visualization versus previsualization

[andreas_carl]

I am using my Hasselblad ofr everything from cityscapes to landscapes, but ever so often the "large format bug" bites me and I wish to move up to 4x5. I enjoy large prints (20x24 max) and having a larger negative would improve those prints, I am sure. So I borrowed a Toyo FA and tried it for a weekend and found I didn't like to work with it. I didn't have too many problems with the technique or the film inserts, nor did I mind the slower speed. Instead I found I couldn't get used to the "working style". With my Hasselblad I like to walk around watch the (tiny) groundclass until interesting and unusual perspectives show up (i.e. visualization). With my first attempt at large format I found myself walking around without camera, looking for interesting things to photograph (i.e. previsualization) and all too often found that once I had brought the camera over, put it up on a tripod, looked at the groundglass, I didn't like it anymore.

 

<p>

 

I was wondering if experienced large format users had the same "problem" when they started. Especially with lenses that are different from our normal eye-sight (e.g. wide angle lenses) it seems to be difficult to "find shots". Maybe the learning curve is just steeper than what I had thought. All comments are appreciated!!!

[ellis_vener_photography]

Andreas, one way around this is to make a "viewing card": a thick piece

of black mat board, approx 10x10 in size that has a 4x5 hole (or a hole

with 4x5 proportions) cut in it.</P>

Shooting just Polaroids at this stage can also be helpful at this stage

so you make images and can judge it immediately, make adjustments to

eith er your position or camera movements shoot again and also juge the

results later when you are not feeling pushed by the light to make

judgements. Many times I make post exposure "discoveries" that either

make an image stronger than I expected it to be or reveal weaknesses

which kill it for me.

[jeff_thompson]

I have a Linhoff viewfinder. It is a device ment to be placed in the

camera's hot shoe. It is equiped for adjustments for different

lenses allowing you to preview the scene, as well as with different

perspectives. I use it as if I had my trusty SLR around my neck with

a 30-180mm zoom lens attached (the actual range is 90-360 in 4X5).

Saves lots of time-and aggrevation. Although more expensive than

Ellis's suggestion, if you could borrow one for a trial, I think you

would find it helpful. However, LF is slower than MF. And thats one

reason I like it. Good luck Jeff

[james___]

There may be some confusion here. Visualization and "previsualization"

are the same thing basically. When Ansel Adams coined the term he was

referring to the ability to see and feel what the final product would

look like. The image does not always look the same after we process

and print what we saw on the GG or in the viewfinder initially. The

image may change in tonality, color, and texture when we are through

with it. We can "previsualize" or visualize the outcome of this image

and expose and process it to help accomplish this end. When you are

walking around and searching for images you are just at the beginning

of the process. And it doesn't matter what format equipment you use.

If you see components that your mind puts together into an image that

is part of the visualization process. Ellis uses a very tried and true

way of compensating for not having a view finder to look through as

you do with your MF gear. But he still goes through the same mental

process to find and evaluate the quality of the image before setting

up to expose film. What I am interested in is your reasoning for

wanting to use LF when you are already using a format that will give

you everything you need to create great prints. I use 4x5 and 8x10 for

my choice of format about 80% of the time. That is only because I

enjoy the pace and emotional connection with my prey, er, subject

matter that these formats create for me. I like the feel of the

method. I also own the other formats of 35mm, 6x6 and 6x9. But I enjoy

the LF the most. But you have a good format so I am unsure of your

motivation to change formats. So why? James

[bob_salomon3]

"I have a Linhoff viewfinder. It is a device ment to be placed in the

camera's hot shoe. It is equiped for adjustments for different lenses

allowing you to preview the scene, as well as with different

perspectives. I use it as if I had my trusty SLR around my neck with a

30-180mm zoom lens attached (the actual range is 90-360 in 4X5)."

 

<p>

 

Actually that is an old Linhof (one f) Multifocal Finder. The later

ones (including the current one) goes from 75mm to 360mm.

 

<p>

 

Some of the older types accept an accessory attachment that adapts it

to 75mm.

[ray_dunn]

I'm still in my first season of using LF equipment, after 20

years of using 35mm. I don't really have any problems with

differences in what I see with my eyes and what I see on the

GG. One technique that helps me is to close one eye and see

things as the camera would - no artifical depth created by

two viewpoints. If I can't 'see' the depth by form and pattern

with only one eye, then the camera won't record it either.

I do tend to wonder around quite a bit 'visualizing' and

trying to frame my shot. I guess practice makes better (not

perfect!) so that when I unpack the gear, I often get the photograph

to look pretty much like I wanted. I do a lot of quick mental

gymnastics to decide depth of field and natural frames for the

landscape photography that I do. I recommend reading books on

form and color and pattern so that you become 'sensitized' to

what looks good to successful people. Then you have a starting

point to create your OWN vision. Contact me via email if you

would like recommendations on books that I have found useful.

[marv_thompson]

The "pre-viewer", as it were, is an excellent suggestion, no matter

which system you use. I use a Zone VI viewing filter/frame that I

find quite useful, for Black and White.

 

<p>

 

Another consideration; try to match the focal length in 4X5 that you

find most "comfortable" i.e. the one you use the most in 6X6. For

instance, I tend in 6X7 to use a 45mm to 135mm range, with a tendancy

to lean towards the wider lenses, 90 and 75mm. In 4X5 (roughly) these

are a 90mm to 150mm. I tend to "see" in those focal lengths, and with

a lot of visulation/previsulation experience under my belt, find that

I naturally "frame" the subject in those ranges. I shot for 11 years

in 4X5 with only a 135mm lens, so obviously I tend to see things in

that focal length more easily.

 

<p>

 

Finally, use the upside down image on the ground glass to your

advantage. It can be a strong and useful tool for visualisation. The

image is quite abstract, and forces you to be very attentive to where

elements are placed.

[alpshiker]

I agree with Ray. Bringing the scene in a two dimensional frame by viewing it with one eye is a good

test. If the picture is unsufficiently balanced, weak, or too contrasty, it will then appear. The same is

achieved by looking through a viewfinder, like Bob suggests. It will also indicate which lens to use. I

have cut a serie of three frames in relation with the 6x9, 6x12 and 4x5" formats I use, in the black

plastic stuff found as film support in the old Readyloads. The window sizes are one inch high and

proportionally wide. They are pinned together in a corner and this fits easily in my pocket. When

walking I can use it with one hand and make quick appreciation and building of the scene. An other aid

that might perhaps fit your Toyo is the folding binocular reflex viewer from Horseman. After nearly

ten years of LF, I have started to use one and would now hardly do without. But it has to be used

cautiously.

[jnorman1]

andreas - i would add to the previous answers that familiarity with

one's equipment is a key ingedient to success at understanding what

you will get on film. when you do nothing but walk around for 20

years with a 35mm camera and a 50mm lens, you get pretty good at

knowing what you are going to see when you put that thing up to your

eye. the same thing goes for a 4x5 - if you use it consistently, you

will get good at it, and if you only pull it out occasionally, you

will almost always find it awkward. because of that, it is a good

idea for any serious photgrapher to focus on a particluar format, and

even specific subject matter, and avoid trying to be the master of

small, medium, and large formats - it is hard enough to do just one

type of photography properly. if your chosen subject matter is

active, obviously you would want to utilze small, versatile

equipment. medium format is an excellent compromise for those who

wish to pursue a variety of subjects in a high-quality way, and can

easily produce extreme enlargements. however, if your subject matter

is fixed (architecture, landscape, etc), there is no substitute for

the quality that large format can offer.

[charles_kleesattel]

I find that when I have a 35mm camera, I tend to shoot at anything that is marginally interesting. With the 4x5 and 8x10 if I try to photograph the same kind of thing... I lose interest before I get the thing set up. So, my criteria for a photograph is very different with LF. It IS is different way of seeing and thinking. Probably accepting the difference will yeild a better product than trying to make LF the same as MF or 35mm.

[andreas_carl]

Great suggestions everyone! I think I will cut myself a viewing card

and go out in the field amd try some more. How do you simulate

different focal lengths with a card? Do you hold it close to the eyes

for a wide-angle look and further away for a tele look? The Linhof

finder is cool too - until I saw the price tag ($1400 at B&H)...

 

<p>

 

James - I know when Ansel used the term 'visualization' he was more

concerned with how the tonal range would reproduce on a black&white

photo. I just "borrowed" that term and made up the distinction between

visualization and previsualization, since looking at a waistlevel

finder seems one step closer to the finished product (i.e. photo) than

just looking at the World without viewing aid. Thanks ya all!

[j.l._kennedy]

It's my understanding (perhaps others will confirm) that if you cut

the viewing hole the same size as the negative, then the distance you

hold it from your eye will correspond to a lens of that focal length.

For example, it you hold it 150mm from your eye it will be the same

field of view as a 150mm lens. I've also heard of attaching a string

to the corner of your viewing card and tying knots in the string at

the various distances for which you have lenses. I've never tried

this because I already feel conspiciuos enough with a LF camera and

related paraphanalia!

[gary_frsot]

I use a 4X5 viewing card with a string attached to one side and

knots at the focal lengths of the lenses I have. I would be lost

without it. You can do accurate composing and even shifts using

the card. When I set up the camera, I am rarely suprised at what

is presented on the ground glass. One area where this knot distance

fails is on close up as the effective focal length of the lens

becomes longer.