I think a good example of what AA meant regarding pre-visualisation is his early half dome photo. The actual scene would have the sky and the rock face at similar values. He wanted to create an image where the lighter rock face soared out of a dark background so he used a filter to dramatically darken the sky. Not a literal interpretation of what was before him but what he pre-visualised the print should be.That's not previsualization. Nothing "pre" about it. That's what he's seeing and getting at the time in the viewfinder. He's seeing it in real-time. Every photo you take does that. You change the lens, you see a different picture. You move the camera and change the angle, you see a different picture. We're making it seem like some sort of black magic. Maybe I;m missing something.
That's not previsualization. Nothing "pre" about it. That's what he's seeing and getting at the time in the viewfinder. We're making it seem like some sort of black magic. Maybe I’m missing something.
Would today's films like Tmax 100 and a selection of different print papers allow those variables today that weren't available then? Would those limitations change if you print digitally today rather than chemically?I think a good example of what AA meant regarding pre-visualisation is his early half dome photo. The actual scene would have the sky and the rock face at similar values. He wanted to create an image where the lighter rock face soared out of a dark background so he used a filter to dramatically darken the sky. Not a literal interpretation of what was before him but what he pre-visualised the print should be.
Those are technical issues that don;t seem connected to what previsualization is really intended. If the range is too great, you have to lose something or do something to bring it into range. But even an amateur photographer who shoots digital knows that. It seems to be coming down to range of capture is what previsualization is all about and has nothing to do with content. Maybe I'm wrong. But it's just not clear to me.I was going to say no, there’s nothing mystical, it’s just realizing what you might get in a picture for instance it’s hard to balance interior of a cave with an outside scene. Or sometimes you know a filter won’t do much good when the sky is gray or the greens are olive.
But then I remembered….
You are missing something. This is what the old teachers tried to convey. You could be imagining the ultimate mystique of camera vision. It’s the communication cycle which flows from what you see to what you create, to what someone sees and what they think. And sometime people imagine something and see your picture and you captured something they imagined and they tell you what they think and you realize for the first time they were right. You did see it that way and you were trying to convey that thought but you didn’t realize it until they told you.
...
This was going to be my tribal tattoo.
I agree that many pictures I never shoot that look good in real-time because I know they're going to look like crap in the end. The camera can't duplicate the brain. On the other hand, if they look like crap to start with, there; is not much photography's going to do to improve them.. Content, interest, good lighting have to be there to start with. I have to be attracted to the view to begin with.Well Alan,
When I started out I thought I can take a picture that look the same as what I saw in the viewfinder. I learned that it is impossible! The picture that I get never looks the same as real life. I learned that by the settings in the camera and manipulation in the darkroom I can get the picture to look many different ways BUT it NEVER look the same as what I saw in the viewfinder. So visualization is knowing how the picture would look like before taking the picture.
I guess you meant that the pictures that you took looks the same as what you saw in the viewfinder? If that what you meant I must say that's something never happen.
Those are technical issues that don;t seem connected to what previsualization is really intended.
First of all, I don't understand why people shoot film whose final destination is a digital print. The reason I shoot film is because I want to make a silver gelatin print.Would today's films like Tmax 100 and a selection of different print papers allow those variables today that weren't available then? Would those limitations change if you print digitally today rather than chemically?
That was the “there’s no mystery” paragraph of my post
I wanted to tell you about the mystery
Paul Caponigro is considered a famous student of Minor White.
Here are a few of his pictures, some are easy to grasp, while others draw more on imagination
View attachment 296374
View attachment 296375
View attachment 296376
View attachment 296377
I think of Paul Caponigro a bit like CTEIN, unbelievable technicians but as photographers they leave me cold. I can appreciate their technical brilliance but beyond that they are amazing photos of blah.
Here's one of mine, that's a little confusing and weird. But it looked that way in real time. There was no previsualization.That was the “there’s no mystery” paragraph of my post
I wanted to tell you about the mystery
Paul Caponigro is considered a famous student of Minor White.
Here are a few of his pictures, some are easy to grasp, while others draw more on imagination
I used to have 30 16x20" film photos and film prints mounted in 22x26" frames around the house on walls. (Taken with my Mamiya RB67) When we moved, my wife wouldn't let me put them up in the new house, other than for 2 or 3. I have no darkroom. To start printing pictures that would sit in a dark closet seems like a waste of time. So I make slide shows for 75" TV's and I'm working on a coffee table book that will be done digitally. I also shoot a lot of color. Like you, I enjoy the process of getting out into nature and just shooting. It's contemplative and spiritual. And I enjoy seeing my work on the web, on monitors and projected on large TV's. Be happy.First of all, I don't understand why people shoot film whose final destination is a digital print. The reason I shoot film is because I want to make a silver gelatin print.
The films and papers available now are not really that much different to what AA had available. Sure TMax 100 is finer grained and has a long straight line that AA probably would have liked and a paper like Ilford MGFB classic is a better paper than anything he had available but on the whole the materials aren't that different. I don't think the modern films and papers would change how AA or Weston saw a scene and then wanted to portray it in a print. The newer films and papers might just make it a little easier. In my opinion, a great print happens when you capture an image in exquisite light. Its easy to see, go and photograph a building at noon, then go and photograph it an hour after sunrise or an hour before sunset. I've only ever taken a handful of photos that I consider good and every one of them is hard to print badly. Most of my photos, no matter what I do in the darkroom are rubbish, the light was not great, but when you plan a photo and get there when the light is perfect, the results can be sublime. People spend so much time on darkroom technique when what they should be concentrating on is taking a photo in exquisite light.
Here's one of mine, that's a little confusing and weird. But it looked that way in real time. There was no previsualization.
Ice 2 by Alan Klein, on Flickr
For whatever reason, Alan... you might be fighting the word at the expense of understanding/accepting the concept. If you don't think you visualized, or pre-visualized, or post-visualized that's fine. You seem to be doing all three intuitively. Be happy.Here's one of mine, that's a little confusing and weird. But it looked that way in real time. There was no previsualization.
Ice 2 by Alan Klein, on Flickr
Not so.Only a problem with an incident meter.
I would have to carry reading glasses (or wear them, making 3 lanyards: camera, meter, glasses) and keep taking them on and off between camera and meter. I know one can get varifocal contacts, but I have not heard great things about them, and I can't afford them anyway.Wear soft contact lenses. And wear reading glasses.
Thanks for your sympathy. Glad you have the time. Honestly, that's pretty rude, isn't it? You are obviously thinking of subjects that are far more static, and a photographic process that takes far longer, than I am.
Not with a light or mid yellow, which is all I use. No practical difference.Still have to adjust for filters.
I know one can get varifocal contacts, but I have not heard great things about them, and I can't afford them anyway.
NO WAY the scene looked that way.Here's one of mine, that's a little confusing and weird. But it looked that way in real time. There was no previsualization.
Ice 2 by Alan Klein, on Flickr
It seems to me that you are spending too much time looking through the viewfinderThat's not previsualization. Nothing "pre" about it. That's what he's seeing and getting at the time in the viewfinder. He's seeing it in real-time. Every photo you take does that. You change the lens, you see a different picture. You move the camera and change the angle, you see a different picture. We're making it seem like some sort of black magic. Maybe I;m missing something.
No art or visualization here, just a test of an incident meter with sunshine and snow. My experience with reflective meters are that the snow will be grey unless you add 2-3 stops exposure, so I was curious to see if there would be detail in the snow. Just walked down the driveway and pointed the camera in various directions.
Into the sun:
Across the sun (can you see the pond?):
Across the sun (fox tracks):
Away from the sun:
I know they are boring pictures, but they seem to show the meter works pretty well in an awkward lighting situation!
...go for the black cat licking its paw while sitting on a coal pile.
A good case for bracketing. Or incident meter then open up 1-2 stops.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?