Previsualization

[FallisPhoto]

Web surfing, a few days ago, I found a really good article on previsualization. I just thought I'd pass it along: http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/previsualization/previsualization.htm

[photomoof]

This is tough going... if I would have had to read those articles to get my MFA -- I would have just smashed my cameras, and gone into something more understandable like advanced astrophysics.

[nikon_sam]

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...

[photomoof]

Digital or Film it doesn't matter which one you use if you follow what this article is saying your photographs will get better...

Or much worse, depending on your personality.

[nikon_sam]

Or much worse, depending on your personality.

True...the same camera in the hands of many will produce both good and bad photos...to me that says it's not the camera's fault...

[Chuck Albertson]

I find it easier just to squint.

[steverett]

I think you meant to say "It was found to be easier to squint."

[photomoof]

True...the same camera in the hands of many will produce both good and bad photos...to me that says it's not the camera's fault...

I was not referring to cameras, but to the "method" proposed in the article.

I personally found the article quite disturbing.

[gns]

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

[deepwhite]

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.

[George Bonanno]

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.

[photomoof]

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

Well I suppose you can, but then what would be the point of taking the photo, as you point out? Art is about revealing not manufacturing.

Of course we all have in our "minds eye" what we hope artwork might look like, hell we even imagine the books our photos will appear in, and the accolades we are going to get, they women who will love us for being so creative. :D

Deep criticism of the article is outside of the scope of this thread (or at least my interest in typing), but from my point of view, it remains quite disturbing to me personally.

But if it works for the author, what can I say?

[dmr]

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. :)

[Solinar]

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.

[gns]

[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

[Gumby]

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!

[photomoof]

Ansel Adams talked about pre-visualization incessantly... and long before this chap brought it up.

I have almost no interest whatsoever in Ansel Adams, I find his work totally tedious. There are such great landscape photographers working now in color, he is just out of the running for me personally. But I know many seem to like him.

Tattoos on otherwise pretty women will BMITA.

I never let it bother me... I remain grateful. :cool:

[mwooten]

Previsualization?
I tend to work with a foggy notion most all of the time. Even now.

[ferider]

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

Roland.

[pesphoto]

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.

[Dektol Dan]

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.

[DougFord]

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.

An Ugly Stick, a tube of pop’n fresh dough and a lawn chair; on the banks of the Passaic River, its stench, thick and stagnate on a hot humid day.
Now that’s carp fish’n!! :D


My take -
Some photography is not unlike a musical performance, sheet music in hand, going over the piece in your mind before the actual performance.
Some photography is akin to improvisation, musically speaking. Having no preconceived ideas of what sounds or notes may emanate from your horn.

[photomoof]

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.


Ah Grasshopper ... if a fisherman intends only to catch carp, he must look below the surface of the water, and only show his bait to the carp.

[Dektol Dan]

Or Jizz Jazz?
Do people who make love according to plan make the best lovers?

[photomoof]

Or Jizz Jazz?
Do people who make love according to plan make the best lovers?

... she passed out a script, which included everything from food, to the type of laundry detergent used on the bedding.

Needless to say I moved on ...

[gns]

Related question... Can you ever tell when you take a picture that it will be a good one?

Garry Winogrand was asked this and said, "No, never. Except one time, and I was shaking when I took it". This was the picture...

..http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_art/collection_database/Hippy_Hollow_Lake_Travis_Austin_Texas_Garry_Winogr and/ViewObject_enlarge.aspx?depNm=all&pID=0&vW=1&Pg=626&St=0&StOd=1&vT=1&OID=190014072&RID=12519


Cheers,
Gary

[Roger Hicks]

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.

[Nh3]

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.

[pesphoto]

Ive never seen that one. I'd be shaking also. Though I would have gone in closer.....:D

Related question... Can you ever tell when you take a picture that it will be a good one?

Garry Winogrand was asked this and said, "No, never. Except one time, and I was shaking when I took it". This was the picture...

..http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_art/collection_database/Hippy_Hollow_Lake_Travis_Austin_Texas_Garry_Winogr and/ViewObject_enlarge.aspx?depNm=all&pID=0&vW=1&Pg=626&St=0&StOd=1&vT=1&OID=190014072&RID=12519


Cheers,
Gary

[cmogi10]

I read it...

Aren't these all very basic ideas? I feel like that was a series of very obvious concepts.

[gns]

[QUOTE: I read it...]

All the way through? Yikes!

[cmogi10]

[QUOTE: I read it...]

All the way through? Yikes!

Heh, yup....all the way through:p

[gns]

On a Friday evening in SF? We are a friggin sad lot.

[photomoof]

Heh, yup....all the way through:p

There were lots of other interesting articles from the same author. You will want to read them all, I suppose? :eek:

[cmogi10]

O no, I'm visiting my parents in the suburbs of New Jersey right now....


mhmmmm


exactly....
apperently there's a high school party somewhere, that sounds exciting =\

[cmogi10]

There were lots of other interesting articles from the same author. You will want to read them all, I suppose? :eek:


I'm working on it!

[FallisPhoto]

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...

I agree. It is the one single thing that will pretty much guarantee anyone better photos.

[FallisPhoto]

This is tough going... if I would have had to read those articles to get my MFA -- I would have just smashed my cameras, and gone into something more understandable like advanced astrophysics.

In essence, the article just says you should figure out what you want and plan how to get there before you trip the shutter. Is that so hard?

[photomoof]

In essence, the article just says you should figure out what you want and plan how to get there before you trip the shutter. Is that so hard?

for those lucky photographers with time machines... yes easy.

[FallisPhoto]

Or much worse, depending on your personality.

I don't know about that. How is thinking through the stages going to hurt? If you are advocating just randomly clicking the shutter, how could it possibly get worse?

[FallisPhoto]

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

Yes it is. I plan nearly all of mine out ahead of time. No it isn't boring. What seems to me would be really horribly boring would be just clicking a shutter without any artistic input other than framing.

[FallisPhoto]

Well I suppose you can, but then what would be the point of taking the photo, as you point out? Art is about revealing not manufacturing.

I'd have to disagree with this on so many really basic levels I hardly know where to start. So the Mona Lisa was not worth painting because it was planned?

[FallisPhoto]

Other times I >THINK< I have a winner and some kind of technical error or limitation or just a Stupid Photographer Trick proves otherwise. :)

The author is suggesting that you avoid the technical errors by thinking through the entire stage of making the photo before pushing the shutter release, not just "Aw, how cute ..." snap! You get fewer photos but better ones.

[FallisPhoto]

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.

I always called that the typing monkeys approach. If a monkey bangs away on a typewriter long enough, sooner or later he'll spell a word. He will never be Shakespear though, no matter how good that word is.

[FallisPhoto]

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

Roland.

Apparently some don't. Apparently some use what Solinar calls "the spagetti approach." Given that pushing the shutter button is only the first stage of making a photo, and that all that follows is nearly infinitely more creative, I don't see how it is possible to get anything good, with any degree of consistency, without planning it. Maybe those are the guys who drop their photos off a Walmart and think they are creating art? They ought to give the guy in Walmart most of the credit.

[FallisPhoto]

Or Jizz Jazz?
Do people who make love according to plan make the best lovers?


Does a carpenter who works without plans make the best houses?

[FallisPhoto]

I read it...

Aren't these all very basic ideas? I feel like that was a series of very obvious concepts.

You'd think so, but if you read the rest of the posts here you'll find that some are violently opposed to them.

[Roger Hicks]

I always called that the typing monkeys approach. If a monkey bangs away on a typewriter long enough, sooner or later he'll spell a word. He will never be Shakespear though, no matter how good that word is.

Um...

Yes he will.

If he types for all infinity, he will sooner or later produce the complete works of Shakespear(e). It's one of the classic definitions of infinity.

Well, strictly, of course, he won't BE Shakespear(e). But a reader, presented with the (selected) finished work, would be unable to tell the difference.

Cheers,

R.

[photomoof]

"FallisPhoto" that was a lot of separate posting.

Gezz my photos are probably more "planned" than anything you will ever do, considering I build the subjects of many of my photos, but still, in no way do I actually agree with the article's premise. It is far too simplistic and didactic, well just plain rigid, to be of any value to me. I come from a formal art education, so that does cloud my ability to see merit in this kind of approach.

But if it works for you great...

[FallisPhoto]

for those lucky photographers with time machines... yes easy.

For those who are capable of planning their actions, who understand the process of making a photo beyond dropping a roll of film off at Walmart, and who are not completely governed by impulse it is also easy.

[photomoof]

For those who are capable of planning their actions, who understand the process of making a photo beyond dropping a roll of film off at Walmart, and who are not completely governed by impulse it is also easy.

I like CVS, much more in keeping with my personal esthetic. And the Russian girl that works there is very cute.

[Jamie Pillers]

Fallisphoto,
Thanks for the post about previsualization. I'm someone that continually fights against spending too much time thinking about why I'm taking this picture or that. But I must admit to myself that I haven't created any substantial body of work that I'm proud of. Recently I read a book about the photographer Bill Jay. He says a photographer must have a "project" clearly in mind before decent photos can be made. When I read that, I bristled. I like to relax with my camera, on walks around the neighborhood, taking pictures of whatever strikes me as interesting or beautiful or ... whatever.

Then your post comes along, again suggesting that it might be helpful if I gave a bit more thought to what I'm doing with the camera.

I think I'm 'turning the corner' on this issue. I've been going back through a lot of the photography books I've collected over the years, looking at composition & themes. But also reading about what each photographer says about their thinking process. I haven't found one photographer in all these books that doesn't seem to have given some serious thought to their picture taking. This thinking doesn't always take place at the moment of exposure... sometimes, like in the case of Bill Jay, they've done the thinking far in advance.

I've noticed recently that now when I go out with the camera, I'm more often asking myself "Why am I making this photograph?" I think its helping me consider, even if only for a few seconds, what the answer is to that question and then how can I best create the picture that meets my need. Even if its just a nice garden picture.... I'm now thinking a bit more about composition, depth of field, etc..

So, clearly for me some sort of "previsualization"is helpful... pre-thinking the details as suggested in the article you referred us to, or even just asking myself "why am I making this photograph?" Thanks again.

[FallisPhoto]

Um...

Yes he will.

If he types for all infinity, he will sooner or later produce the complete works of Shakespear(e). It's one of the classic definitions of infinity.

Well, strictly, of course, he won't BE Shakespear(e). But a reader, presented with the (selected) finished work, would be unable to tell the difference.

Cheers,

R.


The monkey experiment was tried, on a smaller scale and not a single sentence was produced.

[FallisPhoto]

I like CVS, much more in keeping with my personal esthetic. And the Russian girl that works there is very cute.

You need to give that girl 3/4 of the artistic credit for your photos.

[FallisPhoto]

Fallisphoto,
Thanks for the post about previsualization. I'm someone that continually fights against spending too much time thinking about why I'm taking this picture or that. But I must admit to myself that I haven't created any substantial body of work that I'm proud of. Recently I read a book about the photographer Bill Jay. He says a photographer must have a "project" clearly in mind before decent photos can be made. When I read that, I bristled. I like to relax with my camera, on walks around the neighborhood, taking pictures of whatever strikes me as interesting or beautiful or ... whatever.

Then your post comes along, again suggesting that it might be helpful if I gave a bit more thought to what I'm doing with the camera.

I think I'm 'turning the corner' on this issue. I've been going back through a lot of the photography books I've collected over the years, looking at composition & themes. But also reading about what each photographer says about their thinking process. I haven't found one photographer in all these books that doesn't seem to have given some serious thought to their picture taking. This thinking doesn't always take place at the moment of exposure... sometimes, like in the case of Bill Jay, they've done the thinking far in advance.

I've noticed recently that now when I go out with the camera, I'm more often asking myself "Why am I making this photograph?" I think its helping me consider, even if only for a few seconds, what the answer is to that question and then how can I best create the picture that meets my need. Even if its just a nice garden picture.... I'm now thinking a bit more about composition, depth of field, etc..

So, clearly for me some sort of "previsualization"is helpful... pre-thinking the details as suggested in the article you referred us to, or even just asking myself "why am I making this photograph?" Thanks again.

You're welcome. I don't see how it is even possible to seriously improve anyone's skill level without doing this. Dumb luck only takes you so far.

[Gumby]

The monkey experiment was tried, on a smaller scale and not a single sentence was produced.


You're possibly rushing things a bit fast... infinity isn't over yet! :p

[Jamie Pillers]

Yes, I've been trusting "dumb luck" for the past 20 years or so and it doesn't appear to be paying off. Possibly posthumous discovery of my negatives will prove differently, but... :)

[madsolitaire]

Hey, a great article. Thanks for highlighting this. I will also go through Ron's other writings as well. Insightful. Tks!

[deepwhite]

I was fading out of this thread. Now I'm glad to see someone's turning it back a little bit.

(I'm not going into the discussions about all the metaphors used here. They are carrying us further and further away....)

Let me use my own experience for an example. One thing pre-visualization helps me is about those shots that I DIDN'T take, which I would've had if I didn't think before I shoot.

Pre-visualization is not boring. Boring is when I got the photos from a roll and couldn't find any to keep....

My 0.02.

[Roger Hicks]

The monkey experiment was tried, on a smaller scale and not a single sentence was produced.

You can't HAVE infinity on a smaller scale. That's part of the definition, too.

Cheers,

R.

[deepwhite]

You can't HAVE infinity on a smaller scale. That's part of the definition, too.

Cheers,

R.
But has there been any monkey that live half as long as Mr. Shakespeare? That's why I think we should just discuss "with" metaphors instead of "discussing metaphors".

[photomoof]

You need to give that girl 3/4 of the artistic credit for your photos.

You are so determined I went back and looked at the article again. And I looked at the author's photographs. He is producing work that many would envy. His articles seem to be an effort to share his vision and techniques with others. He feels successful and wants to help others find that success. Commendable.

But after careful consideration as a creative worker and sometimes teacher, I stick with my original statement:

This is tough going... if I would have had to read those articles to get my MFA -- I would have just smashed my cameras, and gone into something more understandable like advanced astrophysics.

The article just misses the creative soul of the act of making art. I suppose it is a useful formula for some? Perhaps it was helpful for the author to think about his work? But not for me.

But if you find yourself without direction, snapping wildly without purpose, I guess this article would be helpful? But as you pointed out -- add my 1/4 the 3/4s of the girl at CVS and who needs pre-whatever? CVS makes it all possible for me. I must remember to put that in my blog.

[itf]

I look through my viewfinder when I take photos, that's visualisation, pre-visualisation, whatever you call it. More often than not, if I think through what I want the final photo to look like too much the photo ends up boring, or I end up missing the scene altogether. For me, better to follow my instincts.

I learnt photography by looking through my failures and successes, and those of others. Then I think about why the ones that worked did, make a mental note of it, then forget it. If I know I'm going into a particular situation, same thing; think about what could work and then forget it, I don't want to be so busy looking out for what might work that I don't notice what's actually happening. Second guessing myself as I take a photo doesn't work for me, having a project is a different thing.

I'm talking about what I feel works for me, which obviously isn't for everyone. Whether it actually works for me is up to whoever's looking.

[gns]

A lot of the recent discussion here seems to suggest that either one plans and sees the final result at exposure or else must be operating completely at random. Well, this is so simplistic and such a misunderstanding of the process, that I would wonder if anyone that holds this view ever tried to make photos at all. There is always some element of chance at work in photography and No photograph can be made completely at random.

It is not a contradiction to say that you can hone your craft, select your subject carefully, pay close attention to framing and when to press the button, etc., but still not know exactly what you will get.

Cheers,
Gary

[gns]

I think I linked this here once before, but this podcast has a interesting little segment with photographer Henry Wessel discussing the importance of keeping the mind clear while photographing. (It is the second of three segments in the podcast, so if you don't want to watch the others, just scroll ahead about one third through to Wessel's)...

http://www.sfmoma.org/podcasts/2007/february/sfmoma_artcast_feb07.m4a

Cheers,
Gary

[photomoof]

Well to sum this article up, the most important concept I can impart, as both acedemic, and humble practitioner of the craft is:

DO NOT PUT A SCRIPT SIGNATURE ON YOUR PHOTOS!

[myoptic3]

Ansel Adams was a practitioner of previsualization. It must work, judging by his world acclaimed photos. I've read some of his books lately, and the knowledge in them is pretty revolutionary. He just seemed to know so much, and none of it was from accepting what others said. He went out and tested all of his ideas and techniques in a very through manner, and he was able to write about it in a clear, concise way. I've learned a lot about exposure from him.

My take on previsualization is it is wasted on those who do not have a fundamental understanding of how photography works. Once one understands the concepts from working experience, only then is it possible to apply the technique. In the end, it's about knowing how your materials work in different lighting conditions, and having the skills to get the shot you want.

When I was studying painting and drawing I wondered why abstract painters had to have such fundamental knowledge of anatomy and realism. It soon became apparent that it's all related. The artists does not start where Van Gough ended (a continual source of frustration for the beginning student), one starts where Van Gough started, and hopes to find a unique way of expression only after many years of work and failure.

Previsualization is a tool for times when you aren't rushed, and it is mainly for the MF or LF shooter. Obviously it won't work for street photography! Also good for portraits. I suspect digital shooters would roll their eyes and just fire off a gazillion shots in the hope that one will work out.

[Dektol Dan]

Amen. And amen.

[FallisPhoto]

You're possibly rushing things a bit fast... infinity isn't over yet! :p

"What do you really get when you leave six monkeys alone with a computer for a month? A colossal mess! Researchers at Plymouth University in England reported that primates left alone with a computer attacked the machine and failed to produce a single word. According to Brian Bernbaum, “a group of faculty and students in the university’s media program left a computer in the monkey enclosure at Paignton Zoo in southwest England, home to six Sulawesi crested macaques. Then they waited” (2003). The results were far from what evolutionists had hoped to see. Researcher Mike Phillips noted the first thing to happen was that the “lead male got a stone and started bashing…it” (as quoted in Bernbaum, 2003). He went on to note “another thing they were interested in was in defecating and urinating all over the keyboard.”

[photomoof]

Ansel Adams was a practitioner of previsualization. It must work, judging by his world acclaimed photos.

Or not -- depending on your take on his photos. Of course we all pre-visualize, it is human nature.

But you have to be careful about previsualization, for many years I had a girlfriend who was a practitioner, she would plan a party so that every detail was in place, and never enjoyed them because of course like all human creative events, they are never quite what you planned.

Nothing wrong with knowing what you want, but it is important to accept the surprises you had not considered and build on them.

Personally (and this is personally in case anyone misses that word) I find Ansel Adams totally boring, he takes away rather than adds to the experience of nature for me, I would rather just go look with my own eyes. He does not reveal mystic truths though his work, the photos appear lifeless to me, mostly because they are B&W. They bring nothing of what Georgia O'Keefe revealed, and they must, for me, be judged in that light.

There is an important movie out just now on ADDING your own viewpoint and creativity, to that which already exists, Man on Wire, and how accidents can transcend your vision.

[photomoof]

I think we are done with the Monkeys... :p

[FallisPhoto]

Previsualization is a tool for times when you aren't rushed, and it is mainly for the MF or LF shooter. Obviously it won't work for street photography! Also good for portraits. I suspect digital shooters would roll their eyes and just fire off a gazillion shots in the hope that one will work out.

No, you can't rush the shot and previsualize. However, I have reservations about previsualization not working for street shooters. I think it depends on what kind of street shooting you do. I agree that it probably won't work for opportunistic shots, unless your subject is asleep, but then there are those shots where you lie in wait...

With large format photography it is pretty much an absolute necessity; I'd have to question the sanity of anyone with less money than Bill Gates who is using a large format view camera for taking snapshots. It is no coincidence that in the days before small format photography, most street photographers tended to be the idle rich.

With medium format cameras a little previsualization is highly advisable. If you shoot a lot, you'll be declaring bankruptcy in very short order. Only with small format cameras and especially digital cameras can you get away with casually shooting hundreds of photos as a matter of course (and even with the small format film cameras those hundreds of photos can pretty easily translate into hundreds of dollars).

I think the "machine gun" approach seems to be pretty much confined to those who have digital cameras, to those whose type of photography is highly opportunistic, and to those with more money than sense.

[FallisPhoto]

A lot of the recent discussion here seems to suggest that either one plans and sees the final result at exposure or else must be operating completely at random. Well, this is so simplistic and such a misunderstanding of the process, that I would wonder if anyone that holds this view ever tried to make photos at all. There is always some element of chance at work in photography and No photograph can be made completely at random.

It is not a contradiction to say that you can hone your craft, select your subject carefully, pay close attention to framing and when to press the button, etc., but still not know exactly what you will get.

Cheers,
Gary

Try that approach with one of these:

http://www.photographers1.com/SaleImagePages/8x10FieldCamera.html

You had pretty darned well better know what you are going to get.

[Nh3]

My take on previsualization is it is wasted on those who do not have a fundamental understanding of how photography works.

Thank you very much, and now you can go back to sit on your rocking chair and smoke your pipe filled with cheap tobacco.

[gns]

Quote:"Try that approach with one of these:"

Try what approach? Where in the post you quoted did I mention any given approach.
If you read my earlier posts, you would see that I clearly don't think of any approach or method as better than another.

Gary

[Roger Hicks]

Ansel Adams was a practitioner of previsualization. It must work, judging by his world acclaimed photos. I've read some of his books lately, and the knowledge in them is pretty revolutionary. He just seemed to know so much, and none of it was from accepting what others said. He went out and tested all of his ideas and techniques in a very through manner, and he was able to write about it in a clear, concise way.


This is simply untrue.

He was a great photographer before he devised the Zone System, the vast majority of which is simply a restatement of well-known principles of sensitometry, i.e. it owed almost everything to what others said, dating back to Hurter and Driffield (the original H&D) in 1890.

The only original part -- a work of genius, it is true -- is the naming of Zones.

Finally, his books are not always all that clear and are almost never concise. Basic sensitometry is nothing like as difficult to master as the Zone System, and as the Zone System (barring the naming of Zones) is a subset of sensitometry, this is the wrong way around.

If the Zone System works for you (or anyone else), great. Otherwise, you just don't need it -- as witness the numerous great photographers who didn't/don't use it but rely on experience, rules of thumb, latitude, self-masking (in printing-out processes) and, yes, basic sensitometry.

Cheers,

R.

[photomoof]

Quote:"Try that approach with one of these:"

Try what approach? Where in the post you quoted did I mention any given approach.
If you read my earlier posts, you would see that I clearly don't think of any approach or method as better than another.

Gary

He was referring to the photography of Norbest turkeys using that particular view camera. (http://www.norbest.com/b_whole_birds.cfm)

The photographing of Norbest turkeys, requires a steady hand on the old view camera but with practice you can get this kind of shot! Impressive!

http://www.norbest.com/images/b_bnt.jpg

[photomoof]

He was a great photograher before he devised the Zone System, t

I wish I could warm up to this photographer, but try as I might (and I have looked at a lot of prints of his at MOMA over the years) -- I just can't.

This is as close as I get to loving his photos... It is true you can't debate its quality.

[Dektol Dan]

I've had enough of the St. Ansel bashing. Previsualization isn't even a word. Preconception is: an opinion formed before obtaining adequate evidence, especially the result of bias or prejudice.

I think composition directed (not just influenced) by proven technique and experience the topic. The leading article is a fine 'how I do it', nothing more.

As far as smoking goes; can one have nicotine stains on one's under pants? I can preconceive that, but I can't previsualize it.

[photomoof]

I've had enough of the St. Ansel bashing. Previsualization isn't even a word. Preconception is: an opinion formed before obtaining adequate evidence, especially the result of bias or prejudice.

I think composition directed (not just influenced) by proven technique and experience the topic. The leading article is a fine 'how I do it', nothing more.

As far as smoking goes; can one have nicotine stains on one's under pants? I can preconceive that, but I can't previsualize it.

Sadly, I could see the smoke blowing out, is there such a word as de-visualize?

From Frameforge on Buzz:
For Previsualization or Previz (pronounced Prē-viz) to be anything other than a new buzz word it must mean something beyond simply visualizing what youíre going to shoot. This is true because basic "visualizing" is exactly what directors and storyboard artists have been doing for years, regardless as to whether they were creating these visualizations using pencil, paper, still photo or some 2D composite software program.

And yes Previsualization is one of those stupid Buzz Words. I once threw someone out of a meeting for using the word Creative as a noun, after I warned them not to, as in "we need more Creatives on this web page."

[FallisPhoto]

You are so determined I went back and looked at the article again. And I looked at the author's photographs. He is producing work that many would envy. His articles seem to be an effort to share his vision and techniques with others. He feels successful and wants to help others find that success. Commendable.

But after careful consideration as a creative worker and sometimes teacher, I stick with my original statement:

This is tough going... if I would have had to read those articles to get my MFA -- I would have just smashed my cameras, and gone into something more understandable like advanced astrophysics.The article just misses the creative soul of the act of making art. I suppose it is a useful formula for some? Perhaps it was helpful for the author to think about his work? But not for me.

But if you find yourself without direction, snapping wildly without purpose, I guess this article would be helpful? But as you pointed out -- add my 1/4 the 3/4s of the girl at CVS and who needs pre-whatever? CVS makes it all possible for me. I must remember to put that in my blog.

To clarify: pressing the shutter button is just the start of the process of making a photo, and it is one of the least creative parts. All you can really control is lighting and composition.

Next comes developing the film. Developing the film involves choosing a developer and knowing how that developer will work with that film; then you decide whether to push or pull your development, which will also have a very noticable effect on the end product and is also part of the creative process. Then you decide on how much grain you want and control that with temperature and degree of agitation. Frankly, I think film development is a part of the creative process that is equal to lighting.

Next comes darkroom printing, and so much creativity can be brought into play there that I hardly know where to begin. There are literally thousands of darkroom techniques that can be used -- and they can be used in combinations. If you drop off your photos for someone else to develop, you are relinquishing a far greater part of the artistic control of your images than you are assuming. Now maybe it's just me, but from my point of view, that is boring. Oh, and incidentally, I used to teach too -- a photography class.

[40oz]

honestly, I fail to see what the fuss is about. Think about what you are shooting before tripping the shutter. Wow, what a concept :/

[FallisPhoto]

Quote:"Try that approach with one of these:"

Try what approach? Where in the post you quoted did I mention any given approach.
If you read my earlier posts, you would see that I clearly don't think of any approach or method as better than another.

Gary

Try ANY approach not involving a very significant degree of previsualization with a camera that has five more controls (rise, fall, swing, tilt and shift) that you have to know how to use in order to get anything decent from it, that has built-in inherent limitations that make it probably the worst possible choice for anyone practicing any kind of impulsive photography, and that uses film that costs $300+ for a box of 100 sheets.

[Roger Hicks]

Try ANY approach not involving a very significant degree of previsualization with a camera that has five more controls (rise, fall, swing, tilt and shift) that you have to know how to use in order to get anything decent from it, that has built-in inherent limitations that make it probably the worst possible choice for anyone practicing any kind of impulsive photography, and that uses film that costs $300+ for a box of 100 sheets.

I see what you mean, but there is also the question of internalizing visualization (I still don't see what 'pre' adds) and being familiar with movements.

AA's famous 'Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico' was as close as you can get to a grab shot with an LF camera. If you use ANY camera enough (LF, MF, 35mm or even digital), then you have an increasingly good idea of what it will do. I would not hold myself out as being a second AA but I can take an 8x10 inch portrait (with movements) a LOT faster and better than I could when I started, and I don't have to think too much about which movements I need when making architectural shots on LF either.

Then again, that's over three decades' practice. When I got my first 4x5, over a third of a century ago, I was flailing about with very little idea of what I was doing.

Cheers,

Roger

[gns]

Fallis,

Do you read peoples posts before you respond or do you just like to hear yourself talk? As I said, from my posts, you can see that I do not advocate any method or speed of working over any other. I simply stated that I don't believe you can really see (in all it's entirety) the finished print until it's in front of you.

Maybe the phrase "In all it's entirety" is key here. You use the phrase "Significant degree of.." which doesn't sound like the same thing to me. It doesn't sound like complete previsualization. I don't know. I suppose my 80 year old mother can previsualize her photos. If her grandchild's smiling face is in in the center of both her viewfinder and her print, then she has previsualized her picture successfully (to the extent of her needs). But if you accept that in a good photograph, everything is important, that every element must work to support the whole, then I think you have a different story.

By the way, did you even listen to the short podcast I linked? It's just a little tidbit, but it offers some interesting counterpoint to the idea that one must think everything through beforehand. And it is from an impressive source, great photographer who also happens to have been teaching photography for decades.

Cheers,
Gary

[photomoof]

To clarify: pressing the shutter button is just the start of the process of making a photo, and it is one of the least creative parts. All you can really control is lighting and composition.

I have been noticing from your posts, you really don't look at what other photographers are doing?

You really have not looked at what I am up to, despite three links, or you would have never made such a statement. :D

Makes posting kind of a waste of time, since we are just talking to ourselves if we don't see what others are doing. You cannot possibly have not understood that all that talk about CVS was just a joke?? Oh well.

[FallisPhoto]

He was referring to the photography of Norbest turkeys using that particular view camera. (http://www.norbest.com/b_whole_birds.cfm)

The photographing of Norbest turkeys, requires a steady hand on the old view camera but with practice you can get this kind of shot! Impressive!

http://www.norbest.com/images/b_bnt.jpg

Nope, it was just the first good photo of an 8x10 view camera that I stumbled upon.

[FallisPhoto]

I have been noticing from your posts, you really don't look at what other photographers are doing?

You really have not looked at what I am up to, despite three links, or you would have never made such a statement. :D

Makes posting kind of a waste of time, since we are just talking to ourselves if we don't see what others are doing. You cannot possibly have not understood that all that talk about CVS was just a joke?? Oh well.


Your three links don't seem to lead to any photos. Actually, I looked for your RFF gallery and didn't find one. Also, none of the links under your posts seem to lead to galleries (one seems to lead to a sort of journal, with one photo of the front wheel of a bicycle, and one of a mouse on a desktop, and the other two seem to lead to a web page for a magazine and a Nikon Collector's organization -- neither of which seem to have links that direct me to any of your photos; other than the bicycle wheel and the mouse, I just don't see any photos attributable to you). It's a very nice bicycle wheel, but that does not constitute anything that can by any stretch of the imagination be considered a body of work. Where am I supposed to look to find out what you are up to?

[FallisPhoto]

Fallis,

Do you read peoples posts before you respond or do you just like to hear yourself talk? As I said, from my posts, you can see that I do not advocate any method or speed of working over any other. I simply stated that I don't believe you can really see (in all it's entirety) the finished print until it's in front of you.

Maybe the phrase "In all it's entirety" is key here. You use the phrase "Significant degree of.." which doesn't sound like the same thing to me. It doesn't sound like complete previsualization. I don't know. I suppose my 80 year old mother can previsualize her photos. If her grandchild's smiling face is in in the center of both her viewfinder and her print, then she has previsualized her picture successfully (to the extent of her needs). But if you accept that in a good photograph, everything is important, that every element must work to support the whole, then I think you have a different story.

By the way, did you even listen to the short podcast I linked? It's just a little tidbit, but it offers some interesting counterpoint to the idea that one must think everything through beforehand. And it is from an impressive source, great photographer who also happens to have been teaching photography for decades.

Cheers,
Gary

I saw the podcast and was, ... well, ... less than impressed. The photos shown there look like the worst examples that wind up in my cull pile -- and yes, I'm serious. I can't even figure out why he would bother to take most of those. I did like the photo of the photographer, but that one was at least fairly well done, so I don't think he took it. I still think you can't really be creative without using your mind; it takes effort, and quite a lot of it. I also think his presentation contains what has got to be one of the biggest of the "big lies" of photography: He says that the first time you look at something it looks different, but when your mind "gets in the way," it looks like what everyone else sees.

I truely believe that is utter and obvious nonsense, and it is so obviously self serving that I believe it is also an obvious attempt at justifying his snapshots as well. I think the exact opposite of what he said is true. The first time you shoot something, if you are shooting casually, that is what everyone else sees. It is what pretty much anyone will see at a casual glance. When you really LOOK at it, take time to study it, turn it over in your mind and think about how best to show it, and then do so in such a way that it reveals not only how you see the subject, but does so in such a way that you have put your mark on it as well, only then are you doing something that is creative, is unique and is seriously interesting.

[gns]

Fallis,

For all the talk about creativity, you really seem to be quite close-minded. I've repeatedly maintained that I don't believe one method of working is inherently better or worse than another, and that it is the results that count. With that in mind, I offered a link to this teacher and photographer's interesting views as a contrast or alternative to what a lot of people have posted. Your response to it is that it is "Utter nonsense", "Self-serving" and the "Exact opposite" of truth.

On top of that you are able to judge his work, likening it to the "Worst examples that wind up in my cull pile", based on viewing a few tiny jpegs in a 2 minute quicktime video. If you are right, I really need to see your work sometime.


Cheers,
Gary

[itf]

Bigelow's photos and FallisPhoto's open-mindedness have convinced me that dogged pre-visualisation is not the best approach. Best to keep an open mind, in photography as in life. FallisPhoto, did you pre-visualise the outcome of this discussion?

[photomoof]

I just don't see any photos attributable to you). It's a very nice bicycle wheel, but that does not constitute anything that can by any stretch of the imagination be considered a body of work. Where am I supposed to look to find out what you are up to?

Well I give up...

Just out of curiosity anyone else not able to find the "art" section, from my home page.
Just a hint the usual links:
art - work, cv, other stuff about the past
about - name, where etc
clients - the people that feed and house me
contact - where to contact me if you want to feed and house me
home - back to the "wheel" and mouse...

[photomoof]

OK Richard I knew you could figure it out, your mouse is working... :p

Now take it down before it confuses everyone, and they think it is pre-visualized, as opposed to just visualized, or whatever it is.

Can I rent you some of that post-visualized space, shall we say a friend's price of $1 an imaginary square foot?

[photomoof]

Richard it would be good if you had a post-visualized studio in Brooklyn.

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Richard,

The other version of post-visualization is taking a REALLY DULL picture and making it half-way tolerable in the darkroom. There's a whole Californian school of photography based on this: derivative pictures of Yosemite, Big Sur and the like made tolerable by exquisite printing. Host pox et proper pox, one might say.

Cheers,

R.

[photomoof]

Dear Richard,

The other version of post-visualization is taking a REALLY DULL picture and making it half-way tolerable in the darkroom. There's a whole Californian school of photography based on this: derivative pictures of Yosemite, Big Sur and the like made tolerable by exquisite printing. Host pox et proper pox, one might say.

Cheers,

R.

I hardly ever say "Host pox et proper pox," but I will try fitting it into more conversations with FallisPhoto.

[gns]

Fallis,

I'm wondering, why do you even have a cull pile? I mean, If your film is so expensive and all, and you are able to "See" the final result beforehand, why even press the shutter on the bad ones?

Cheers,
Gary

[FallisPhoto]

Fallis,

For all the talk about creativity, you really seem to be quite close-minded. I've repeatedly maintained that I don't believe one method of working is inherently better or worse than another, and that it is the results that count. With that in mind, I offered a link to this teacher and photographer's interesting views as a contrast or alternative to what a lot of people have posted. Your response to it is that it is "Utter nonsense", "Self-serving" and the "Exact opposite" of truth.

On top of that you are able to judge his work, likening it to the "Worst examples that wind up in my cull pile", based on viewing a few tiny jpegs in a 2 minute quicktime video. If you are right, I really need to see your work sometime.


Cheers,
Gary


What is there that is interesting about his photos? Because honestly, I am just not seeing it. And I do have photos like that in my cull pile. Seriously. If I don't see any point to a photo and can't figure out why I took it, and it it doesn't interest me, I destroy the negative and any prints (if it ever got that far) to save space. Otherwise I'd be buried under stuff like that after 20 - 25 years. There is just nothing about those photos that grabs my attention. The only one that does, the beach shot, actually struck me as a good example of a ruined photo, kind of like if you were shooting a photo of a model and she chose that moment to sneeze. Well, there's a reason you don't see photos of sneezing models.

[FallisPhoto]

I see what you mean, but there is also the question of internalizing visualization (I still don't see what 'pre' adds) and being familiar with movements.

AA's famous 'Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico' was as close as you can get to a grab shot with an LF camera. If you use ANY camera enough (LF, MF, 35mm or even digital), then you have an increasingly good idea of what it will do. I would not hold myself out as being a second AA but I can take an 8x10 inch portrait (with movements) a LOT faster and better than I could when I started, and I don't have to think too much about which movements I need when making architectural shots on LF either.

Then again, that's over three decades' practice. When I got my first 4x5, over a third of a century ago, I was flailing about with very little idea of what I was doing.

Cheers,

Roger

Okay, you're faster. That is directly attributable to experience, as you yourself admit. It does not mean you have stopped making decisions in regard to each of those movements, it does not mean that you are just tweaking things randomly, and it does not mean that you have not carefully weighed the consequences of each adjustment. You don't have a piece of uber-plastic with integrated circuitry that takes all of the decision making out of your hands. You're just able to do it faster. That does not make it a "grab" shot. With the exception of the press cameras, view cameras just were not built for taking "grab" shots.

[FallisPhoto]

Fallis,

For all the talk about creativity, you really seem to be quite close-minded. I've repeatedly maintained that I don't believe one method of working is inherently better or worse than another, and that it is the results that count. With that in mind, I offered a link to this teacher and photographer's interesting views as a contrast or alternative to what a lot of people have posted. Your response to it is that it is "Utter nonsense", "Self-serving" and the "Exact opposite" of truth.

On top of that you are able to judge his work, likening it to the "Worst examples that wind up in my cull pile", based on viewing a few tiny jpegs in a 2 minute quicktime video. If you are right, I really need to see your work sometime.


Cheers,
Gary


I have strong opinions on what I do that are reinforced by 20+ years of doing it. This does not mean I am any less creative, and in fact has nothing whatsoever to do with it. I think this is pretty evident because no one else is doing what I do.

Neither does my lack of gullability when told really massive whoppers regarding a field I have a great deal of familiarity with have anything whatsoever to do with creativity.

If I were to post a series of photos that were just solid black, with a lot of commentary on why they are good photos and you didn't like them and said they were crap, would that mean you were not very creative, or would it just mean you didn't fall for my line of BS? Because that's what it would be -- pure, unadultrated BS, heaped in great steaming piles and glistening wetly in the moonlight.

[ferider]

Anybody who takes a few minutes to look at FallisP's RFF gallery (thanks for posting those, FP) will quickly find there is no close minded-ness. No doubt a lot of experience and in a genre that does, IMO, require extensive "pre-visualization".

I still think that we all pre-visualize (in the sense of the original article posted), we differ in experience, speed, genre, and the desired degree of technical perfection.

You (generic you) do it often, for years, you internalize, pre-visualization and selection of technical parameters become intuitive. Until you can do it all in the fraction of a sec like HCB did (AND SAID HE DID).

Of course, if you simplify, and put less emphasis on focus (a "bourgois" concept) and exposure, "improvise" instead of compose, you can be faster.

If you want high quality landscapes, rigorous portraits, etc., planning and pre-visualization is a must, IMO.

IMO, the problem with the concept here at RFF, FP, is that "street" has become clichee. Planning doesn't fit.

I wish some of the great photographers we have as members, i.e. Todd, Gabriel, one of the Rays, Lzr, Thomas, or others would chime in ....

My 2 cents as amateur.

Roland.

[gns]

Quote: "What is there that is interesting about his photos? Because honestly, I am just not seeing it".

Of course you are not seeing it. The fact that you find it reasonable to expect to get anything from viewing that brief handful of postage stamp size images says a lot. Show me a photographer who's work you can "Get" from that sort of cursory view and I'll show you some pretty shallow work. If you are really interested, seek out the actual work or at least a book. He's a photographer who, like Winogrand or Friedlander, seems to be motivated by a keen fascination with how the camera describes the world. How it can create its own sense of order, or reveal it at least. It's often subtle and often humorous, and whatever it is about, it is also always about the light. Anyway, I'm sure you are not really interested. Surprising that you haven't seen it already if you've been interested in photography for "20+ years".

Anyway, this has gone way past tiresome.

Cheers,
Gary

[Roger Hicks]

Okay, you're faster. That is directly attributable to experience, as you yourself admit. It does not mean you have stopped making decisions in regard to each of those movements, it does not mean that you are just tweaking things randomly, and it does not mean that you have not carefully weighed the consequences of each adjustment. You don't have a piece of uber-plastic with integrated circuitry that takes all of the decision making out of your hands. You're just able to do it faster. That does not make it a "grab" shot. With the exception of the press cameras, view cameras just were not built for taking "grab" shots.

All true -- except that it IS a grab shot; or at least, as close as you can get to grabbing when you're using LF and movements.

But isn't ALL photography, regardless of format, about learning what adjustments to make until they're all but automatic?

I'm not disputing the value of what you say. I'm just suggesting that a lot of people try to run technically before they can walk (or even crawl) aesthetically.

Cheers,

R.

[FallisPhoto]

All true -- except that it IS a grab shot; or at least, as close as you can get to grabbing when you're using LF and movements.

But isn't ALL photography, regardless of format, about learning what adjustments to make until they're all but automatic?

I'm not disputing the value of what you say. I'm just suggesting that a lot of people try to run technically before they can walk (or even crawl) aesthetically.

Cheers,

R.

I'd agree with that, but a technically perfect shot is rarely going to be any good, unles you are also thinking about aesthetics. Both aspects are equally important. I'm not belittling the technical side of things, because it is also important, but it just isn't going to get you very far by itself.

For example, in this collage (warning, contains nudity):
http://fallisphoto.deviantart.com/art/Evolution-of-a-pose-20475410

I have assembled four photos I took of one of my models. I put this collage together in order to illustrate some of the most common problems to look out for when shooting nudes. The first three photos have some aesthetic problems, which I have described in the artist's comments (posted under the photo). The first three photos are blown up from the contact sheet I made from the shoot, which is why they are so grainy (they never made it to full-sized prints), and they are just there to illustrate things to look out for. The fourth photo was made from a full-sized print. It still needs a hair light at this point, and in the final print (not shown) it got one. From a technical viewpoint, they are all good. The exposure is good, no parts are cut off, the development of the film went well, and the printmaking went well. Aesthetically though, there are problems that need to be resolved. To some people, they are not obvious (as can be seen by the comments it has received). However, obvious or not, the aesthetic problems have to be addressed or the photo (though technically good) is just not going to be worth printing.

[FallisPhoto]

I'll show you some pretty shallow work.

Show me a photographer who says that he "doesn't let his mind get in the way" and I'll show you what pretty much has got to be shallow work, by literal definition.

[Roger Hicks]

I'd agree with that, but a technically perfect shot is rarely going to be any good, unles you are also thinking about aesthetics.



Not so much 'rarely' as 'never', I suspect -- but we agree very substantially on this.

Cheers,

Roger

[FallisPhoto]

Not so much 'rarely' as 'never', I suspect -- but we agree very substantially on this.

Cheers,

Roger

Well, there is such a thing as pure dumb luck, so I don't think it would be never.

[FallisPhoto]

Fallisphoto,

I tried your link, only to be invited to become "A Deviant".

Deviant art, one of the biggest fine art websites there is. Deviant = different, differing from the norm. You should have been directed to a quadtych of photos of a nude, in four different poses, with an analysis of why three of the poses don't work. That's what I get when I click on it.