the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Last Word / Previsualization heresy, part 2

Previsualization heresy, part 2

June 11, 2012 JimK Leave a Comment

I’m not against all previsualization. If we didn’t do some visualization of what the finished photograph would look like, we wouldn’t need to focus or set the exposure. We wouldn’t need viewfinders. We would point the camera in random directions, trip the shutter at random times, and pore through the results later, like looking for Shakespearian nuggets in the output of a million monkeys with a million typewriters.

Heavily emphasizing previsualization doesn’t work for me. If you are a devotee, read along and ask yourself if too much previsualization is damaging your photography. It may be that it isn’t, and previsualization fits your photographic style perfectly. If that’s the case, by all means go ahead and plan the heck out of your pictures. If, however, you’ve bought the whole program without thinking about it too hard, you may want to back off.

Let’s deconstruct previsualization a bit. This will take several posts. I’ll start with two obvious, easy-to-talk-about aspects: framing and exposure. Then I’ll move on to more nebulous, but ultimately more important, components.

One element of previsualization is picking precisely where the boundaries of the frame will be before making the exposure. Usually, this means fitting the image to the format of the camera. This forces the photographer to do two qualitatively different things.

The first is to figure out just where the boundaries of the frame will be. On view cameras and SLRs with 100% finder coverage, this is pretty easy. On SLRs with less than full finder coverage, it’s a little tricky, but the fallback – a minor crop – isn’t bad. On rangefinder cameras, it’s extremely difficult. Parallax cuts off the top and (usually) the left side, and adds to the image on the bottom and the right, where you can’t see it. The corners aren’t always marked, and they are sometimes marked with curved lines, which, while pleasing, don’t represent the shape of the final image.

The second is to find a framing that works visually and expresses the photographer’s intent. As I’ve said here and here, working with constraints can be a creativity enhancer, and thinking hard about the edges of the frame before the exposure is a good thing. You have many options before you trip the shutter that are unavailable later; you can move forward or backward to change the perspective, you can change lens focal length, and you can move from side to side and affect the relationship of objects in the image.

But do you really want to nail the image down so that you have no wiggle room in editing? You do get to maximize quality that way, but, if the edges are critical to the image, you leave yourself open to failure if you slip up. Since it’s much easier to see the final image using the camera as a masking device, I usually try to frame static subjects exactly if I’m not using a RF camera and want to use the format’s natural aspect ratio. If there’s uncertainty, I tend to leave a little extra around the edges, and crop very slightly when making the print. I’ve done it the other way, and most of the time it works out fine, but when it doesn’t it’s a real drag.

Then there’s filling the frame as a photographic fetish. In the eighties and nineties it was fashionable to prove that you hadn’t cropped your images by filing out your negative carrier and printing sprocket holes, frame numbers, shadows of film hold-downs, Polaroid 55P/N matrices, or the twin Hasselblad tick marks. It was a powerful movement, and I admit that I was an occasional practitioner, but it was essentially an affectation, and one that drew the viewer’s attention from the image itself. Celebrating the process is one thing, but many of the pictures in this movement were mostly about the celebration. You don’t see photographs like that much anymore, but there’s an esthetic echo that I find genuinely offensive: doctoring digital photographs so they look like the ones that used photographic artifacts to proclaim their authenticity. Many of these seem to come from iPhones.

What if the right image shape for your subject and your vision doesn’t happen to fit the format of your camera? Do you force the image into your chosen format like Procrustes? Do you move on to another subject? Or do you leave enough room so you can crop it right later?

The worst thing about having a laser focus on cropping in the camera to the native shape is that it can close you off to possibilities that might be better.  Why should the best composition for any subject be of the aspect ratio of the camera that you happen to have at hand?

 

The Last Word

← Previsualization heresy, part 1 Previsualization heresy, part 3 →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

March 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Jan    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • Mal Paso on Christmas tree light bokeh with the XCD 38V on the X2D
  • Sebastian on More on tilted adapters
  • JimK on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • Kyle Krug on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • JimK on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time
  • Jake on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time
  • Piotr Chylarecki on Who am I?
  • JimK on Who am I?
  • Piotr Chylarecki on Who am I?
  • Stefan on Swebo TC-1 OOBE

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.