Using an external meter by choice

[Sirius Glass]

I do not dwell in it.

• I choose the subject, the compostion and focal length.
• Either use the box speed and the light reading without the sky (automatically brings out shadow detail) or use a spot meter reading to adjust for shadow details vis-s-vis the Zone System.
  
• I consider the clouds and whether or not I want a darker sky with more cloud contrast.
• Set the exposure
• Add the filter, if choosen
• Compose in the view finder
• Take the photograph

 

[Silverinsunlight]

Visualization incorporates composition and content - it is the process where you visualize how to translate that which is in front of you into something else that will also be in front of you - a print, projected transparency or backlit screen - which is itself a two dimensional representation of the original (usually) 3 dimensional subject.

How did Adams and White deal with folks who cannot visualize in their workshops? Did this ever come up?

 

[Paul Howell]

In my workshop, 1968, all college students, I think everyone got the hang of it to some degree or the other. Saying that, I was likely the weakest, as an anthropology student minoring in PJ, I look at action, content, subjects tends to be human doing something. Minor White was annoyed with me as instead of using the ground glass on my Speed I would use the optical viewfinder to compose. When he chided me I remined him that the Speed had just such limited movements and the Kodak 127 had piss poor coverage what difference did it make?

 

[Silverinsunlight]

I'm unable to visualize at all. Failed geometry and drawing miserably in school. I compose and meter, but I can't hold an image in my head, let alone create one. I use a Speed with the Ektar 127. And, my degree is in Anthropology and Turkish.

 

[Craig]

There is simply no substitute for shooting, printing, figuring out what you do or don't like about the result, and going from there, one step at a time. .

I'd say yes and no. For a long time I had thin negatives when shooting HP5 (and only HP5), even though I was following Ilfords reccomendations. I finally got tired of fighting with the negs in the darkroom and decided to bite the bullet and go down the film testing rabbit hole and figure out what was going on. It actually turned out to be far less painful than I thought.

In the end after doing the testing it turned out that I was underdevloping by about a stop, but only with HP5. When I followed Ilfords recommended times with Delta 100 it was right on. I could have shot a lot of film and not figured that out, but now I know. I have a baseline level of knowledge about how many stops the film can hold, and how to adjust exposure, ISO and developing time ( and thus contrast index) to match the scene I want to capture. I could have blindly shot 100 sheets and hoped and prayed I might get what I wanted and never been able to get the knowledge I gained from 5 test sheets. Now I can actually apply some science to taking photos and capture what I want, instead of hoping there will be some shadow detail.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'd say yes and no. For a long time I had thin negatives when shooting HP5 (and only HP5), even though I was following Ilfords reccomendations. I finally got tired of fighting with the negs in the darkroom and decided to bite the bullet and go down the film testing rabbit hole and figure out what was going on. It actually turned out to be far less painful than I thought.

In the end after doing the testing it turned out that I was underdevloping by about a stop, but only with HP5. When I followed Ilfords recommended times with Delta 100 it was right on. I could have shot a lot of film and not figured that out, but now I know. I have a baseline level of knowledge about how many stops the film can hold, and how to adjust exposure, ISO and developing time ( and thus contrast index) to match the scene I want to capture. I could have blindly shot 100 sheets and hoped and prayed I might get what I wanted and never been able to get the knowledge I gained from 5 test sheets. Now I can actually apply some science to taking photos and capture what I want, instead of hoping there will be some shadow detail.

Ilford HP5+ is the only film that I had to take the Kodak and Ilford development times for XTOL and replenished XTOL were not long enough. I add one minute to the 68 degree F time for XTOL and replenished XTOL.

 

[Craig]

Ilford HP5+ is the only film that I had to take the Kodak and Ilford development times for XTOL and replenished XTOL were not long enough. I add one minute to the 68 degree F time for XTOL and replenished XTOL.

I was using a replenished XTol system as well. I use the Expo Dev app time for the sheet film, or the ISO 800 time from the datasheets for 35mm.

 

[drmoss_ca]

I do not dwell in it.

• I choose the subject, the compostion and focal length.
• Either use the box speed and the light reading without the sky (automatically brings out shadow detail) or use a spot meter reading to adjust for shadow details vis-s-vis the Zone System.
  
• I consider the clouds and whether or not I want a darker sky with more cloud contrast.
• Set the exposure
• Add the filter, if choosen
• Compose in the view finder
• Take the photograph

It has often amused me to contrast "I see the picture, I take the picture, I make the picture" with all the steps involved on a large format photograph. But HCB was a romantic rather than a technician, and there's room for both.

 

[abruzzi]

But HCB was a romantic rather than a technician, and there's room for both.

And if you browse through and Sinar brochures, the photographers look more like engineers and scientists, complete with white lab coats:

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'm still not clear what visualization is. Unlike painting where you can compose out of thin air, the photographer is stuck with shooting what's in front of him. So please explain the visualization process.

 

[Chan Tran]

I'm still not clear what visualization is. Unlike painting where you can compose out of thin air, the photographer is stuck with shooting what's in front of him. So please explain the visualization process.

visualization has to do nothing with geometry like the other poster said. The geometry doesn't change in the final image as compared to what's in the viewfinder. It has to do mostly with tonal, color, brightness. The final image be it digital or a darkroom print is far from reality in term of brightness and color.

 

[MattKing]

I'm still not clear what visualization is. Unlike painting where you can compose out of thin air, the photographer is stuck with shooting what's in front of him. So please explain the visualization process.

When you look through a viewfinder, do you not imagine how the scene might appear in a "slide" show on your big screen TV?
Do you not move around in order to choose the part of the scene that you think will look best on that screen?
Do you not adjust the aperture in order to have as much or as little depth of field in that big screen TV image as will give you the effect you want?
Do you not adjust the exposure in order to have the big screen TV image appear dark and moody, or bright and sparkling or something in between, all in the interests of that wanted effect?
All of that is visualization.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

When you look through a viewfinder, do you not imagine how the scene might appear in a "slide" show on your big screen TV?
Do you not move around in order to choose the part of the scene that you think will look best on that screen?
Do you not adjust the aperture in order to have as much or as little depth of field in that big screen TV image as will give you the effect you want?
Do you not adjust the exposure in order to have the big screen TV image appear dark and moody, or bright and sparkling or something in between, all in the interests of that wanted effect?
All of that is visualization.

But I'm seeing most those things in the viewfinder at the time. The framing I see from moving around right in the viewfinder. The depth of field I can see by stopping down the aperture before I shoot the shot. I'm not visualizing anything.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm still not clear what visualization is. Unlike painting where you can compose out of thin air, the photographer is stuck with shooting what's in front of him. So please explain the visualization process.

visualization has to do nothing with geometry like the other poster said. The geometry doesn't change in the final image as compared to what's in the viewfinder. It has to do mostly with tonal, color, brightness. The final image be it digital or a darkroom print is far from reality in term of brightness and color.

When you look through a viewfinder, do you not imagine how the scene might appear in a "slide" show on your big screen TV?
Do you not move around in order to choose the part of the scene that you think will look best on that screen?
Do you not adjust the aperture in order to have as much or as little depth of field in that big screen TV image as will give you the effect you want?
Do you not adjust the exposure in order to have the big screen TV image appear dark and moody, or bright and sparkling or something in between, all in the interests of that wanted effect?
All of that is visualization.

All of the two last quotes sums it up.

 

[Paul Howell]

I'm still not clear what visualization is. Unlike painting where you can compose out of thin air, the photographer is stuck with shooting what's in front of him. So please explain the visualization process.

Ok you are in the county shooting barn, the barn is off white, zone VI, but in your mind you want the barn to stand out against a clear blue sky on a hot summer day. In the zone system you look for a shadow to set your exposure, you find an open door and place your shadows in zone III, shadows with a bit of detail. You then meter the barn as Zone VII, made notes and develop the negative for zone VII but add time to the development process, or expand +2. You return a few months later, it's a misty dreary day, same barn, this time it meters at zone V, and you decide you want to shoot the barn at zone V, you meter the shadows at zone II, sets your exposure for no detail in the shadows, meter the side of the barn for zone V, keep notes, develop normal, but because of the overall low contrast of the scene due to cloud cover you expand +1 to give additional vibrancy to the print. The rule of thumb, expose for the shadows, develop for the highlight, AA just codified the process by testing his film and developer combo, plotting a curve so he could reliably choosing his shadows and highlights. He would burn and dodge the print as needed, in my example maybe there is a tree, you might want to dodge the leaves to lighten them.

For the full impact of the zone or beyond the zone, you need to shoot sheet film. AA did use the zone to shoot MF and maybe 35mm, as far I can recall Minor White only shot LF sheet film.

 

[BrianShaw]

But I'm seeing most those things in the viewfinder at the time. The framing I see from moving around right in the viewfinder. The depth of field I can see by stopping down the aperture before I shoot the shot. I'm not visualizing anything.

Perhaps you are being too literal, Alan. If you are seeing and/or imagining the image you are composing, then you are "visualizing"

 

[MattKing]

But I'm seeing most those things in the viewfinder at the time. The framing I see from moving around right in the viewfinder. The depth of field I can see by stopping down the aperture before I shoot the shot. I'm not visualizing anything.

What you see in the viewfinder is significantly different than what you see on the TV. The most important difference is, of course, that you see a three dimensional object, while the screen can only present a two dimensional view.
But there are other really important differences - some of which you have probably internalized.
You have knowledge about how your screen displays highlights and shadows, and you understand how that differs from the real world, so you when you view the scene through the finder, you make adjustments that take that into account.
You exclude elements in the scene, based on the frame that you are working with - the 16:9 aspect ratio.
There may be lots of great photo opportunities in front of you, but because they are inherently of different shapes than your TV screen, you reject them - because when you visualize them on your screen, they don't work right.
When you make depth of field choices, you are doing so based on how the result will look on your screen. In the real world, our eyes and brains make depth of field adjustments automatically.
Visualization is about taking the scene and translating it into the presentation medium in your mind's eye. Saying to yourself: "I'd like this scene to look like X on the TV screen, so I will make these adjustments at time of exposure". The viewfinder image is always significantly different than the TV screen image - visualization involves learning and applying the tools that control that translation.
My sense Alan is that the photos you like best for showing on your screen are the ones that are close to "realistic" analogues to what you perceive as the real world. That means that the translation adjustments you require may be more subtle than some. That doesn't mean though that you aren't making them.
When you look at a scene and then reject is as unusable for a photograph, you are visualizing it first as the photograph that might result.

 

[MattKing]

In real life, and through a viewfinder, this looks like some boring growth on a road. But I visualized how it would look if I put the camera on the ground, made an appropriate decision about lens aperture, developed the film for appropriate contrast, printed the result with appropriate contrast, and then toned the print for dMax and tone:

(actually a scan of the negative, adjusted to mimic the print)
The visualization process is much more obvious, because the presentation medium is much more different from the real world look - if only because it is monochrome.

 

[Bill Burk]

Since the advent of the Zone System, stickers for your light meter were illustrated and encouraged.

In this case I am shooting Double-X (ASA 200) with a yellow filter (EI 100) metered with a Weston Master II (one mark lower therefore 80).

I walked up to the chalkboard (mom made this plywood cut-out of our family of five plus husky) and took a reading. Because the board is a dark red, I “placed” the reading on Zone IV.

Next comes the visualization. I can walk around my backyard and meter anything. It’s easy now to look at the needle, see the corresponding number on the dial.

In my case the chips are actual pieces of my print paper, Ilford Galerie 2, with the actual grays for that paper with film and print developed normally.

So it’s a good way to “visualize” or “previsualize” what you would get on the final print. If you don’t like the way the different parts of the picture will fall onto shades of print grays, you can turn the dial. If everything falls where you like it you are good to go for N normal. If you just can’t get what you want you can think of N+ or N- treatment or you can think of filters to bring a pure color up or down in tone.

 

[Joe VanCleave]

The image focused on the GG is two dimensional, not three.

My take on the whole (pre-) visualization thing is it mainly has to do with a black-and-white print being the final outcome. Looking at the color image projected upside-down on the GG, it is the role of the photographer to determine how it wants those tones to be represented in the final print. (Pre-) visualization is thus a means for having some inkling of the final print in mind, before the shutter is tripped.

Thus, there may be some specific things needing to be done at the camera in order to achieve that goal (i.e. filtering the lens, adjusting exposure for highlights or shadows, etc )

 

[MattKing]

The image focused on the GG is two dimensional, not three.

True - but you get to change the focus, and see around the corners by moving a bit - prints and TVs don't offer that control.

 

[MattKing]

It is really important to this discussion that Alan works in realistic colour and displays results on a big screen TV. The visualization required for that is much less obvious than what is necessary for working in black and white and making prints.

 

[snusmumriken]

My problem with hand-held meters has always been that I am here and my subject is over there. Often they are in the sunlight and I am on the shady side (if you see understand me). A spot meter to overcome this annoyance would mean a substantial investment, a bigger gadget to carry about, and a very conspicuous process (if trying to photograph discretely).

Another problem I had for a some years was that while I didn't need glasses to use my camera I certainly did need them to read my meter. Now I need them for both, so I wear varifocals all the time. Those bring their own problems, but also make me even less inclined to carry a separate meter since I already have camera and spectacles to worry about.

And if using a filter you must remember to adjust for that in metering, and transfer the result to the camera.

For all these reasons, I no longer carry a separate meter. Instead I have learned to bodge things with the meter built into my M6, which is quite decent if you appreciate what it actually measures. If I have time to explore lighting conditions before any subject arrives, I use the camera to evaluate different parts of the scene. It must look odd, but I am old enough not to care.

 

[drmoss_ca]

But I'm seeing most those things in the viewfinder at the time. The framing I see from moving around right in the viewfinder. The depth of field I can see by stopping down the aperture before I shoot the shot. I'm not visualizing anything.

People's brains work in different ways. I can understand and accept what you describe, but I think those of us who claim to 'visualise' are imagining the final image, with an imagined degree of contrast, perhaps a shallow depth of field and so on. It's what we are hoping to get when we press the button.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My problem with hand-held meters has always been that I am here and my subject is over there. Often they are in the sunlight and I am on the shady side (if you see understand me). A spot meter to overcome this annoyance would mean a substantial investment, a bigger gadget to carry about, and a very conspicuous process (if trying to photograph discretely).

Only a problem with an incident meter.

Another problem I had for a some years was that while I didn't need glasses to use my camera I certainly did need them to read my meter. Now I need them for both, so I wear varifocals all the time. Those bring their own problems, but also make me even less inclined to carry a separate meter since I already have camera and spectacles to worry about.

Wear soft contact lenses. And wear reading glasses.

And if using a filter you must remember to adjust for that in metering, and transfer the result to the camera.

BFD

For all these reasons, I no longer carry a separate meter. Instead I have learned to bodge things with the meter built into my M6, which is quite decent if you appreciate what it actually measures. If I have time to explore lighting conditions before any subject arrives, I use the camera to evaluate different parts of the scene. It must look odd, but I am old enough not to care.

Still have to adjust for filters.