Using an external meter by choice

[markbau]

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.

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.

 

[Bill Burk]

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.

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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.

 

[Chan Tran]

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 look the same as what you saw in the viewfinder? If that what you meant I must say that's something never happen.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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.

Of course, then you have to consider what's going to be lost when switching from a 3D look to 2D on paper or projection. Also, filters like contrast ones or polarizers, and placement of the content in the "right" place. I have to be excited about what I see in real-time. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

 

[Bill Burk]

Those are technical issues that don;t seem connected to what previsualization is really intended.

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

 

[markbau]

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?

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.

 

[markbau]

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.

 

[Bill Burk]

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.

I look at it differently. I see Paul Caponigro as “the student” and his schoolwork is very good.

When I look at Minor White’s empty head, I appreciate the mystique.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

Visualization is all about the content, how you indent how you content to look in the final print, I don't think you can separate tone from content. If visualization is not your thing, and for most photographers it is not, 90% of the time I don't shoot zone, and if you are shooting sheet film Beyond the Zone System may be more to your liking. You can buy the tuitional, the software or app for you phone, have your film tested by the Viewfinder Store here in Arizona and get really fine negatives. The Viewfinder Store, as I under it, will test any film and developer combo to be matched with Ilford VC paper.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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

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

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

You [pre]visualized the splendid reflection with great detail contrasted by the contrast of no detail from the ice. That is an excellent example of the [pre]visualization. Well done.

 

[Bill Burk]

I’ll tell you a story that I think might explain previsualization.

When I lived in Camp Nelson I made friends with Chet Wheeler, who hiked the area extensively and wrote a local trail guide. One day he showed me a pounding rock near Alpine Village. I was impressed by how many holes were pounded in the exposed bedrock. But my imagination took me back to the time when the rocks were being used.

Even now it’s amazing to think how people lived eating mashed acorns, as we might live on cans of beans.

Our middle school takes annual trips to Yosemite. Guess who thought it would be fun to chaperone? It wasn’t going to be all for the kids though. I brought my 4x5 with plenty of film and three meters having Zone System stickers. I got up early every morning and hiked all directions from camp, and I took the camera on day trips with the kids. Our guides described some of the things we might find along the way, and I imagined taking pictures of some of the things they mentioned.

Lessons of Ansel Adams, Minor White and George Fiske were in my mind the whole time. If I wasn't taking pictures I was pointing the meter at things and imagining prints.

One day we hiked through the valley where we expected to see apple trees, oaks and granaries. At one stop they setup a team building exercise where teams of kids blindfolded themselves with bandanas (everyone had to have one for “leave no trace” lunches), held hands and guided each other around a rock outcropping, communicating the hazards along the way. “Watch out for the root sticking out on your left”.

I didn’t have to participate and there were a few large pounding rocks there. So I took a few pictures. I marked them for extended development because I wanted a graphic effect.

I can’t find the prints right now, but they turned out pretty nice.

The main point is that while I was on top of the rock looking down at the holes, I was thinking about how long they had been used, what life might have been like, how Minor White might treat the print, the day back with Chet Wheeler and how I might print this scene. Having all these thoughts as you take pictures is previsualization.

 

[BrianShaw]

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.

 

[snusmumriken]

Only a problem with an incident meter.

Not so.

Wear soft contact lenses. And wear reading glasses.

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.

BFD

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.

Still have to adjust for filters.

Not with a light or mid yellow, which is all I use. No practical difference.

Why so combative, Mr Glass? The OP was seeking to know what others do. I stated what I do and why. Have some respect.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I know one can get varifocal contacts, but I have not heard great things about them, and I can't afford them anyway.

Varifocal contacts are expensive and do not work well. I have yet to ever find an optician who recommends them. Soft contact lenses can allow one to see very well at all ranges except for older people [including myself] needing reading glasses it them. I find the reading glasses are not needed for the view finder or light meters during daylight hours. Darker settings can necessitate using reading glasses.

Separately darker filters required exposure adjustment. That is something we all have to live with. I used to take light readings with the filters on, but as I learned in a class taking light readings through darker filters is not accurate and one needs to take the light reading without the filter and put in the filter adjustment. The BFD refers to that just comes with the territory and all of us have to live with it if we choose to use filters.

 

[Chan Tran]

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

NO WAY the scene looked that way.

 

[MattKing]

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.

It seems to me that you are spending too much time looking through the viewfinder .
The decisions about point of view, angle of view, reflections, light angle, distance from camera to subject, desired feel and mood and a myriad of other things are generally made by most of us without having a camera up to our eye. That is particularly the case for those using view cameras.
We use the finder to tweak the results - knowing all the time that the view through the finder will be a mere approximation of how a print might appear, because the printing process is still to be invoked.
The view through the finder is an approximation even for those of us who shoot colour transparency film, although the results in the transparency will be a bit closer to that finder image. We still need to visualize how the transparency will look, while we look at the very different view in the finder.
An example (from a digital exposure in this case, because I have a before and after at hand)
Before (as seen in the finder):


After (as visualized at time of exposure):



The differences are subtle in this case, but if I didn't visualize them first, I probably wouldn't have taken the photo.

 

[drmoss_ca]

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!

 

[BrianShaw]

So incident metering works as advertised. Hallelujah! It’s good to keep validating beliefs we know to be true. It builds confidence!

 

[Sirius Glass]

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!

You have shown the use for white on white, now go for the black cat licking its paw while sitting on a coal pile.

 

[markjwyatt]

...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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A good case for bracketing. Or incident meter then open up 1-2 stops.

I found that the incident meter reading nailed it, but that no photograph of a house cat was worth the film. Let the flame wars begin! I am putting on a brown helmet to protect me from all the *** the cat lovers are going to throw while listening to the cheers about my post from the dog lovers.