# How to Pre-Visualize like Ansel Adams



## grahamclarkphoto (Mar 21, 2013)

The concept of previsualization in photography is where the photographer can see the final print before the image has been captured. Ansel Adams dedicates the beginning of his first book to previsualization, and is often quoted as saying "Visualization is the single most important factor in photography". Understanding then the significance of this approach is of high value for photographers of all kinds, as it has the potential to unlock greater creative vision, and give greater control (and predictability) over the print process.


Although I'm still just a beginner, I have consolidated some of my thoughts on this here. Hopefully others can find it useful!


If you have any questions or comments please don't hesitate to reply to this thread and I'll do my best to reply!


Graham


----------



## pjwarneka (Mar 21, 2013)

Graham, 
Good post.  I find it interesting that Ansel is connected to pre-visualization almost as if he created it. I've always felt that any good photographer has to know what they are going to end up with in the final photo.  I think the ability to pre-visualize an image is a must have tool for photographers is as essential as owning a camera.  Now explaining how it works is like explaining a smell ( describe the smell of pizza) yeah, you can scratch the surface, and it is a process you can learn. But you know it when you do it.  I'm not saying it in a bad way,   the industry needs to talk more about it as a creative tool.   I guess pre-visualization is right up next to individuality, and it is hard to charge $900 for a seminar to tell people to do your own thing.    Again,  good post. 


My 2 cents,


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 21, 2013)

Your support for dry-shooting is a bit anachronistic.
AA expressed these thoughts when he shot mainly large format film and dry shooting was an economic necessity.
Actually shooting images just adds to the experience by enabling to gauge just how you are doing the mind-muscle exercise.

_I assume those are AA images.
Although you can possibly use them under Fair Use Doctrine, I think that FUD requires also that you cite the author and the source for the pictures._


----------



## amolitor (Mar 21, 2013)

Pre-visualization is but one way to make photographs, it should be noted. You tend to wind up with quite formal work out of the process.

Your discussion isn't bad, but the wheels do fall off a bit when you get to the important part. Master your camera. OK. Dry shoot. OK. "See" the image. Wait, isn't that what you're supposed to be explaining how to do? Now you're just telling me to do it.

I would expand it a bit with more discussion of the kinds of relationships that can be seen, the kinds of techniques that can be used to emphasize and de-emphasize actual and emotional aspects of the scene, and some discussion of how to practice seeing. My own recommendation to people who want to take pictures, on how to practice seeing, is to a) look at pictures and b) go out without a camera at all and look. What is in front of what? How big does one thing look relative to another thing? How do these things change when I stand tall, or when I squat down? How do I feel when I look at that thing, and what sort of photographic technique could express that? Is that a leading line? How does it change when I move to the left? Which of those two objects is darker? How will this scene look in 2 minutes when that cloud moves? How will it look in two hours when the sun is there, instead of there?

For an alternative viewpoint, read Henri Cartier-Bresson, who is in some ways diametrically opposed to Adams' viewpoint. He's still "seeing" the picture in his mind's eye (or at any rate claimed to be) but was compressing the whole process to an instant, and operating largely on a honed instinct. Almost a spinal reflex.

ETA: Not to toot my own horn but, well, ok, TOOT! TOOT! I have written a few items on this sort of thing:

http://photothunk.blogspot.com/2012/07/learning-to-see.html
http://photothunk.blogspot.com/2012/09/learning-to-see-ii.html

If you choose to read my little essays, and if you find anything good in them, feel free to borrow ideas or whatever.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 21, 2013)

This is quite an interesting read.  I think everyone can pre-visualize their images, or at the very least in their minds see what they want.  The difficult part is being able to translate what they visualize the image looking like and then being able to record it.  I see images all the time, how I want it to look, and in my mind, I can see exactly what the background has to be , how the light has to be, but it takes  time to put it together and line everything up right, and this doesn't always happen.


----------



## Dikkie (Mar 21, 2013)

I have built-in pre-visualisation setting in my camera


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 21, 2013)

I am in the Cartier Bresson 'school' in that I think that an good street shooter must be able to 'see' the scene, not even as it would be through the lens, but as it will be in the final result. 

I believe  that if one must look through the view finder to discover the correct angle and proper framing, that person will never be a good street shooter.  The technique of 'real' previsualization, absent camera, can be described and it can possibly be learned but it can't be taught. By that I mean that if the individual doesn't have the innate ability, they won't be able to learn to do it.

Whatever the ability is to see through the scene to the final image even before the camera is raised, only some proportion of people have it. In my experience, I have taken perhaps 70 or 80 individuals out on excursions to learn and practice street photography and only one or two of those has persisted and turns out what I think is decent work.


----------



## amolitor (Mar 21, 2013)

Dikkie said:


> I have built-in pre-visualisation setting in my camera



Live View should be renamed Ansel Adams mode! Gotcher previsualization right here, buddy!


----------



## runnah (Mar 21, 2013)

Doesn't everyone do this?

But I agree with having the skill to translate your visualization into reality is important. Hence why I can hear a ripping guitar solo in my head but my fat fingers don't allow my to play it.


----------



## amolitor (Mar 21, 2013)

I am confident that 100% of photographs ever made where not pre-visualized in this sense. Statistically speaking, that is. Of course some were, but the number is so small as to be less than the probable error in any sample.


----------



## runnah (Mar 21, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I am confident that 100% of photographs ever made where not pre-visualized in this sense. Statistically speaking, that is. Of course some were, but the number is so small as to be less than the probable error in any sample.




Maybe I am just stupid but you are saying that people don't know what a photo is going to look like before they take it?


----------



## amolitor (Mar 21, 2013)

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I am being a bit sneaky, though. "Most" photographs are taken with a cell phone or a P&S, and you may not be including those in your notion of what constitutes a photograph.

Most people see something cool, and go SNAP. If they imagine anything, they imagine it will look like the actual scene. Then they are typically pretty disappointed, or would be if they actually looked at the result, which they don't.


----------



## Dikkie (Mar 21, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I am being a bit sneaky, though. "Most" photographs are taken with a cell phone or a P&S, and you may not be including those in your notion of what constitutes a photograph.
> 
> Most people see something cool, and go SNAP. If they imagine anything, they imagine it will look like the actual scene. Then they are typically pretty disappointed, or would be if they actually looked at the result, which they don't.



That's right. People don't ask questions anymore before shooting, as in: 
- What do I want to shoot?
- How do I want the result to look like?
- How am I going to achieve this?

Asking questions make you be more critique aswel. You critique your own way of photographing, you critique your photo when viewing on your display, you delete this immediately and remake your photo until you're satisfied, before going further for the next shot.


----------



## Mully (Mar 21, 2013)

Large format requires pre-visualization because it takes so much time to set up


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 21, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Most people see something cool, and go SNAP. If they imagine anything, they imagine it will look like the actual scene. Then they are typically pretty disappointed, or would be if they actually looked at the result, which they don't.



That's it right there^


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 21, 2013)

Mully said:


> Large format requires pre-visualization because it takes so much time to set up



And your mind has to flip it right side up


----------



## hirejn (Mar 21, 2013)

I disagree that everyone can previsualize a photographic image. That's what photographers are born with and develop over time. Some people have no creative vision. They can see something in their minds, and they can see it in front of them, but they have no lightning bolts and can't put two and two together when it comes to photography, just like I can't put two and two together when it comes to calculus or some other mathematical language that makes no sense to me. You can't give or teach someone creative vision. You could teach them for 20 years on how to see creatively or why an image is good, but if they don't have a vision to start with, they won't get it. You can only help them develop what they already have.


----------



## bratkinson (Mar 22, 2013)

Previsualization, when time permits, combined with knowledge and skill with the equipment can produce great results.

Note that I have listed 4 elements here...
1. An artistic/abstract minds' eye (versus a more nuts and bolts kind of thinking)
2. Time
3. Equipment knowledge (what can and can't be done with what you have)
4. The skill to properly use your equipment.

Ansel Adams, and other highly regarded photographers had all of the above and produced outstanding results. I'm more familiar with the work of O. Winston Link who, in the '50s would set up numerous flash bulb units, wire it all together, and take a nighttime picture of a passing Norfolk & Western Railway steam engine and train going by. To my knowledge, many of these were well thought out and pre-staged with vehicles, people, and even 'set up' with Norfolk and Western Railway so that the train crew would not be startled by a blinding flash of light. Remember, back then, ASA (ISO) was like...25 or so. So lots and lots of light was needed. He also did his own darkroom work, and each print was individually produced with equally thought out dodging and burning and whatever other 'magic' he had in his bag of tricks. From 'pre-visualization' to finished print was probably measured in WEEKS! Ansel Adams et al most certainly had comparable dark room skills as well. These men (and women?) were true artists. The results they produced were 'art' in anyones' book.

The problem is, in todays' world, everyone wants 'instant gratification'. Even if we have the TIME to 'see' a picture in our mind, it's hustle, hustle, hustle to see the result whether on a computer screen, or even the LCD on the back of the camera. There are still those who actually TAKE THE TIME to pre-visualize, set up, stage, whatever, and get 'the shot'. Not a flurry of 6 FPS shots of something with auto-bracketting everything...but one shot! Just like was done 60 years ago. I'm sure many here saw the video about a month ago of the man who constructed a giant camera inside his truck and the film plate is something like 30"x48". For him, it's one well-thought out shot or, at most, a small handful of shots of a particular subject. How many of us actually have such vast amounts of time to do this? One can only wish that we did.

Then, enter the event photographer. Whether 'the paraparazi' of the famous, the press, or even a wedding photographer, the perfect 'time' to make a shot is perhaps, at most, 2 seconds to get 'the money shot'. Everything else is just 'pictures'. Considering a wedding photographer, experience has told them where to be, what the 'money shot(s)' are, what settings for a dark church, or a beach, etc. It's a learned process. Yes, there's some pre-visualization, but it's more in knowing what's needed to get the shot properly exposed than what the finished print would look like.

Equipment knowledge...It's always been true that it's the photographer, not the equipment. And so it is with the Ansel Adams' of the world. Considering what was available in the 40s' (think Ernie Pyle), or the '50s, they worked miracles with the comparably 'archaeic' equipment of the day. They knew full well what could and could not be photographed. How many pictures of that day were shot in daylight versus night time? No flash at night? No shot. Plain and simple. There have been several Youtube videos of late showing the photographic results from a seasoned pro using a simple point and shoot camera and getting great results...many with a highly artistic result. Did they pre-visualize? Absolutely. But I think it was more in their composition skills *and* knowing the limitations of the point and shoot they had in their hands. How much no-flash photography can be done at night with a point and shoot? Still possible. I did just that 8 years ago, one 15 degree night doing long exposures in 'bulb'. A tad noisy, but still acceptable.

And the skill to use it? Would a 16 year old make a good race car driver at Indianapolis? Of course not. Skill is aquired. It is both learned and applied, analyzed, modified, and experienced again...as many times as possible. Call it learning the 'tricks of the trade'. Ask any carpenter. Having tools that can make 'perfect' cuts and drive nails with the pull of a trigger is one thing. Knowing WHERE to make the cut or WHERE to drive the nail is learned. Like they repeat over and over on This Old House on PBS...measure twice, cut once. After a while, it becomes automatic. And no, I don't mean the 'Auto' mode setting on the camera! I took low light shots less than a week ago with my 5D3 that I wouldn't even have attempted with the 60D I had 5 months ago. Actually, I WOULD have attempted it with the 60D. The results would have been OK, but more likely a throw away. Having the gear that CAN take such a shot, and having the experience/knowledge/skill to use it was the rest of the equation.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 22, 2013)

bratkinson said:


> Ansel Adams, and other highly regarded photographers had all of the above and produced outstanding results. I'm more familiar with the work of O. Winston Link who, in the '50s would set up numerous flash bulb units, wire it all together, and take a nighttime picture of a passing Norfolk & Western Railway steam engine and train going by. To my knowledge, many of these were well thought out and pre-staged with vehicles, people, and even 'set up' with Norfolk and Western Railway so that the train crew would not be startled by a blinding flash of light. Remember, back then, ASA (ISO) was like...25 or so.These men (and women?) were true artists................ The results they produced were 'art' in anyones' book.



This is the same as saying that all composers from the 17th century were great because Bach and Handel are well known and attributing their success to the fact they has to write all their scores by hand. Like photographers, it was their talent that overcame technologic obstacles.  

This is like calling a bug a feature. 
The reason they did things the way that took time was because they couldn't do it any other way.  The reason we think of them as 'artists' is because it is only their work that has survived.  Probably 999 out of 1000 photographers who worked the same time-consuming way have disappeared. 

In point of fact, if you look at AA's work, the vast proportion of it was boring and disposable. Technically perfect but otherwise uninteresting. Unfortunately, once anyone has put a great deal of work and time into something, it is difficult to discard it as unworthy.



bratkinson said:


> The problem is, in todays' world, everyone wants 'instant gratification'. Even if we have the TIME to 'see' a picture in our mind, it's hustle, hustle, hustle to see the result whether on a computer screen, or even the LCD on the back of the camera. There are still those who actually TAKE THE TIME to pre-visualize, set up, stage, whatever, and get 'the shot'. Not a flurry of 6 FPS shots of something with auto-bracketting everything...but one shot! Just like was done 60 years ago. I'm sure many here saw the video about a month ago of the man who constructed a giant camera inside his truck and the film plate is something like 30"x48". For him, it's one well-thought out shot or, at most, a small handful of shots of a particular subject. How many of us actually have such vast amounts of time to do this? One can only wish that we did.
> 
> Then, enter the event photographer. Whether 'the paraparazi' of the famous, the press, or even a wedding photographer, the perfect 'time' to make a shot is perhaps, at most, 2 seconds to get 'the money shot'. Everything else is just 'pictures'. Considering a wedding photographer, experience has told them where to be, what the 'money shot(s)' are, what settings for a dark church, or a beach, etc. It's a learned process. *Yes, there's some pre-visualization, but it's more in knowing what's needed to get the shot properly exposed than what the finished print would look like.*



Again, you are mistaking the technology for the result.
Since you made a generalization, I feel free to make one.  I think that if I asked 1000 glass plate photographers if they wished to have an apparatus that would weight one hundredth of their current load, would take many pictures and by means of which they could edit and develop these pictures while sitting at a desk, drinking coffee, my intuition is that 1001 would try it. 
AA used a Nikon FM and was a consultant to Hasselblad until he dies, using all their equipment.

So the technology, which makes some actions possible, has also changed even the process by which we compose. Because we now can capture a scene quickly, we have trained ourselves to compose our thoughts and actions more quickly.  Because I can the freedom to change, expose, crop and edit with a freedom that didn't exist formerly, now I can capture scenes that photographers could conceive of capturing 50 years ago. 

If you don't think that the new freedoms have increased the amount of wonderful images, you haven't been looking at the Internet. If you don't think that the freedom to edit and compose has increased the amount of wonderful images, you should look at any un-culled collection of slides from 30 years ago. 

Yes, we have gazillions of bad images because the technologic barriers to photography have, in the main, been dissolved and the Internet has made the vast amounts of mediocre photography visible. But don't try to pick out one variable, 'time', from the past and blame that one factor for all the changes.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 22, 2013)

This is a very odd post IMO. Adams technique for previsualization was very precise and technical. I don't think there's a lot of artsy-fartsy, hippy dippy wiggle room there, and everything was documented with detail in The Negative. The whole point of Adam's Zone system was to remove technical ambiguity concerning how the image should look. Adams was very interested in recording objective reality within the limitations of photography.

It seems that over the years of hero worship Adams approach, philosophy and technique have been essentially buried to fit our contemporary ideas about art, artistic process and photography.


----------



## amolitor (Mar 22, 2013)

The Zone System is all about how to realize a visualization.

Adams and his school execute(d) a three step process:

1) Look at the world.
2) Devise a mental construct, an idea of a photograph.
3) Create a physical instance of that photograph.

The Zone System is all about going from 2 to 3, and even has some ideas about properties of the mental construct in #2 (i.e. it makes fairly precise and graspable the possible tonal values, so that you can think about them).

It is almost completely silent on the subject of passing from #1 to #2, however, which is the step we normally call "pre-visualization". That's the hard part, the part that's not easily reduced to a technical manual.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 22, 2013)

Oh ok. I see what you're saying, amolitor.


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 22, 2013)

There were two things I enjoyed long before they were "cool": Ansel Adams and Blue Jeans.

Backing up Lew's post: ADAMS: _There&#8217;s no end in sight. Electronic photography will soon be superior to anything we have now. The first advance will be the exploration of existing negatives. I believe the electronic processes will enhance them. I could get superior prints from my negatives using electronics. Then the time will come when you will be able to make the entire photograph electronically. With the extremely high resolution and the enormous control you can get from electronics, the results will be fantastic. I wish I were young again!_


----------



## unpopular (Mar 22, 2013)

Certainly though I think that Adam's techniques can be applied to digital and currently there really is no consensus on how this should be carried through - there isn't even really any consensus on how to meter and process for digital photography, with many people sort of seeing digital as a sort of wide dynamic range slide film.

I think over time people will start to better think of processing and exposure as the continuum that Adam's had, and not view processing as an inconvenient step to correct mistakes made in the field.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 15, 2013)

I have, apparently, been noodling on this for about a month. The problem of getting from "I wish I could make a picture of some sort" to a clear mental image of that picture is a tricky one, and I wrote out some ideas on how this process works, and what you can do to speed it along:

Photos and Stuff: Whence Inspiration?
Photos and Stuff: Inspiration Thought Experiments

I will probably rattle on for another few hundred words on the subject over the next couple of weeks, or until I see a shiny object of some sort.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Apr 16, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I have, apparently, been noodling on this for about a month. The problem of getting from "I wish I could make a picture of some sort" to a clear mental image of that picture is a tricky one, and I wrote out some ideas on how this process works, and what you can do to speed it along:
> 
> Photos and Stuff: Whence Inspiration?
> Photos and Stuff: Inspiration Thought Experiments
> ...




Great articles! I must say however that a point of view on the theory of music is stronger when it comes from a trained musician as opposed to a music critic, who may not be able to accomplish what they preach. To that degree Ansel Adams has a unique point of view and something concrete to present as evidence. It's my personal opinion that the concept of pre-visualization is a very natural process for one who has control over the hardware elements of the image making process, however it's often easy to interpret it as complex by many.

_"With practice, we become proficient in handling the image-management & value control procedures; the interval between our first perception of the subject and the completion of visualization and the required technical procedures becomes surprisingly short." Ansel Adams

"Why limit yourself to what your eyes see when you have an opportunity to extend your vision?"  Edward Weston

"The concept of the photograph precedes the operation of the camera.  The print itself is somewhat of an interpretation, a performance of the photographic idea."  Ansel Adams

"The key to the satisfactory application of visualization lies in getting the appropriate information on the negative. This can be compared to the writing of a musical score, or the preparation of architectural designs & plans for a structure."  Ansel Adams

"The recognition - in real life - of a rhythm of surfaces, lines, and values is for me the essence of photography; composition, should be a constant of preoccupation, being a simultaneous coalition, an organic coordination of visual elements. " Henri Cartier-Bresson

"When a situation seems clearly beyond the range of all known techniques, the best photographers don't try to force rigid, preconceived ideas.  Instead, they assess what kinds of photographs they can make under current conditions."  Galen Rowell

"Vision, Sensitivity, an Understanding of Life; these are all necessary tools for those who would create something through the camera lens."  Edward Weston

"Constricted by preset images, photographers who mechanically attempt to reproduce a rigid, pre-established vision forestall new discoveries. Their awareness is saturated with expectations that block the possibility of seeing the unexpected."  Philip Gross

"Out in the field I try not to hold expectations. I try to achieve an openness. The senses heighten so that I'm totally immersed in what's happening at that moment. I want to be receptive to an image coming together."  Keith Lazelle

"Each time we create a new sense of order out of chaos as we visualize a fresh image of the natural world, we intuitively rely on a lifetime storehouse of memories & associations."  Frederick Evans

"Seeing photographically involves not only a sensitivity to composition & timing, it also calls for awareness of how the scene will translate into the photograph."   Galen Rowell_


----------



## amolitor (Apr 16, 2013)

Technically we're not supposed to post photographs where the copyright belongs to someone else. If you hold the copyright, if there is no copyright, or the right to post it has been granted by the copyright holder you're pretty much OK. Otherwise, forum policy is to use a link instead.

I think there are plenty of people who would argue that the music (and anything else) critic, by offering a parallax view, provides a lot of genuinely new insight which is actually inaccessible to the artist. That said, I do take pictures from time to time. I am a wearer of many hats. I'm a better critic than photographer, but mainly because I'm a pretty good critic. Being dismissive of critics is an amateur move, frankly.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 16, 2013)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> I must say however that a point of view on the theory of music is stronger when it comes from a trained musician as opposed to a music critic, who may not be able to accomplish what they preach. To that degree Ansel Adams has a unique point of view and something concrete to present as evidence. It's my personal opinion that the concept of pre-visualization is a very natural process for one who has control over the hardware elements of the image making process, however it's often easy to interpret it as complex by many.
> _
> "Constricted by preset images, photographers who mechanically attempt to reproduce a rigid, pre-established vision forestall new discoveries. Their awareness is saturated with expectations that block the possibility of seeing the unexpected."  Philip Gross
> 
> ...



As I said above (but never tire of repeating because it's fun to point at an icon) I am of the small but vocal group who are of the opinion that Ansel Adam's complete body of work is over-rated as an artistic achievement as opposed to a technical one. Ever since seeing a traveling show of some 300+ pictures of his I have been of that mind; there are some number of his pictures that are truly magnificent but the vastly higher proportion are just mundane, meaningless and unexciting but seemingly elevated to some high plane because of their technical perfection and their maker. 

It is my opinion that many photographers, both then and now, who employ technically demanding procedures either in the taking or the processing of their pictures develop an excessive estimation of the worth of the final product - as if the volume of work is somehow additive into the worth. Look at the awe with which most of us regard platinum or carbon prints or work done with a view camera. What we often see is technically good if only because the act of using a technically demanding process serves to weed out those who aren't attentive to detail. 

Several years ago I was active on a small website, since moribund, and one of the members produced very nice color, very sharp images with the finest digital equipment available then. Not happy with the detail he progressed first to 6 x 6 then 4 x 5 view cameras and when last I read of his work his was working with 8 x 10 view cameras, developing the film himself and then doing contact prints or having them drum scanned. None of the pictures of his that I saw had the least bit of humor, drama, detail or meaning - they were technically perfect and nothing else.

It is actually that pull or push towards technical perfection that is damaging to photography as art. In the struggle to gain some measure of competence with their tools, many nascent photographers replace artistic achievement with technical achievement as a goal. And that quickly becomes empty, like a woodcarver thinking that a perfectly sharp chisel or a perfectly smooth surface is the endpoint.

As to Andrew's opinion of the difference in viewpoints of critics vs. photographer, I tend to agree with him. I see a critic as a kind of geographer while the artist, in the same metaphor, is a canoeist. I am quite surprised that Graham even thinks that photographic critics should have to be actual performers in any way; we don't expect that of critics of any other art. All artists are too close to their own work to be totally objective about it. There is that constant pull of artist to his own creation that keeps diminishing the distance that a critic must have.

Even beyond that point, I don't think of myself as any sort of critic.  I can give '_critique_' on individual images or even a body of work but I totally lack the wide ranging overview and sense of the currents that real 'critics' must have to be sensible.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 16, 2013)

I go back and forth on Adams. The one print on my wall that was NOT shot by a family member was shot by Adams.

What most people miss about Adams is how far his images diverge from reality. The business of "pre-visualization" gets distilled down to a bunch of technical steps, because people tend to think that the part where you imagine the picture is trivial. They see Adams' photo of Half Dome, and they completely miss how completely unreal it is. They miss the obvious (to me) fact that Adams saw Half Dome, and then re-imagined it almost completely as a black and white image that looks almost completely unlike Half Dome and yet simultaneously just like Half Dome. Pre-visualization is reduced to "how would that look if I stuck a frame around it awww who cares it's a landscape with pretty pretty trees it'll be beautiful now where's my meter?"

Over time, Adams' own visualization method seems to have reduced to "How would that look with my patented Ansel Adams Style applied?" and then later to "Who the hell cares what it would look like with my patented Ansel Adams Style applied, I'm doing it, and the rubes will buy it pretty much no matter what".

Originally, though, he has some pretty inspired ideas. The Ansel Adams Style does a thing to rocks and sky that's pretty spectacular, and which was pretty innovative, and which -- just to review -- looks nothing like rocks and sky do in real life.


----------



## KenC (Apr 16, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I go back and forth on Adams.



Here I was, thinking I was the only person who didn't have a strong opinion about Adams, one way or the other.  I agree that he did some interesting things with natural scenes.  I always think of him whenever a traditionalist decries "manipulation" in digital processing, as though none of us ever did that in the darkroom (watching or reading about Adams working on a print would make their hair stand up).  However, when I look at photographs I never spend much time with his, but I probably should because there is always something one didn't notice before (or there should be).


----------



## amolitor (Apr 16, 2013)

Adams was massively influential, and is worth a close look on those grounds alone! His influence was almost completely harmful, unfortunately, but we're pretty much stuck with it.

In terms of understanding the processes of photography, both technical and artistic, he's a wonderful bookend to Henri Cartier-Bresson. Those two, more than anyone else, seem to have been able to write cogently about their work, and as a bonus they seem to have occupied almost opposite ends of a spectrum. So, we have a lot of well written material that spans a wide slice of the artistic region occupied by photography, which is quite nice from a critical perspective.

Plus, the pictures are just plain pretty. Ain't nuthin' wrong with pretty.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 16, 2013)

And yes to all that Andrew wrote above.



amolitor said:


> "Who the hell cares what it would look like with my patented Ansel Adams Style applied, I'm doing it, and the rubes will buy it pretty much no matter what".





What he was selling - and why he is lionized - is that he had a recipe for grandeur. What has been a craft and an art, he restated as virtually a recipe and people adhered to him because his way was reproducible and they could follow it.

Others, like the Westons, who were better artists never got the popular acclaim because you can't make creativity into a step by step technique.


----------



## duhast (Apr 16, 2013)

Hint for photo students who live near the ocean: Every single student before you has pre-visualized the under-the-pier shot, and every one of them look exactly the same.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 16, 2013)

^:lmao:


----------



## Derrel (Apr 16, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I have, apparently, been noodling on this for about a month. The problem of getting from "I wish I could make a picture of some sort" to a clear mental image of that picture is a tricky one, and I wrote out some ideas on how this process works, and what you can do to speed it along:
> 
> Photos and Stuff: Whence Inspiration?
> Photos and Stuff: Inspiration Thought Experiments
> ...



I read all four of your essays today, amolitor. And I must say, I was mostly in agreement with you until I arrived at the following passage:

"You can produce pretty good portraits, and mediocre street, by conscious thought. For very good work in both areas inspiration is necessary, there's simply no time to consciously think your way through the possibilities and find a truly great image by sheer mental effort. You might find one by accident, but not through effort. "

Your use of Henri Cartier-Bresson throughout the essays as an example of the, let's call it the "instantaneous" school of previsualization falls apart, terribly, once one becomes privvy to his contact sheets. Peeling back the veneer of mastery, you will find frame after frame after frame of utter crap. Specific scenes and locations, shot after shot, muffed...the people in the FOUND SCENES being out of position,m doing boring chit, and so on. What he presented as his "decisive moments" were in most cases, the result of good timing on scenes that he "worked at capturing". The same is true of the work of many other famous street and candid shooters of the B&W film era of the 1930's,40's, and 50's; their images, the ones that they actually SHOWED, were very good images. 

The idea of that the old street photography master practitioners saw scenes as "decisive moments" and made their images without much effort or thought is utter bullspit...looking at their contact sheets, it's CLEAR, blatantly clear, that they "worked" situations, hard, snapping away, failing in the majority of cases, and occasionally, things in the real world came together, and were actually interesting enough to make a print from a frame. Occasionally.

Dog Art Today: First Contact at Silverstein Photography


The Contact Sheet ? Art/Photography Books -- Better Living Through Design


How Studying Contact Sheets Can Make You a Better Street Photographer ? Eric Kim Street Photography

Cartier-Bresson's famous bicycle in alleyway shot from the second story....zOMG...it looks like a hobbyist's contact sheet...it's a "lucky shot"...he tried and tried and tried and tried, and finally, he was lucky enough to get something "interesting enough" to make a print out of. The rest is utter rubbish. He spent a lot of time, and "effort" to get a decent image. Same with the hundreds of other scenarios that resulted in good street images--the contact sheets prove that there was huge effort expended,most of the time. We cannot let the cream of the crop hide from us the huge amount of effort digging in the dirt to get that crop to market.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 16, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Peeling back the veneer of mastery, you will find frame after frame after frame of utter crap. Specific scenes and locations, shot after shot, muffed...the people in the FOUND SCENES being out of position,m doing boring chit, and so on. What he presented as his "decisive moments" were in most cases, the result of good timing on scenes that he "worked at capturing". The same is true of the work of many other famous street and candid shooters of the B&W film era of the 1930's,40's, and 50's; their images, the ones that they actually SHOWED, were very good images.
> 
> The idea of that the old street photography master practitioners saw scenes as "decisive moments" and made their images without much effort or thought is utter bullspit...looking at their contact sheets, it's CLEAR, blatantly clear, that they "worked" situations, hard, snapping away, failing in the majority of cases, and occasionally, things in the real world came together, and were actually interesting enough to make a print from a frame. Occasionally.



I don't think this is so damaging as you make it. Many, if not most, good shots of an 'instant' are made by projecting that the moment will come because the situation is there and being ready. Lots of people can see the situation at the instant of its occurrence; it takes talent, skill and experience to anticipate and put oneself in the position to capture it when it happens.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 16, 2013)

It astonishes me when I realize how little I have paid attention to other photographers, their philosophies, their methods, etc. 

I have little doubt it has "gotten in" at some level... after all, who hasn't been subjected to Ansel Adams?  My parents even had one hanging in the house, and they're not exactly art freaks.

It makes me wonder... would my work be improved if I were more actively aware?  I wonder.

Anyway, I'm just talking out loud.  Feel free to ignore me.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 16, 2013)

The_Traveler said:
			
		

> I don't think this is so damaging as you make it. Many, if not most, good shots of an 'instant' are made by projecting that the moment will come because the situation is there and being ready. Lots of people can see the situation at the instant of its occurrence; it takes talent, skill and experience to anticipate and put oneself in the position to capture it when it happens.



Ummm, it's not meant to be "damaging", but rather to refute the facile position amolitor's essay takes on 'decisive moment' photography as having been done without much "effort". It's pretty clear from looking at the contact sheets that these "instantaneous" masterpieces were 1) not done in an instant, but were often the tenth or fifteenth or thirty-first try at one scene and 2) were more lucky happenstance than 'mastery' over moments. and 3) were made ONLY as a result of effort expended.

The vast majority of the shots are utterly, terrifically unremarkable. I am just pointing out that amolitor's description of these shots as lacking in effort is utterly incorrect, once the ACTUAL, real-world creative process is revealed through the contact sheets. Sheets that have been for the most part, kept carefully hidden away, and which by their absence, have led many to over-exhalt these peoples' methods and abilities, and to incorrectly portray their process.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 16, 2013)

Well, yeah. With HCB, and far more with Garry Winogrand, one has to wonder how much of the magic was just random chance. Winogrand shot 100s of 1000s of frames (yes, multiple 100,000) and wound up with a few hundred frames that we see in books and on walls. Maybe he made 75,000 excellent images. Maybe he made 400. We'll almost certainly never know.

I am more willing to believe in the decisive moment with HCB, I think it just doesn't work very reliably. My current thinking is that you're cruising along, relaxed and waiting for that moment to explode into your mind, and you get a ton of false starts since you kind of have to be shooting as it happens, and there's also a lot of 'aww hell, let's just keep the shutter lubed' shots as well. It's HARD to hold a little camera like that and NOT press the shutter button.

My "inspiration" theory seems to be to accord well with what HCB says, anyways. How either viewpoint relates to reality? Eh, I dunno.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 16, 2013)

Portraits are maybe a better example. I saw a film of Karsh working, once, and it was pretty interesting. He had an assistant popping away with a 35mm, setting stuff up, working on things. Karsh fiddled with the big camera and engages the subject. The subject gets used to the little camera going pop pop pop and starts to relax a bit. At some point, Karsh goes pop. One presumes that the big camera goes pop at _the right time._ 

Also, you're quite right that claiming things to be "effortless" is poor phrasing. What I meant was that you're not going to reason your way fully to a good portrait or a good street photograph. You're not going to get a great portrait through a fully conscious process. You may put an enormous amount of labor into the portrait or the street photo, in fact, and you may think through an immense amount of surrounding material. Putting in that labor, together with appropriate technical skill, will produce a solid workmanlike portrait, and a decent portfolio of mildly interesting street.

The point is, though, that the best you're going to get this way is "pretty good". To get great, you need either luck, or inspiration. Either will do, and the difference between them is subtle and perhaps irrelevant. I think inspiration is perhaps a little more reliable.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 16, 2013)

I don't want to show the x number of frames I've shot for every keeper.
If every shot is a keeper, either one's standards are too low or one is taking no chances.


----------

