How do you learn pre visualisation

[weka2000]

Ok 1 of the biggest struggles I have is to picture in my minds eye the final shot and what it will look like.

Anyone have any ideas how I can learn this skill or is just the way my left/right brain work :lol:

[harroz]

hmm, pencil & paper. draw it how you want as it is only you that needs to know what it means so doesn't have to be a piece of art, diagrams etc, write where you want the light coming from and any other relevant info, it doesn't happen in one sitting, you have to go back to it again and again and revise/add/subtract/change things. I don't think it is a matter of using one or the other side of the brain as you're using both over the period of time of design. one time you might think creatively, next you might build on it with rational thought, and again and again until you squeeze out as many problems you'll face within your design and have a working model on paper of how you're going to achieve what you want.
Last of all, It's not that easy and takes a lot of time in thought. Also, the more you've done of the type of photography you're trying to design the easier it will be as you'll already know to a degree the problems you'll face for that shoot.

I use to lay in bed and figure out shoots that would need cranes etc. BIG stuff, just to see if I could do it. One day I might have the client or $ to do something like it. It's a good mental exercise.

[polarbare]

take a photo, repeat 10,000 times. :)

[PhotosGuy]

pencil & paper. draw it how you want This is what they call a "Layout". It's not set in stone, but is a guide. Then, when you're ready to shoot, it helps to look at everything in the frame & actually SEE what is really in there.

[FlyingPhotog]

- Know your subject(s) better than anyone else
- Study other images of your subject(s)
- Copy other images of your subject(s)
- Create your own images of your subject(s)
- Make better images of your subject(s) than anyone else

Over time, the last step becomes possible without much thought involved.

[BottomBracket]

In street photography, sometimes I walk for an hour or so without ever taking my camera out of the bag. I take mental photos when I see a good scene. In my mind's eye, I know that I have taken an interesting photo. It is pretty much zen-like for me as much as a mental exercise. There are times when I never bring out the camera, satisfied that I have taken "pictures".

[neilwood32]

It might sound a little zen but try to clear your mind and just let the image form in your head.

Thats what i try to do when im out shooting landscapes - just walk around not thinking about anything and just let my eyes drift around until i see something that draws me in.

Another thing would probably be not to try and force it - i find when i do, i get nothing!

[weka2000]

Thats what i try to do when im out shooting landscapes - just walk around not thinking about anything and just let my eyes drift around until i see something that draws me in.!
So rather than you having a plan you let the plan come to you?
Then work out how you want it to look?

[yogestee]

This is what they call a "Layout". It's not set in stone, but is a guide. Then, when you're ready to shoot, it helps to look at everything in the frame & actually SEE what is really in there.

Grrrrrr,,, the artists layout,, the bane to every commercial photograher..

When I studied commercial photography for 4 years we were taught how to interrupt layouts..Out of a class of around 25 there were atleast 10 different interruptations ;)

[harroz]

aaahhhhhooooooommmmmmmm (said sitting in the lotus position with hands raised and fingertips touching thumb tips)

[weka2000]

aaahhhhhooooooommmmmmmm (said sitting in the lotus position with hands raised and fingertips touching thumb tips)
I just had a picture of that, but a woman levitated 2 feet off the ground


woooooh I previsualised :lol:

[jgrussell]

Ok 1 of the biggest struggles I have is to picture in my minds eye the final shot and what it will look like. Anyone have any ideas how I can learn this skill or is just the way my left/right brain work :lol:Personally, I'm not at all convinced this can be taught, and have come to the (tentative) conclusion that this is a natural talent you either have or you don't. And may be precisely what ends up separating the photographer from the snapshot-taker.

[chauncey]

Personally, I'm not at all convinced this can be taught, and have come to the (tentative) conclusion that this is a natural talent you either have or you don't
Aah...another kindred spirit that believes nature trumps nurture. This is precisely the reason that I've virtually given up on finding those Ansal Adams' images and taken up wildlife.

[RDKirk]

Even if we presume innate talent is required, raw talent still needs coaching and techniquies still need to be taught.

When I was in the military, I had an acquaintance who was a Navy Seal in Vietnam. He used to stare at people on the street, in a restaurant, wherever, and think of how he would kill that person on the spot.

I look at people and think about how I would photograph them--what clothing would best fit them, what lighting, what background, what pose. Not just the beautiful people, but the challenging ones as well.

I do this even in consideration of street photography--looking at a person in a scene and fixing the forms and shadows, foreground and background, into my mind as an image.

When I was an art student, we used to walk around with those L-shaped templates to frame what we saw wherever we went. Raise the template, close an eye to reduce the scent to two dimensions and squint to remove distracting details--observe just the composition and form (which is just as important in candid street photography as in formal portraiture). Not a bad exercise.

[oaktree]

I tend to go from: (1) the main subject: (2) to the subject's interaction with immediate "neighbors"; (3) to the background; (4) to the edge of the frame (sometimes); and (5) the brightness relationships within the frame.

(1) If the subject is non-animate, move around to get the best angel of the shot. If the subject is animate, watch to see it move, change expression, placement of arms/hands/legs, etc. This weekend, I waited to take shots at several robins until I could see the little reflection coming off their eye. For birds with dark eyes, the reflection turns a blank stare into one with a little sparkle. So I had to wait until their head was facing the right way.

(2) Prime example is a mother with child. Again, it's a matter of waiting for all the changes in movement, expression, etc, until the "right" shot comes together. Of course, if a 3rd subject is added (a father?), things can get complicated.

(3) Many a great shot has been ruined by a cluttered background. This has been said by many photographers, so it must be true. Less emphasized is that a subject can blend too much into the background, e.g., white bird against a bright yet cloudy sky. I shot 2 young raccoons up an oak tree and noticed that when the background was the bark of the tree, the raccoons sort of disappeared. So, I waited until I could shoot the raccoons against spots of back lit leaves.

(4) Look at the edge of the frame! I know, I know...and I'm getting better at this. But since I crop a lot, I tend to forget to do this just before I press the shutter.

(5) Brightness relationships within the frame: Just learning to do this after reading Michael Freeman's book on exposure. Basically, it's about avoiding washed out whites or absolute blacks or, if you can't avoid either, how to deal with them. So, I "try" to place the main subject's brightness at mid point (18% grey card!) and frame out any washed out white by re-framing thru lens or foot zooming, or cropping as a last resort.

Sorry for the long post.

BTW: If talent is innate, I'd be lost.

[wyofizz]

Aah...another kindred spirit that believes nature trumps nurture. This is precisely the reason that I've virtually given up on finding those Ansal Adams' images and taken up wildlife.


Ditto here,
I've never thought of photography as art except for the visualization part.
I don't have it. Will stick to sports.
Dave

[weka2000]

Personally, I'm not at all convinced this can be taught, and have come to the (tentative) conclusion that this is a natural talent you either have or you don't. And may be precisely what ends up separating the photographer from the snapshot-taker.

I would not call my self a snapshot taker. However I do wonder if some have more of a bent towards the ability to see the shot in their "minds eye" before they press the shutter.

[neilwood32]

So rather than you having a plan you let the plan come to you?
Then work out how you want it to look?

Actually that sounds pretty close to what i do.

Your eyes are very good at picking up visual interest (thats what they are there for after all) so let them work.

Once i have the item of interest in mind, i then try to picture how best to capture it (height of camera, background, DOF etc).

[PhotosGuy]

When I studied commercial photography for 4 years we were taught how to interrupt layouts..Out of a class of around 25 there were atleast 10 different interruptations :D I'm sure that you mean "interpret", but that works too.

A layout is just a way to get on the same page as the client without the 1,000 words it might take to describe what he's thinking of. Sometimes those layouts go through SO many levels of approvals, that they're almost set in stone & you don't want to only give the CEOs something they aren't expecting.
I always tried to give them something close to what they asked for, & also what I thought they needed.

Generally, re: "picture in my minds eye the final shot and what it will look like."
Shooting is a process for me. Someone once said that if you have an idea, write it down & that frees up your brain to come up with more. Same for pics. Shoot anything to start. Chimp. Move around. Shoot some more. Chimp some more. As ideas come to you, shoot them. Chimp. Move around. Shoot some more, Etc. I usually "plan" on throwing the first 80% away. It's the process that counts. When you know you have it "in the can", shoot some more. Sometimes it's that last shot that really does it! So... MOVE YOUR FEET! A <rant> of sorts. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=536323)

[joedlh]

take a photo, repeat 10,000 times. :)

Best advice here.

I would add: Lots and lots of post visualization with those 10,000 shots. As in: "How come this didn't come out the way I wanted it?"

When I see a subject, I leave the camera in the bag while I study it. Look at it from all angles in different light. Try to understand its essence or "personality". Be aware of the background. At some point, the visualization may come to me and I realize how I want to present it. Only then does the camera come out of the bag. Then you spend time deciding what would be the best camera settings and supplemental light to capture the image as you want it to be.

Sometimes, the visualization doesn't come. In that case, the camera stays in the bag unless I want to shoot a few test shots that I know will not be going anywhere.

[chauncey]

When your shooting "still" images, which I think that Joe and Frank were referring to, their technique while different, yield the same results. Frank prefers to evaluate his images via chimping and Joe does it in his mind's eye.

Is one method superior...for myself, a left brainer, I tend to follow Frank's method as Joe's technique continues to elude me. Wish it were otherwise. ;)

[PhotosGuy]

Frank prefers to evaluate his images via chimping and Joe does it in his mind's eye. I usually have a pretty good idea of what I need, & what I'd like to get besides that.
That workflow above was developed for editorial work during the film days when we couldn't see the results for hours, maybe even days when we were 1,000 miles from home base. Cameras were known to fail without any outward indication of failure, & labs could fail in the processing.
So we tried to cover every possibility for failure & still come back with "A" shot at the very least. Film was the cheapest part of the job costs & having several rolls of 36 shot in two different cameras with two different lenses was a step toward insuring that no one disaster would affect the whole shoot.
Now, with the histogram to chimp exposure, & show us if we even got any shot at all, life is good!

[sjones]

I do think that there are people who are gifted, talented, whatever you want to say….some 14-year-old kid getting a PhD in a physics-based field is displaying something special.

However, one's capabilities can certainly be enhanced through practice and study; will that person reach a superlative level, maybe not, maybe that particularly zenith is reserved for those with a certain inherent advantage.

Still, this should not diminish the potential for anyone to do very well, and with art in particular, where so much subjectivity lies, there's significant leeway in defining good and bad, let alone excellent and exceptional.

As for pre-visualization, someone feel free to correct me, but this initially applied to black and white photography, where placing tonal values in relation to the desired print was a precondition for exposure considerations; basically, the zone system. Color, at least at the time, was less flexible.

Of course, expanding this definition to cover other aspects of photography is fine with me. But all of this then raises the importance of pre-visualization in how it pertains to the photographer and his or her style.

For me, it has largely been a matter of understanding how tonal values, light, shadow, contrast will render in monochrome, and how all of this will interact to complement or create composition. More difficult has been trying to 'see' two dimensionally; not even close to doing this yet.

But when shooting folks, a moving subject, it's usually pressing the shutter release when the subject in relation to other compositional elements stimulates the eyeball while looking through the viewfinder.

As to what stimulates the eyeball, however, has been an evolving process refined through practice, repetition, and experience; knowing almost automatically how all of the shapes and lighting characteristics will come into play even before lifting the camera to the eye---at least, knowing this one out of 10 to 20 times.

[teamB_macro]

Previsualization is imporatant beacuse it forces a photographer to slow down and think through the entire process of producing a final image. This is very critical because the desired end result of an image, and the way that it must be processed to meet that end, determine the best way for the image to be shot...

[Digital_zen]

take a photo, repeat 10,000 times. :)

Good start,... but really it all depends on what style of shooting you do.
If you're into nature or closeup/macro work then I find the best way to go about it is to look at things, when something catches your eye, and makes you want to shoot it, first figure out why, what is it about this thing/scene etc. that made you look twice at it,...then you simply need to translate that into the final image.

[weka2000]

Previsualization is imporatant beacuse it forces a photographer to slow down and think through the entire process of producing a final image. This is very critical because the desired end result of an image, and the way that it must be processed to meet that end, determine the best way for the image to be shot...

But what if you cant see the picture in your minds eye?

I work in IT (computers) but I cant program to save my life, yet I can follow a bit of the code.

[Tunneruk]

Close one eye, It's amazing the difference in perspective.

[JWright]

Read some Ansel Adams... He was the master at visualization. Sometimes, he wasn't able to achieve his visualization of an image for years because the materials available at the time weren't sufficient to produce his final desired print.

Adams' book Examples, The Making of 40 Photographs gives a good insight into the process he used to make his images, including the visualization process.

[weka2000]

Close one eye, It's amazing the difference in perspective.

People normally tell me not to be 1 eyed :lol:

[airfrogusmc]

Theres also the east coast school which is post visualization. Winogrand, Friedlander and other street photographers fall into that. I think a great way is to study the writings of the greats at pre-visualization. Understanding the philosophy behind the zone system (Adams) would be a great start.

[weka2000]

Is this where you see the image and then know where you want to take it?

[jacknimble]

This discussion reminds me of another issue i've always wondered about and that is if I should be discouraged if I regularly find myself walking for hours (looking for street or landscape) and don't once see anything I think is worth photographing. I can't tell if i'm genuinely walking in uninteresting places or if i'm just bad at seeing good pictures:P

[windpig]

==Personally, I'm not at all convinced this can be taught, and have come to the (tentative) conclusion that this is a natural talent you either have or you don't. And may be precisely what ends up separating the photographer from the snapshot-taker.==

Yup, and I aint one of them. It's fun to work at it though.

[300Dplus]

This subject takes place within our minds and it is altered or modified by our individual biases, and it is also philosophic and subjective by nature. So here is my opinion.

I think that we may agree on that visualization is a mental image that is similar to a visual perception - a photo has been created in your mind from something you've seen.

But I also think that, pre-visualization it is the most important aspect of the process. Now, pre-visualization, I believe it is an innate talent, (you maybe able to learn some ways to put you closer, but you still don't have it) and as such, evades some (or many) of us.

It is the talent, of creating a vision of what we will like to see as an end result, from beginning to end, in our minds -Think about famous painters, when they are not painting from a subject in front of their eyes. (I don't know how to appreciate art, so if I like it, colors/shapes/forms/lights/shadows, then it is good).

With that, then you have to have your eyes and your brain, and your heart and your gut, capturing the essence of a moment, with all its emotional weigh.

Don't you have memories of important (to you) moments imprinted in your mind? Can't you see them as a sort of a video clip (??) or as frozen moment (a memory of a face, a bycicle when you were a kid, or anything that made you feel some emotion in your heart).
If the answer is yes (and it has to be), then you already know how to visualize. What makes that moment be seen in our brains, are the emotions that we felt with it and that is what stamped it in our heads.

Pre-visualization is also not all about imagination, although some might say it is, but about how the emotions make our imagination react. The stronger we feel about something our brains/soul/heart/guts are focused on, the closer our imagination is going to get us there.

Anyway, there is also the website of photographer Ron Bigelow, that has a pretty good article that talks about pre-visualization technics. It is worth the reading.
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/previsualization/previsualization.htm

[airfrogusmc]

==Personally, I'm not at all convinced this can be taught, and have come to the (tentative) conclusion that this is a natural talent you either have or you don't. And may be precisely what ends up separating the photographer from the snapshot-taker.==

Yup, and I aint one of them. It's fun to work at it though.

I think you are talking about seeing and that can be nurtured and to some taught. Pre-visualization in regards to the west coast school (Adams, Weston etc) is a term that means you can see the image in your minds eye ( which may or may not be the scene as it actually is) and you have the ability to capture it and through means of correct exposure (for what you saw in your minds eye) and through pre-tested and determined manipulation you can achieve the scene as you visualized it which again is usually not exactly the way it presented itself in front of the lens. And those techniques can be taught.