rules are made to be broken? and others...

[Hertz van Rental]

To prove that you can do it.
You see a scene, you pre-visualise it and then do the magic. When it turns out just as you saw it in your mind you get a kick that is better than sex.

And before you ask, you are proving it to yourself.

 

[ksmattfish]

I ask this out of curiosity:

Why do something when you know exactly how it will turn out? The sense of discovery throughout the process would then be lost.

What I find fascinating is how I can be inspired by a scene, and then recreate those feelings in a print. As a darkroom geek, I feel the process of photography doesn't stop with the release of the shutter. In my experience if I just raise the camera to my eye and click the button the photo will end up less than what I wanted. It will usually look like what I describe as a snapshot. I have learned through using the camera that what I see in my mind is not always how things really look. Anybody can go and view the scene I saw; what I am trying to create is a way that they can see what I saw and what I felt when I looked upon the scene.

Random photography can be fun, and even inspire new ideas, but basically it's doodling. There's nothing wrong with doodling, but it tends not to lead to a final product. That's fine, not everything has to end up as a final product.

I'm never 100% sure of how the final print is going to turn out, but with my knowledge and skill I can visualize something close. Whether my goal is to create a print that is accurate to reality, completely different than reality, or something in between, I use previsualization to develop a plan rather than snapping away, and hoping for the best. Not all subjects and situations allow for or require complete previsualization, but I use my tools and knowledge to try my best with the time I have. Some subjects have a limited time I will be allowed to get the shot I want (fast moving storm clouds, children, atheletes, etc...); if I've got to make the shot count, a plan of action (previsualization) gives me a much better chance of getting what I want.

When a photog chooses to use a large aperture to simplify the background that is previsualization. When they use a slow shutter speed to show motion, or use a red #25 filter with BW film (or know they are going to copy the red channel on PS), or when they intentionally overexpose the film, and then reduce development time to lower contrast, that is previsualization. Combining all these examples and more is previsualization.

For me the sense of discovery does not occur within the photographic processes between exposure and print. It occurs before I press the shutter release as I wander the world looking with my eyes and my mind. The camera and the darkroom or computer are just tools that help me share this with others.

For all that I think previsualization is an important consideration for successful photography, I agree that there are "different strokes for different folks", and everyone needs to find the methods that work for them.

 

[JC1220]

I guess our visions are quite different, but I should not be surprised, vision is as unique as a finger print. For me it is nothing technical in mind when photographing, and certiainly nothing in the sense of previsulization as you folks describe. This does not mean I have not mastered the technical aspects. Without the mastery one is not able to free themselves of the confinds of the technical to successfully communicate thier vision.

Interesting none the less.

 

[eydryan]

first of all i must thank you all, you have been an inapiration and one that got be back onto my own inspiration. with your words in my head, i packed the akkus in the digital compact and went out and the shots came more naturally. i have already edited most of my first shoot (which is so-so) and haven't quite started to edit this one.when i post any of them i'll let you know here, first one in about 1hour probably second in a few days.

in other news, i see that in the 2 days i've been missing you have quite discussed about other stuff as well so i'll get into that right away, as well as it fits very well in jc's question. first, about the rules. there are these guidelines which i have already implemented in my software which assist you in making a photograph. also some guidelines about exposure. and of course the very bad no-no.s which i believe are the most useful. now they are to be respected in 99% of the cases and here comes the question: what is previsualising and what is respecting normal exposure and other rules? i for one have a style that (with the compact at least) i see a frame in my head, i don't know what it is, but the brain says that i should take the shot. i scan quickly through rulesets (subconciousely) and if i find any i think if it really is necessary and then just take the shot. it all happens in 5 seconds, mainly the time it takes me to say if the shot is worth taking or not. and then i take it, with all pre-thought. however i cannot say that is actual previsualising of the shot, sometimes it's ok otherwise it is a fault in my judging and/or technique. that of course does not happen with film. there i have a considerably higher success rate. no film scanner though so the films just keep on piling. that goes very well with the fact that i have decided not to scan them at a guy anymore. it costs too damn much and they are archived for the present being at least till christmas when one shall be acquired

and about a pic lookin just like you wanted it to be when you shot it, well that is usually 9/10 digital editing i mean, it is impossible most of the time to capture exactly what our eyes see. so previsualising in my oppinion is techically possible only to people with bad eyesight

ok, i'll talk some more after i post those pics.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Pre-visualisation is actually learning to see how the film 'sees'.
The human eye can accomodate a very wide exposure range (in excess of 1:2,000 at any given time) whereas film is quite limited.
If it is to be reproduced in a magazine the useful exposure range of transparency film (the difference between white and black) is approximately 2-3 stops (1:4 and 1:8 ).
The 'art' of previsualisation is mostly just a matter of working out which parts of the shot will be light and which dark. In the studio this means that you light for the film, not for your eyes.
Black and white is a little more complicated. You have a bigger exposure range (typically 7 stops) but you have to work out what tonal value particular colours will come out. A lot of the skill comes with familiarity. The more pictures you take the better you get.
It is possible to buy filters - called density viewers - that you look through and they approximate the exposure range of the film you are using. They are quite expensive though and of only limited usefulness.

 

[eydryan]

ok, now that link i'd been yappin about: www.citybiking.blogspot.com

now, some are not that good but personally i think they are an improvement feel free to disagree, i have better ones on the way so these ones are somehow unimportant...

oh, and i especially like the effect on this one. well, previsualise this! http://photos1.blogger.com/img/11/3781/1024/City%20Biking%20069.jpg

 

[JC1220]

...what is respecting normal exposure and other rules?

Each photograph could very well call for a different exposure and most often does, so stating there is a "normal exposure" is a bit misleading. Other rules? I have no idea what they might be or what your software considers rules, so hard to comment on that one.

I look at your photographs online, there are two labled 66, but the one with the smoke stacks, is right on and well seen. Actually, most appear quite nice, keep doing what your doing, you are on the right track. I can't and won't comment other than that, as I rarely if ever anymore participate in online critiques, only in those that I can see the work in person.

"The more pictures you take the better you get."

I don't think this is the case. The simple act of just taking photographs without growth, awareness, understanding, vision, etc. will only yield the same results time after time.

If this were true everyone who owned a camera would be a "photograher."

Forget were this loose variation of the quote comes from:

What are you when you just bought a piano?
Someone who owns a piano.

 

[ksmattfish]

I'll try to give an example of how I might previsualize a scene.

I'm out wandering around in the countryside with my Speed Graphic and film holders loaded with BW film, and I come upon a gnarly, old tree. About 15' from the tree is a boulder with some interesting grasses around it. I decide that I would like to create a composition that includes both. I begin to previsulaize how the final print is going to look.

First I have to come up with the composition. I can randomly choose a focal length, and wander around looking through the viewfinder until the subjects fit within the composition. Possibly they won't do it like I want, so I randomly pick another focal length and try again. Or I can use my knowledge of how distance to subject affects perspective, and how focal length affects the angle of view and the size relationship of subjects at different distances from the camera, and make an educated guess as to what focal length I want, and where I should stand. I still have to look through the viewfinder to make sure I'm right, and make corrections if I'm wrong. Both methods can be previsualization, the second method just takes less time (hopefully). In this case I'll choose something fairly wide angle, because I want to put the boulder in the foreground, and I still want all of the tree showing in the background.

Now I have to consider depth of field. I usually follow the traditional school of thought with landscapes that I want as much as possible in focus, so I know to achieve that I'll need a small aperture (my Super Speed Graphic has some front movements, so I can also use this to affect DOF). I'm not sure that my eye sees it this way, but I can imagine what this will look like as a print. My eye sees everything it's directly looking at as pretty sharp. I know to achieve maximum sharpness in the print I will need to use a tripod, and cable release ( and mirror lock-up if I were using a SLR ). Because I'm using the smallest aperture, I know my shutter speed is going to be slow, so if I don't want the movement of the grasses in the wind to show in the print, I'll need to wait for a break in the breeze.

Next I study the tones. There are some nice clouds in the sky, and when I previsualize the print I see a medium gray sky, with bright white clouds. I know that if I shoot this scene straight, I'll get a very, very light sky, and the clouds will hardly show, because the sky is very bright, and BW film tends to overexpose blue. To deal with this I could use a red filter. That would make the blue sky very dark, but it would also darken the green leaves. An orange filter would lessen these effects, or I could use a yellow-green filter, which should help darken the sky as well as lightening the green foliage somewhat. Maybe I'll take a shot with both the orange filter and a shot with the yellow-green filter, because my previsualization isn't perfect, and later I'll want both options. Because I'm using a hand held meter I need to consider the effects of the filters on my exposure. I'll need to overexpose a stop or so to compensate for the light blocked by the filter.

Comparing the detail in the bright clouds with the detail of the tree bark in shadow my meter says they are 7 stops apart. I know that my printing paper can only handle 5 stops and still get the full detail. To compress the tonal range into something that will print the way I want it I need to overexpose by 2 stops, and later I will adjust my development time to under-develop by 2 stops (how much time this is depends on many things, so each photog needs to do personal testing).

Now I can take the shot, and get reasonably close to what I imagined (previsualized). This may read as complicated and time consuming, but because I've been doing it this way for years, it's fairly intuitive these days, and it all happens in less time than it took you to read this. I'll spend most of my time waiting for the grasses to sit still.

Previsualization is just looking ahead, and thinking about the photograph you want to take. Choosing color film because you know you want a color print is previsualization. You can try and previsualize as much as possible about the photograph, or just certain aspects. It's not really as complicated as it sounds.

 

[eydryan]

the thing i call normal exposure is the exposure that the automatic mode (or you but mainly very close to the automatic prediction) has selected for that frame. the normal exposure is the variable of all the settings so the shot will not be overexposed nor underexposed of course unless purpousefully desired. the normal exposure other rules? there are hundreds at least. but many i haven't quite learned by name they just are there after reading all those books... it is hard to define them, it is something like a photographer's common sense but in a technical sense.

i'm glad you like them, it is exactly that "observing" that you were talking about and it really inspired me to change my going-out style and i thank you for it.

now, about the many-picture-taking thing; i presume that everyone who takes photos is a person interested in perfecting himself in the field of photography. and if he uses his imagination and learns the technical ropes of the craft i believe that his photos will get better the more he takes them. because he stumbles upon frequent mistakes. and that helps him learn more. and so on. experience is only gained by practice. otherwise, it's useless. growth comes from within. mastery must be supported. like blind people who play starcraft (there are some who are quite good at it). given the necessary practice, their game grows and evolves.

the quote is nice and funny. and it characterises the people who take vacation shots. but those people usually don't bother to visit such forums. it is only the true learner who wants it so badly that he searches constantly for mroe knowledge. the snapshot and therefore unevolving type gets bored way before he can actually learn very much.

 

[eydryan]

ksmattfish there is a difference in taking a shot of a tree and composing an orchestra of tones where it may not exist. the processes you describe are also made by the brain in its simplist judging of pretty and not so pretty. and i personally believe that at least until a point it does the job a hell of a lot better. it sees the scene and you just say "am i gonna do this?" and it genreates all possible scenarios, it also chooses and you're just left with the techincal operation of the camera. but otherwise, a picture of a tree is taken quite the same.

and let's ponder a bit about what it means to take a photo. it means to sit, think then shoot. everybody previsualises something, but it's not necesarilly the same as you thought because of the tooth fairy. she comes and switches the slides. or a satellite crashes into the tree when you shoot it. you cannot predict all. and you shouldn't. photos lose their mystery like that. and by getting too technical you lose the emotional side.

fmpov at least that is what i see.

 

[JC1220]

Excellent eydryan! I think you are are very much on the right track, just keep at it. It is enjoyable to talk about these things, but so much more satisfying to photograph with those thoughts in mind. You are correct that the brain does make judements, pretty as you stated, but to be able to move beyond the pretty to beauty, beauty refelects everything behind the pretty, to have a vision that sees and reveals the deep is most satisfying to photographer and viewer.

 

[ksmattfish]

Do what you like, and if it works for you then great.

Does photography/art have to be pretty and beautiful?

 

[ksmattfish]

the thing i call normal exposure is the exposure that the automatic mode (or you but mainly very close to the automatic prediction) has selected for that frame. the normal exposure is the variable of all the settings so the shot will not be overexposed nor underexposed of course unless purpousefully desired. the normal exposure other rules? there are hundreds at least.

If you point your camera at a black cat, your meter will suggest an exposure that will make the cat gray.

If you point your camera at a white cat, your meter will suggest an exposure that will make the cat gray.

If you point your camera at a gray cat, your meter will suggest an exposure that will make the cat gray.

There really aren't many "rules" about exposure, other than light meters measure for middle gray. They are very simple devices.

 

[eydryan]

fmpov photography has to be beautiful or/and to have meaning. because that is what we want to make, tell the world what it's missing out, or attract its attention towards an interesing topic. if it's not beautiful it is because it is of something ugly and it has a powerful meaning or because it is a twisted view of something and that i don't quite like.

but do not take the beautiful i said as pretty. i was judgding more along the lines of good/bad shot. that is what the brain does.

and i quite rely on my automatic meter and it hardly ever fails. and if the cat is on an 18% gray background the exposure will be correct. and if all fails, spot metering does not... well, it's a weird subject, wether there is a normal exposure but i think there is.

cheers! i can't wait to edit those pics from the past three days, there are a few which i think are very sweet and by that i mean kick-ass dude now i've gotta go, the year is due to start in about an hour at my university and i think i've gotta be there... maybe take some shots

 

[thebeginning]

this thread looks like fun. i'm too busy to read through all of it though. about that whole rules thing...the first thing that popped into my mind is that there are in fact no rules of course, just strong suggestions or guidelines, and the only real way to go outside of those guidelines is to know what the guidelines are and why you are ignoring them. otherwise you end up with-plain and simple-a bad photo.