Wynn Bullock and Zone System, as told by Edna Bullock

[Deleted member 88956]

I was under the impression that pre-visualization is visualizing the final print before the exposure and post-visualization is visualizing the final print after the test print has been made.

It\s possible to break down visualization in general into micro steps. Whether there is a previs... or just plain vis.. or more smaller steps to go from not even thinking of going out to actual exposure, does it make a difference? This is dissecting a non existent problem that has no impact on how one decides in the end to press the shutter.

In a way, trying to figure how many different kinds of visualizations there are, or can be, is same as arguing over how many test shots one must take before taking one that is NOT a test shot anymore.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

All and ANY visualizations we talk about are all the same: evaluation of whatever it is we are looking at, be it scene, negative, print. Nomenclature does not make a photograph better, nor will it make anyone better. Key is to know how to evaluate, see the differences, understand why & how changes can be applied, and adjust accordingly.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

It\s possible to break down visualization in general into micro steps. Whether there is a previs... or just plain vis.. or more smaller steps to go from not even thinking of going out to actual exposure, does it make a difference? This is dissecting a non existent problem that has no impact on how one decides in the end to press the shutter.

You may be right but I was trying to understand the jargon used by many here. Surely, some think breaking down visualization into actionable mini steps is key to the success of their photography. Based on what little I understood of pre-visualization and post-visualization, it is fairly obvious that they are different at least in terms of the actions one takes in those steps.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

You may be right but I was trying to understand the jargon used by many here. Surely, some think breaking down visualization into actionable mini steps is key to the success of their photography. Based on what little I understood of pre-visualization and post-visualization, it is fairly obvious that they are different at least in terms of the actions one takes in those steps.

Think of pre and post as:

• pre is what you evaluate before your eyes that is BEFORE you take a shot and even before you set up the camera , so the more experience matching what you thought you were going to get to end result (print), the more successful that PRE becomes (seeing into the future might be the word)
• post is a step AFTER PRE is considered done, so call it RE (evaluation), a step that might come into play once PRE is finished and once some metering of a scene took place, things might look somewhat different, so look at it again and reconsider (if that is the case).

Having said all this, I think it's a total crap shoot for the most part. Key is to expose a scene as best possible to catch the most detail recorded on film, then make adjustment sin the darkroom for actual creative process. There are times when a scene may present a dynamic range problem and/or draws in enough interest at one end of the tonal spectrum than the other (dark vs. light areas) and it may be a forced decision to favor one end over the other, so be it. If scene is worth it, that's how it goes. Or, go with long time of PRE/POST/RE (visualizations) and see if that was worth it in the end.

Note that all this starts to make sense investing in, when shooting with LF photography. Diminishes in value exponentially as frame size goes down. That is due to effort needed to set up LF for a shot and implied desire to get the most of that singular large negative and NOT waste it for chance shooting. All the same, a LOT of time can be easily wasted going through all this "visualization" steps. And the less experience one has doing it, the more wasteful that time becomes.

Here is an article that talks about all these things, and gives some history. I'm not 100% sure it is completely factually correct, but he makes points that might help someone figuring this out.

In the end, the composition makes the photograph. Exposure accuracy, is absolutely secondary (not unimportant, but it is easy to get it "right" with not much fussing around or dragging your brain into the blank unknown). Training eye is far ahead of it all, and that requires actual recorded frame count NOT how many scenes have been "visualized" without ever making it to the negative.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Think of pre and post as:

• pre is what you evaluate before your eyes that is BEFORE you take a shot and even before you set up the camera , so the more experience matching what you thought you were going to get to end result (print), the more successful that PRE becomes (seeing into the future might be the word)
• post is a step AFTER PRE is considered done, so call it RE (evaluation), a step that might come into play once PRE is finished and once some metering of a scene took place, things might look somewhat different, so look at it again and reconsider (if that is the case).

Oh I thought pre-visualization is the complete mental construction of the final print just by looking at the scene, i.e. being able to "see" the final print in every detail in one's mind. This ability to mentally construct the final print, I thought, is something only very few gifted photographers have and some reach there by sheer determination and hard-work. Once you have seen the final print in your mind, you take steps to realize the physical print which is identical to the mental print. And this physical realization is mostly technical skill that any well-trained person can hope to achieve by practice. What differentiates great photographers from lesser ones is the imagination, i.e., being able to "see" the final print in every detail in one's mind just by looking at the scene.

Now, being able to mentally construct the final print by looking at the negative or test print is post-visualization. If you have already pre-visualized, then this step is basically remembering the mental construct of the pre-visualization step. Otherwise, post-visualization, I guess, is important if you are printing someone else's negatives as you don't have access to the photographer's mental construct of the final print.

This is my layman attempt to understand of pre and post. I'll stop here.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Oh I thought pre-visualization is the complete mental construction of the final print just by looking at the scene, i.e. being able to "see" the final print in every detail in one's mind. This ability to mentally construct the final print, I thought, is something only very few gifted photographers have and some reach there by sheer determination and hard-work. Once you have seen the final print in your mind, you take steps to realize the physical print which is identical to the mental print. And this physical realization is mostly technical skill that any well-trained person can hope to achieve by practice. What differentiates great photographers from lesser ones is the imagination, i.e., being able to "see" the final print in every detail in one's mind just by looking at the scene.

Now, being able to mentally construct the final print by looking at the negative or test print is post-visualization. If you have already pre-visualized, then this step is basically remembering the mental construct of the pre-visualization step. Otherwise, post-visualization, I guess, is important if you are printing someone else's negatives as you don't have access to the photographer's mental construct of the final print.

This is my layman attempt to understand of pre and post. I'll stop here.

Yes, and how do you "see" that print? By shooting, printing, evaluating, having notes, going back to them, having a digital snap of the scene is a big helping hand in that too.

It all comes with time and practice, can't really teach it in a seminar or course. Then, you have any filters that may get added to render greys differently, which sometimes throws the whole pre (or not) visualization into chaos.

I would not say "few and gifted" but there is dedication to learning this approach needed for it not to get in the way, although invariably it will early on. Is it all worth it? There is no right answer, but it helps and even if one never gets far enough with it, a great deal of stuff will have been learned in the process.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I think the composition is the most important. First a good subject in good lighting. Then, walking around, looking at the scene from different angles, raising or lowering the camera, etc. Unless you're doing work in a studio, you can't "pre-see" a scene until you're actually there. Then the light might not be what you want. What then? We're not painting with oil on a blank canvas. We have to work with what we got. SO visualization occurs right before you snap the picture.

Then when you work to make a print or a final digital, editing may open up new and better views and ideas you didn't "pre-visualize". What if there is something better that you realize at the end. Are you going to be so stubborn that you'll insist on matching what you visualized even if there is a better solution?

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Are you going to be so stubborn that you'll insist on matching what you visualized even if there is a better solution?

This is where my "crap shoot" comes from. To me if negative is exposed/processed optimally, all else is done in darkroom, and for some all that time at the scene makes all the difference.

But what, if you need more time and you need to pee, but are in a place where doing it in the open would have locked you up? I like to avoid these kind of hair pulling compromises of holding it in, because I need to do more visualization, 'cause if I don't that photo ain't good enough? Then even, if I could take a legal leak on short notice, my brain would still be visualizing as I'm doing it. That is not healthy at all.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Raghu,
IMHO, you got it right.
Thank you for bringing clarity to this thread.
Happy Holidays to you and yours.

Kind regards,
Darr

Thanks @darr. Happy Holidays.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This is where my "crap shoot" comes from. To me if negative is exposed/processed optimally, all else is done in darkroom, and or some all that time at the scene makes all the difference.

But what, if you need more time and you need to pee, but are in a place where doing it in the open would have locked you up? I like to avoid these kind of hair pulling compromises of holding it in, because I need to do more visualization, 'cause if I don't that photo ain't good enough? Then even, if I could take a legal leak on short notice, my brain would still be visualizing as I'm doing it. That is not healthy at all.

There's a lot to be said for serendipity.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

@Alan Edward Klein Merry Christmas

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

...and a Happy Healthy New Year to everyone.

 

[Vaughn]

I treat visualization as part of the photographic process from originally seeing the scene to framing the print...instead of trying to divide the visualization into unique parts. Others work differently with great success. As I hear it said in Australia once, "It's much of a muchness."

Alan -- my subject is the light. Happy new year!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I treat visualization as part of the photographic process from originally seeing the scene to framing the print...instead of trying to divide the visualization into unique parts. Others work differently with great success. As I hear it said in Australia once, "It's much of a muchness."

Alan -- my subject is the light. Happy new year!

I too seen the visualization as the end product.

 

[MattKing]

When it comes to creating a darkroom print, composition may or may not be most important.
Some prints succeed because of how they look as a print - tones, textures, colours, even paper surface.
Others become almost invisible - like a window looking into another world.
And some are mixtures of the two.
In most cases, if you are going to be looking at an image on a screen, more weight will have to be given to the composition, because some of the other variables won't be available.
When Adams or White or Bullock were involved in visualization, those characteristics that are particular to the darkroom print would most likely have been part of that visualization.
I can assure you, the scene photographed here bore only a passing resemblance to the prints I have made of it:

 

[Deleted member 88956]

When it comes to creating a darkroom print, composition may or may not be most important.
Some prints succeed because of how they look as a print - tones, textures, colours, even paper surface.
Others become almost invisible - like a window looking into another world.
And some are mixtures of the two.
In most cases, if you are going to be looking at an image on a screen, more weight will have to be given to the composition, because some of the other variables won't be available.
When Adams or White or Bullock were involved in visualization, those characteristics that are particular to the darkroom print would most likely have been part of that visualization.
I can assure you, the scene photographed here bore only a passing resemblance to the prints I have made of it:
View attachment 293969

We would have to now define composition. To me it covers everything that makes the print, including textures/tones etc. as all of it creates the visual message.

Sometimes I take a full frame and play with cropping it up into all kids of different dimensions. It's a fun game at composing and recomposing from same shot.

 

[DonW]

When a print is primarily judged as being successful because of tonality alone you can bet your bottom dollar it's being reviewed by another photographer with minimal understanding of art appreciation.

I can't count how many crappy images I have been handed by photographers who believe it's MOMA material. When I ask them what makes this print good they generally point to some highlight they were able to retain or some boring detail in the shadows they captured. Their concern for what's going on in the rest print seems to have escaped their attention.

To make a truly expressive print is complex and hard work. Unfortunately many photographers spend a lot of time mastering the zone system and then stop there.

To much time is spent on technical matters and other arcane things on Photrio and not enough time discussing what makes an image "work" as a piece of art.

Maybe Photrio is the techie/nerd forum and there is a better forum for those who want to further their journey in the world of expressive, impactful imagery.

Just mho.

 

[Sirius Glass]

We would have to now define composition. To me it covers everything that makes the print, including textures/tones etc. as all of it creates the visual message.

Sometimes I take a full frame and play with cropping it up into all kids of different dimensions. It's a fun game at composing and recomposing from same shot.

Composition was easy for me to learn. Every weekend whether we needed to or not my parents would drag us through art galleries in the Baltimore Washington DC area. After you see enough art, you can almost automatically see compositions yourself.

OR recommended by my supervisor at Kodak:

Art and Visual Perception A Psychology to the Creative Eye Rudolf Arnheim
Perception & Imaging Richard D. Zakia​

 

[Maris]

Composition? How about this:
Composition is the relationship between the elements of a photographic subject, front to back and side to side. The photographer places the camera so that the desired compositional relationship is achieved. The subject does not tell the camera where to go to "fit everything in"; the photographer's compositional preference rules.

Framing? How about this:
Framing is the photographer's considered action to place the edges of the photograph so as to best contain the composition. Framing can be done in camera or in the darkroom. Personally I never move the camera to change framing because that alters composition. I'll use a wider angle lens to "fit everything in" so it's the way I want to see it and then crop later.

The underlying premise is that composition is not framing but both are powerful choices in making expressive photographs. Maybe there are alternative opinions.

 

[tballphoto]

Dont take this the wrong way, but it helps to illustrate some points here.

I cannot understand most of the data shown on film data sheets, about curves, gamma, etc. I dont get the zone system at all because if it was as infallible as Adams claimed it was, why was he having to dodge and burn the print as much as he did?

What matters is never really talked about in books i have found.

I mean thigns like

"how do i take a nice photo using my light meter that the meter is balanced correctly, BUT at the same time create a negative that is not to dark or too light to make a print from"

 

[Deleted member 88956]

When a print is primarily judged as being successful because of tonality alone you can bet your bottom dollar it's being reviewed by another photographer with minimal understanding of art appreciation.

I can't count how many crappy images I have been handed by photographers who believe it's MOMA material. When I ask them what makes this print good they generally point to some highlight they were able to retain or some boring detail in the shadows they captured. Their concern for what's going on in the rest print seems to have escaped their attention.

To make a truly expressive print is complex and hard work. Unfortunately many photographers spend a lot of time mastering the zone system and then stop there.

To much time is spent on technical matters and other arcane things on Photrio and not enough time discussing what makes an image "work" as a piece of art.

Maybe Photrio is the techie/nerd forum and there is a better forum for those who want to further their journey in the world of expressive, impactful imagery.

Just mho.

Thank you. It is too easy to talk technical, and too challenging (and at times socially dangerous) to talk aesthetics, especially by critiquing someone else's work.

But then there is personal factor. What may work for an art gallery is not necessarily in agreement with creator's vision. At the same time those who create to sell, do need to focus on a venue where it will sell. Getting a foot in the door is tough and lots of compromises are often made. One often needs to become a "creative prostitute" to establish a name, so later it won't matter what it looks like, but who made it. Few get that far though.

But when one makes images without commercial pressure or meeting others' ideas, things get loose enough to be free. There are formulas to make "successful" compositions, getting to know human responses or triggers helps to please. Which of these are actual signs of individual creativity? Most respected artists go sideways, break norms, and stick to their vision.

This could go on to eternity. It's all about where the goalposts are located.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Composition? How about this:
Composition is the relationship between the elements of a photographic subject, front to back and side to side. The photographer places the camera so that the desired compositional relationship is achieved. The subject does not tell the camera where to go to "fit everything in"; the photographer's compositional preference rules.

Framing? How about this:
Framing is the photographer's considered action to place the edges of the photograph so as to best contain the composition. Framing can be done in camera or in the darkroom. Personally I never move the camera to change framing because that alters composition. I'll use a wider angle lens to "fit everything in" so it's the way I want to see it and then crop later.

The underlying premise is that composition is not framing but both are powerful choices in making expressive photographs. Maybe there are alternative opinions.

Sure, here it is; framing is part of composing. I can't see how the two can be separated. Cropping is framing, just done later. At camera set up, framing makes the boundaries within which all elements fall.

And to composition itself I add textures/colors as well. Depending on what they are, some rearrangement may be needed to shift compositional balance within framed scene. Some textures are sublime enough to have less such effect, some others, and/or strong patterns (especially on larger areas), can act as main leading lines, but if they overwhelm, they may need to be chopped off or moved. To summarize, everything within scene is part of composition. Not always do we realize them all at exposure. Some mishaps can be addressed in darkroom, some may need to remain.

This is of course how I see things.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Dont take this the wrong way, but it helps to illustrate some points here.

I cannot understand most of the data shown on film data sheets, about curves, gamma, etc. I dont get the zone system at all because if it was as infallible as Adams claimed it was, why was he having to dodge and burn the print as much as he did?

What matters is never really talked about in books i have found.

I mean thigns like

"how do i take a nice photo using my light meter that the meter is balanced correctly, BUT at the same time create a negative that is not to dark or too light to make a print from"

If you just stick to the idea that meter shows middle grey result, then learn how to identify that middle grey within the scene, take a reading of that, and you're god knows good to go most of the time for "good enough" negative to print from. Only in odd lighting conditions this is not exactly so.

As for taking that "nice photo", look around for images you appreciate from that "nice" perspective, keep checking similar and try to emulate at first. The more images you see from others, the more samples sink in and they start to impact how YOU see. There are no shortcuts to making "nice photos". Good thing these days is digital, which allows eye training at practically zero cost with camera in every phone. Then get one of those viewfinder apps that make it closer to using an actual camera/lens combination and continue on that learning journey.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah... Just identify middle gray, and then wonder why you have so much trouble getting decent shadow or highlight gradation in contrasty scenes. That's exactly why the Zone System needed to be invented. Not all of us are satisfied with a "good enough for government work" mentality. No, I don't personally adhere to Zone System methodology; but knowing exactly where I want my dynamic range to fall in terms of shadow exposure specifically, and in relation to highlight reproduction specifically, is far more important than identifying middle gray in black and white work. That's what spotmeters are so nice for. ... and what digital cameras are so miserable at. Who wants imitation ice milk when you can have real ice cream?

And in this case, we're speaking about Wynn Bullock, who really skated on the edge in terms of tightly nuanced contrast print extremes using Azo paper. That would be an almost impossible task to do the imitation ice milk way - it would look imitation!

Color film technique is somewhat different because you're not dealing with just a gray scale, but with hue specific hues saturate based on given exposure.

 

[tballphoto]

If you just stick to the idea that meter shows middle grey result, then learn how to identify that middle grey within the scene, take a reading of that, and you're god knows good to go most of the time for "good enough" negative to print from. Only in odd lighting conditions this is not exactly so.

As for taking that "nice photo", look around for images you appreciate from that "nice" perspective, keep checking similar and try to emulate at first. The more images you see from others, the more samples sink in and they start to impact how YOU see. There are no shortcuts to making "nice photos". Good thing these days is digital, which allows eye training at practically zero cost with camera in every phone. Then get one of those viewfinder apps that make it closer to using an actual camera/lens combination and continue on that learning journey.

Thats one thing i admit i need to learn, the middle grey aspect. Color photography is soooooo easy. just point and click.