| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/06/2005 01:20:27 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
There are photographs in my head that are just waiting for the right moment to be taken. Would this be counted as previsualization?
There are locations I have visited that begged to be retaken with this or that added, so I returned. Is that previsualization?
There are times when I say, "I need to take a picture of a shoe." So I think and think about what shoe I could take a picture of and where I would place it, and what exposure and DOF I would use. Is that previsualization?
There are moments when I see something in front of me that begs to be captured right then so I do, composing it with the POV I want and using the DOF I want, etc., before I actually snap the shutter (hopefully the moment isn't gone). Is that previsualization?
There are instances when I pray the camera isn't set on some godawful setting like ISO 1600 and manual shutter at 1/60 in bright daylight because the most amazing thing is happening in front of me and if I stop to make sure I know what I am doing I'll miss it. Is there previsualization here?
Once we decide when previsualization starts and where it ends, maybe we can decide its validity as a tool. |
Yes, to all your questions. Even the last one. The last step before clicking the shutter should always be to check the exposure indicator and hopefully have enough time to adjust enough to get a usable image.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 01:35:32 PM · #27 |
Is it then possible to not previsualize?
would that be spray and pray, or is that also a conscious choice in previsualization?
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 01:41:03 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Is it then possible to not previsualize?
would that be spray and pray, or is that also a conscious choice in previsualization? |
Spray and pray could still involve previsualization. The photographer is going for a certain effect and spray and pray may be the one of the ways to achieve the effect.
I'd say that as long as you're thinking about what you want, even the tiniest bit, you are using previsualization.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 03:36:02 PM · #29 |
If your goal is to capture what is in front of your camera as accurately as possible, as in photojournalism for example, then why do you need to form a mental picture of what you want your final image (including post processing) to look like? That blueprint is right there before you, you don't need to work it up in your brain.
Spray and pray sounds sort of derogitory but I think, in a certain way, it describes a legitimate photographic technique. When I'm on the sideline of a HS football game and a running play is coming directly toward me, my 20D will shoot 5 frames per second. Not much previsualization allowed for at that rate. But some of the shots can turn out very nicely. Or you could just say I was hacking, and got lucky a few times here and there.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 05:15:54 PM · #30 |
IN the stated examples of photojournalism and sports photography, "previsualization" might be as simple as determining as far as possible ahead of time where the action will occur, what elements of the background might be less-desirable, and placing yourself in such a location that when the action unfolds you are well-situated to get the shot you'd like to get.
In general, the more you train yourself as to what (and now) the camera sees, and as to what is possible in a given set of conditions, image-wise, the better prepared you are to capitalize on rapidly-unfolding opportunities for outstanding images. As someone else has poinetd out, truly accomplished street photographers have an almost miraculous ability to be where they need to be when they need to be there. Work like Cartier-Bresson's, for example, is neither accidental nor lucky; it grew from discipline and thought and preparation.
I find it hard to believe that anyone coiuld argue against the benefits of of knowing one's equipment, how the medium reacts to light, how to quickly compute the possibilities and act to maximize them. It all coems down to practice and study, no matter what "kind" of a photographer you wish to be.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 05:26:33 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
IN the stated examples of photojournalism and sports photography, "previsualization" might be as simple as determining as far as possible ahead of time where the action will occur, what elements of the background might be less-desirable, and placing yourself in such a location that when the action unfolds you are well-situated to get the shot you'd like to get.
In general, the more you train yourself as to what (and now) the camera sees, and as to what is possible in a given set of conditions, image-wise, the better prepared you are to capitalize on rapidly-unfolding opportunities for outstanding images. As someone else has poinetd out, truly accomplished street photographers have an almost miraculous ability to be where they need to be when they need to be there. Work like Cartier-Bresson's, for example, is neither accidental nor lucky; it grew from discipline and thought and preparation.
I find it hard to believe that anyone coiuld argue against the benefits of of knowing one's equipment, how the medium reacts to light, how to quickly compute the possibilities and act to maximize them. It all coems down to practice and study, no matter what "kind" of a photographer you wish to be.
Robt. |
I keep trying to say that I don't form a mental picture of my final image in my head before I shoot, but you keep expanding your definition of previsualization. If I use mapquest on the internet to get driving directions to the place I want to photograph I suppose you'd call that part of previsualization too.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 05:31:34 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I keep trying to say that I don't form a mental picture of my final image in my head before I shoot, but you keep expanding your definition of previsualization. If I use mapquest on the internet to get driving directions to the place I want to photograph I suppose you'd call that part of previsualization too. |
And for my part, I have yet to "define" the concept of previsualization. Indeed, it could be different things for different sorts of shooting. I just gave an example of such. Let's just drop the damned word and subsitute "informed awareness" or some such twaddle and be done with it alright? Sheesh.
ALL I am arguing for is images that happen through some sort of forethought rather than by accident. Accidents are great when they are happy ones, but you can't count on them occuring. Or, as they say, "Luck is the residue of design." In everything I've ever done in life, the better I knew what I was doing the luckier I got.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 05:38:54 PM · #33 |
Flattering to be put in reference category - thanks Courtenay - but I would say that street photography is the hardest discipline I have attempted with my camera, and the only one I feel could be a lifelong committment.
Previsualisation? Who knows? I've taken shots where I've found locations and waited - for upto three days, at the longest. I've found shots where a scene has presented itself, and I've had some time to re-think and re-compose. I've got shots where I've had approximately 1 second to get it.
But absolutely all of them have required decent processing skills to bring out what truth I see/find in them. I cannot believe that any committed photographer discards the possibilities of the darkrom, whether digital or analogue.
e |
|
|
|
09/06/2005 08:47:53 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
So how would you classify Ansel Adams? Was he an Analog Artist? |
Ansel, more than anyone, championed the cause of making perfect negatives as the base element in making perfect images. Of course, the making of a perfect negative only occurs partly inside the camera; it's a combination of exposure and processing.
The analogous workflow in digital is RAW image processing; get the exposure right in-camera and tweak the parameters in RAW processing to get the desired tonal range.
What Joey Lawrence described is what Ansel called "previsualization"; the photographer, he said, needs to already have the finsihed product firmly in mind before the exposure is made. It's good advice for any photographer.
Still, even given the optimum possible negative, an Ansel Adams print usually (not always) involved considerable post-processing at the printing stage, mostly dodging and burning, to achieve the previsualized image.
Robt. |
This has always been my point and the way I work. I don't shoot a lot of images when I go out. Some people edit on the light tabel or screen, some edit in their mind. Totally to different ways of doing things.
I try to always make the best possible print. The print is my final destination. I do what I can in camera, and half the time get it 90% of the way there. But fine tuning in photoshop is where I set my image apart from others. That's why I will never enter an open challenge. Just no fun to me. I think anything you can do in the darkroom should be allowed. Back when I was printing my own stuff (both color and B&W) I occasionally even "cloned out" the most distracting thing on the print. Which meant retouching the neg, and hand painting the print with die. It was very rare, but if it made a better print for the customer, I'd do it.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 09:01:51 PM · #35 |
Wow. I learned a lot. From everyone!
Previsualization can be used in photography but it is not a necessary step.
Different types of photography and different types of photographers use different steps.
An important aspect of any type of photography is to know your equipment. This essentially results in better images.
Editing, how much and when, has no relationship to the quality of the photographer nor the quality of the photograph. It is individual choice.
There are cases of too much editing and not enough editing, but, the editing is up to the photographer to bring out what he sees.
A photograph requiring less editing is not necessarily better than one requiring more editing. The requirement is a burden borne by the photographer, not the image itself.
I didn't start the thread - thanks to whomever did, but I'm glad a discussion ensued that did not result in well...bloodshed. Its great to hear opposite sides of the same coin.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 12:15:55 AM · #36 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/19/2025 03:36:49 PM EDT.
