Previsualization

Being the owner of a 4x5 View Camera, I can understand this article completely and have gone through this process many, many times...
I often tell people that it can take me up to one hour of setting up before actually putting film in and tripping the shutter...who wants to wait that long just for a photo these days...not too many people...but I feel it's worth it and that's why I do it...
Also the cost of doing Large Format photography (8x10, 5x7 or 4x5) will cause one to be very careful before just shooting away...
In digital photography one could just shoot like there's no tomorrow and why not it's not costing you anything...

Digital or Film it doesn't matter which one you use if you follow what this article is saying your photographs will get better...
 
So, badly written article aside, what do you all think of the idea of previsualization? Can you really stand next to your camera and have, in your mind, a picture if the final print? If you could, is that even desirable?

Usually when you hear the term used, it's within the context of the zone system and what people are really talking about is the ability to predict (with a spot meter and some technical knowhow) what shade of gray a few particular areas in the scene will print. Well that's fine but there is so much else to a photograph...so many other ways that it changes what it is describing. It's 2 dimensional, it isolates its subject out of context with the frame, it freezes the scene in time, etc, etc, etc.

I just don't believe that it's possible to see it before you see it. And if you could, wouldn't that be kind of boring?

Cheers,
Gary
 
I'm not an expert in photography, but as a record producer, songwriter and music arranger, "previsualization" does exist. Not always, but not never either.

When I'm developing a melody, sometimes I previsualize what other instruments will be there;

When I'm playing the piano part of a song, sometimes I HAVE TO previsualize what the orchestra will be playing so we are supporting each other instead of stepping on each other's toes.

Etc..

Yet sometimes an idea just popped up and I just wrote it down, and if I got a guitar or a piano beside me I'll just develop it right there right then. Even under this kind of situation, I can still previsualize what it will become, with my experience of music producing, and memories of well-written or well-arranged songs by the others. But I can still choose to NOT previsualize and let the Muse guide me.

The precious thing about previsualization, IMHO, is that if you're very well self-trained with it, and are able to do it in a flash, it really helps a lot when you need it. Then again, it doesn't mean that we have to use it all the time.

And the most important of all, when you do, and you make it in the end, it's the most exciting thing in the world.

------

I like this article. Helping me or not, the author made it very clear that this was HIS opinion and not everyone has to follow it. I don't like articles that seem to be shouting "if you don't agree with me you must be an idiot", but this one is not one of them. Therefore I don't see anything bad about it.

My 0.02.
 
Pre-visualization is a concept requiring discipline, knowing your media and continuous practice. It's not rocket science. Even Minor White and John Dowdell III figured it out as teenagers. The concept once acquired is instantaneous.
 
Previsualization?

I guess that's my New Word For The Day, huh? :)

I've known the concept, just never called it that. Sometime it works, I'll see the scene, see it in the viewfinder, take the shot, I know I have a winner.

Other times I >THINK< I have a winner and some kind of technical error or limitation or just a Stupid Photographer Trick proves otherwise. :)
 
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the "Spaghetti Approach".

That is if you throw enough spaghetti at the wall, some of it will definitely stick.
 
[QUOTE: Art is about revealing not manufacturing.]

I'll somewhat agree with that. At least photography for me is more about revealing something rather than making a statement. The camera sees differently than we do and so it reveals things we don't see. That's why it's interesting.

I'm not saying that a slow and deliberate method or trying to control what you can in the process is wrong or can't yield great results. I'm just saying I don't believe you can really see exactly what the picture will turn out like.

Ok, maybe an experienced pro working in a studio on a simple scene can have a excellent idea of what he is getting, but that is more like just illustration.

[QUOTE: I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the "Spaghetti Approach".]

The opposite of slow and deliberate? Different methods for different equipment or personalities. That's fine. I don't argue with anyone's methods. If good pictures come out of it, how can you?

Cheers,
Gary
 
Ansel Adams talked about pre-visualization incessantly... and long before this chap brought it up. I understand what he means but I hold a sincere belief that much of this "technique" is mostly afterthought and the kind of stuff that one chats about at gallery openings to sound more prfessional/artistic/arrogant. I'm both an advocate and practicioner of "slow photography" but spending a whole hour to think through thaking a picture is too slow for me! Good framing, good lighting and good exposure is important to assure the neg will be able to support the development of an effective print (image). But all-in-all, my experience tends toward the "BMITA" technique. I worry composition/framing and expsosure in the field but issue that really concerns me is about anthing I might be doing at the time if image capture that will "Bite Me In The @ss" when it comes to printing, etc. Blowing highlights, for example, will BMITA. No details in shadows will BMITA. Trash in an otherwise pristine landscape will BMITA. Tattoos on otherwise pretty women will BMITA. (okay, okay I'm trolling with that one!) But worrying about getting the perfect "Zone VI" negative density in one teeny-tiny part of the neg is just a tad fiddly for me.

But thanks for passing along the link - it was and interesting article!
 
Previsualization ?

Previsualization ?

Doesn't everybody do it ? Seriously, even the decisive moment is based on it, if I remember HCB quotes correctly ...

Roland.
 
There are certian things I like to shoot, but I just go out in areas where those things are. I dont previsualize, I just shoot what Im drawn to at a given moment.
You might say I just wing it.......and Im sure it shows. Oh well.
 
Carp

Carp

If one goes fishing with intention of catching only carp and he is true to himself, he will come home with only carp or nothing at all.
 
A basic problem with 'previsualization' is working out what on earth 'pre' adds to 'visualization'.

Either you visualize the picture, or you don't. Neither approach is inherently superior. But anyone who uses the term 'previsualization' without asking how it differs from 'visualization' may legitimately be questioned on the clarity of his thinking. This includes AA (or would if he were still with us).

Cheers,

R.
 
St. Ansel came up with a lot of weird ideas and unnecessary complicated techniques, which has been adopted as some sort of religion by mostly north American amateurs.

... And that article goes into detailed explanation of what many photographers do consciously or unconsciously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom