 'The Negative'?

Chris

Many times. Did you ever find the term 'previsualization' in there? I did not. I found 'visualization', though.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Probably the same degree of understanding -- even if he had not used "visualization" at all (with or without the "pre")...but we would not have gone off and had an interesting conversation about (pre)visualization.

I wonder what he would have done if APUG would have been around then.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The process of visualization, at least for me, is what I do when I set the camera up and direct the shot. As mentioned the previsualization is the emotion, the instant I see something that makes that internal twang, and I KNOW what the final image will look like...

OK

...From that point on visualization makes it happen.

From the above point on, there is nothing more to visualize. Just click the shutter. The visualization part is done until you go into the darkroom and make it happen, or many times, change it to something even better.

Until Keith offered a definition, 'previsualization' was just poor use of language to me, a linguistic faux-pas so to speak. But his proposal has something. Proper definitions are very powerful!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

If we're taking a poll, I think that "visualization" is better English, less trendy, and less pretensious.

Charles

We don't need to vote. 'previsualization' has not been elevated to the status of being a word yet. If you take it apart 'pre' and 'visualization' it would mean the moment before you visualize something. What is in our heads before we do that? Nothing as far as I am concerned, as soon as we imagine something, we can visualize it and the 'pre' part is done and over with.

But, look at Keith's definition. It might change our minds about this.

 

[DLawson]

Charles

We don't need to vote. 'previsualization' has not been elevated to the status of being a word yet. If you take it apart 'pre' and 'visualization' it would mean the moment before you visualize something. What is in our heads before we do that?

A desire. A concept. A formless suggestion of form.

At least for me, that stage is so incredibly brief that I don't need a term for it. You can call it the beginning of visualization, but it is nonvisual.

 

[EASmithV]

I actually think I'm losing my mind... I have started seeing images. Only those images are from 1940.

I've started to sketch them when I "see" them.

 

[keithwms]

Maybe I will try to write a blog entry on this topic and cast my thoughts into more cogent form.

But... regardless of whether you have need for the term 'previsualization,' we all have thoughts bouncing around in our heads even before we see our photographic subjects. These thoughts include what DLawson just referred to as desires and concepts. We all have these influences and (should) know that they can be quite powerful. In fact they can be powerful enough to affect how we see, what we see, what we want to see... and thus how we compose the photograph.

To what extent the previsual influences lead to imagined images... well that depends on how far you're willing to let your imagination go, and how willing you are to listen to those influences, and how routinely you rely on them and develop them into visual intuition.

Well, I don't want to just heap words upon words in this thread. Frankly, I think enough has been said that people can ask themselves how important a role 'previsualization' plays in their photography, and whether it is an act distinctly different from visualization, according to their own process of composition. Nobody is forcing anyone else to use the word! :rolleyes:

Obviously, I regard previsualization and visualization as distinctly different. Charles, I see no pretense in asserting that. And like I said, for me it is a very vivid and detailed experience, I have no problem imagining a subject from any perspective and with or without lensing effects and different colours and in b&w and so forth. I assume that this visual form of imagination is quite common among photographers and artists in general. And, like White, I do think there are things one can do to make use of that capability... we don't have to ignore or suppress thoughts/concepts/feelings.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Actually, out of curiosity, I did a basic google on previsualization. Wikipedia refers almost exclusively to inexpensive mini movies so that movie people could see what they wanted before costly productions. A prime example would be George Lucas' story boards to visually lay out the flow of the first movie. A practice he continued in one form or another through the saga. Ron Bigelow has a great article on his take on previsualization. There are countless other attributions of the word to Adams, whether correct or not, when the search focus regards photography.

It seems the grain here is the visualization is the act of viewing and the act of previsualizing is in the mental preparation regarding how one hopes to interpret that which they expect to see. I find myself, more often than not, in previsualization mode when I have a specific goal in mind for an outing, a self assignment if you will. It is usually along the way that I visualize other interesting subjects which I capture along the way.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Actually, out of curiosity, I did a basic google on previsualization. Wikipedia refers almost exclusively to inexpensive mini movies so that movie people could see what they wanted before costly productions. A prime example would be George Lucas' story boards to visually lay out the flow of the first movie. A practice he continued in one form or another through the saga. Ron Bigelow has a great article on his take on previsualization. There are countless other attributions of the word to Adams, whether correct or not, when the search focus regards photography.

It seems the grain here is the visualization is the act of viewing and the act of previsualizing is in the mental preparation regarding how one hopes to interpret that which they expect to see. I find myself, more often than not, in previsualization mode when I have a specific goal in mind for an outing, a self assignment if you will. It is usually along the way that I visualize other interesting subjects which I capture along the way.

Yes, but you referred me to AA's book 'The Negative'. Did you see it there? I was not able to find it.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I thought about that. I was probably mistaken. I attribute it (possibly falsely) due the fact that I have read much of his literature and NONE of White's. I am the first to admit that my memory is not as tack sharp as it used to be. Heck, my daughter's fund raiser is still at work and it's due tomorrow.

No, I've had it for the better part of two weeks.

 

[Q.G.]

It seems the grain here is the visualization is the act of viewing and the act of previsualizing is in the mental preparation regarding how one hopes to interpret that which they expect to see.

That's it, yes.
While viewing the subject, you have to imagine how the print will look like 'at the end of the day', and figure out what to do to get things that way.
That's where the "pre" comes from: form a mental picture now of what has yet to be created.

It's common, and understandable, but indeed correct that not the act of viewing the subject, but the act of forming an image in the mind of how the print will look is described as "visualisation" by Adams. "Visualisation" already contains the 'beforehand' aspect.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

So, when you think about it (in the intended context of the term 'visualization') it's a classic case of 'Tomato. Tomato. Let's call the whole thing off.' So, this has been a very invigorating mental exercise.

 

[keithwms]

Not so fast Q.G. and Chris! I don't think White's concept of previsualization is at all identical to Adams' concept of visualization. I see no evidence that their two concepts were identical. Despite both being authors and advocates of the zone system, their methods were radically different... and their output was radically different. To my eye, White's work is far more introspective than Adams'. If you see that too, then do you really think it makes sense for both to use the same vocabulary to describe their processes?

Arguably, Adams devoted much of his time cultivating the impression that photography is a sequence of technical decisions. I simply cannot avoid drawing this conclusion from his writings. Meanwhile White was pushing the emotional limits of his pupils and teaching in a new style that nothing at all to do with a mechanical, 'straight' process. White was as likely to have his students lie on the floor and stare out into space as he was to show them camera movements; his sessions are well documented in their eccentricity. Again, I would recommend Rites and Passages for an illuminating view of White's teaching methods. 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.