Preplanning versus "hunting" for images

[drjoder]

<p>I have poked around a bit on the web and on this site as well and I can't seem to find what I am looking for. To wit...</p>

<p> In my mind, there are two basic ways of doing photography: 1) You have the finished image in your mind and you go about putting the elements together to create what you have already visualized, or 2) You walk around "looking" for things that catch your eye--you "hunt" for images. (I suppose there may be a gray zone in between...and some "discovery" may also occur as you review and post-process images--so I guess it may not be as clear cut as my two options.)</p>

<p>What prompted this thought was a thread awhile ago about Joel-Peter Witkin. It seems to me his work (wild stuff!) is all about having the idea beforehand (#1), then selecting the elements needed to make it a reality in the final print. Of course, as he sets up, there is some "discovery" as he prepares the shoot, but in the main, it is photography based on an idea that is already in the artist's mind.</p>

<p>Then there is Ansel with his "pre-visualization". But I think this is different than what Witkin does. I think AA went about "hunting" for images (#2 above), and when something caught his eye, THAT is when the pre-visualization kicked in--he would visualize it as it would appear in the final print. Or, he would have enough understanding of a place and the lighting during the day and the seasons, that he could attempt to get the pre-visualized image by going there at the right time--but this to me, though, still falls in the #2 camp of "hunting" for images. (Then there is HCB, who might be the ultimate "hunter" in the genre of street photography.)</p>

<p>Is there a good discussion somewhere about the difference between imagining a scene, then setting it up for the camera, versus walking about "hunting" for images? Personally, I tend to do a lot more of the latter than the former. As I frame an image, though, I do tend to start thinking about how it might look as a final print...but my basic initial approach is to "hunt", not to set up scenes in the studio or elsewhere. I don't think one way is inherently superior...I think it just says something about how the artist's mind works.</p>

<p>What do you do? How do you think about it? Ideas? Opinions? Good article to read about this somewhere? Is there a "Third Way"?</p>

<p>Thanks! DJ</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I think there's a very common middle ground, where a photographer wants to address a general topic, goes to a venue where pertinent material might be found, and then hunts for specific material. I suppose that's what I do the most.</p>

<p>I also carry a small camera with me always for occasional happenstance shots, which might fall under the category of pure "hunting," but I find I don't really find that many opportunities that way. I've used this camera far more often for utilitarian shots than for serious photography. About 90% of my keepers are from hunting expeditions where I'm on the hunt for something specific. Aimless wandering generally gets me nowhere.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>I think of, or "plan" an idea (or a story, a region, a theme etc...) then I physically go and see what catches my eyes, so to speak...</p>

[drjoder]

<p>Sarah, Leslie...Sounds like I am ignoring the middle ground, then. In fact, if I had really thought about it, that is what I do a lot--a mix of my #1 and #2 ideas. For example, I preplan a sunrise shoot at a particular place with a particular moon phase--then I go "hunting" to see what turns up at the site...so, a little of both. I guess what I was sniffing out was the difference between a studio-like scene in which nearly all variables are controlled (and likely previsualized) versus an out-and-about scene that can be previsualized to some extent but is still at the mercy of a large number of uncontrollable variables. Maybe Joel-Peter Witkin falls mostly into the #1 category while HCB falls into #2 and AA falls somewhere in-between? In the end, I guess, who cares as long as the images are good, right!? I just think it is interesting to think about the processes and why we shoot how we do.</p>

[mostly sports]

<p>This is sometimes called the difference between "making" and "taking." Advertising is very much realizing a "concept" with sets, props, and models. Photojournalism has a witness tradition, in which the photographer tries not to be an actor in the scene being documented. And now we have post processing, with endless possibilities. I've found wedding work to be an interesting mix. People want the formal, commemorative shots, with a little "direction," but capturing emotion with the narrative, photojournalistic approach is also much appreciated. Would that be your "third way"?<br>

http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/5936/does-a-photographer-take-pictures-or-make-pictures</p>

[RobertChura]

<p>There is no such thing as "Pre-Visualization".<br>

Ansel never said it. It is a common misquote. He only spoke of Visualization</p>

[Bill C]

<blockquote>

<p>In my mind, there are two basic ways of doing photography: 1) You have the finished image in your mind and you go about putting the elements together to create what you have already visualized, or 2) You walk around "looking" for things that catch your eye--you "hunt" for images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Daniel, I think perhaps you are trying to make all of photography fit into a limited view.</p>

<p>Here's some examples that I don't think fit your categories: What if I'm shooting a wedding, "photojournalistic" style? I have a sequence of specifics I'd like to get, but I don't know how they're going to work out - I'll figure things out on the fly. Or I have a portrait customer coming in, I have a basic lighting setup, but I don't know for sure what I'm going to do. After I see how they're dressed, and what their personalities are like, I may want to try off-the-wall ideas that I don't know yet. Or someone wants a pictorial instruction manual on how to unpack and assemble a shelving unit. I go through the motions and figure it out on the fly.</p>

<p>I have an idea that these are not what you are thinking of as "photography" because you had an "Artist Statement" in your bio. So what about less commercial possibilities? For street photography, what if I find a location with possibilities, then settle into a position and wait to see what unfolds in front of my lens? Or what if I'm out hiking, and see an interesting scene? I think perhaps this might be interesting at sunset, or sunrise, and perhaps I'll try to be here then, to see how it works out.</p>

<p>Of course, there are plenty of situations that fit your two basic ways, I'm just trying to shake up that idea a bit. So just some food for thought.</p>

<p>ps: Phil has made some pertinent observations.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'm mostly a hunter-gatherer. I suppose that style appeals to me because I used to enjoy hunting but not the actual killing, at least nothing larger than doves and rabbits. Never could bring myself to shoot a deer so I gave up hunting <em>(although I'm a good cook and love venison, if anyone is offering... hint-hint)</em>. And I love fishing but rarely get the opportunity. So candid photography seems to suit me. Also, it's the only thing that motivates me to walk for exercise. ;></p>

<p>I've done a few very ordinary still life setups, but not enough to develop any sort of distinctive style. I really admire photographers who've mastered this art.</p>

<p>One master of the pre-planned setup is <a href="http://www.joachimknill.com/">Joachim Knill</a>. His large format Polaroids must be seen to be appreciated. I've never met any other photographer doing what he did when 20"x30" Polaroid was still available. He even built his own camera for that format and medium. <a href="http://www.joachimknill.com/pol%20thumb%20pages/pol%20thumbs5.html">His elaborate, fanciful constructions</a> were unlike anything I'd seen before - very theatrical in staging and arranging the elements, right down to building frames that emphasized the stagecraft approach. That appealed to me because of my love of live theater. All completely organic, no post processing or digital wizardry, although I'd bet he'd excel at those techniques as well. I'm hoping he'll be at the Fort Worth Main Street Arts Fair this month - I've chatted with him before but never photographed him or his samples of large format Polaroids. I might ask him if it's okay this year.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Usually I have a project and am shooting pictures for that project with a clear aim in mind, but, by the same token, it always important to keep one's eye and mind open to the subject that just presents itself by chance.</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>There are as many ways to do it as there are people I suppose. An old saying is: "In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few". That about sums it up. Much better to have a fresh beginner's mind and try things out and see.</p>

[Rick Helmke]

I find that wandering about looking for

photos doesn't get me anywhere most

of the time but I find things to

photograph all the time when I'm on

the way to doing something else. I

never pre-plan a photograph the way

Gregory Crewdson does, I don't see

that way. I usually figure it out as I go

and find it very satisfying when I know

I just got THE shot.

 

Rick H.

[charles_stobbs3]

Now that I often carry a cell phone with a built in camera. I think "tripping over" a subject is a better description.

[stp]

<p>I like to go to places that interest me and that would interest me even if I didn't have a camera. Of course, I do take a camera and lenses with me, and I try to photograph elements or views that have aesthetic interest or that really express the nature of the place. Occasionally, I have something in mind before I go, while most of the time I just wander and enjoy, and I photograph that which I enjoy the most. It's a matter of being there at the right time.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>I like to shoot landscapes and old buildings, preferably scenes that encompass both. That's my "visualization", for want of a better word. In reality, when I'm headed toward a specific place with a shot in mind, more often than not, I'll stumble across one that turns out as good as, if not better than the one I had planned. I've heard this referred to a "the shot on the way to the shot". The whole point is to keep an open mind and be ready for the unexpected...</p>

[drjoder]

<p>Thanks, all, for the table loaded with food for thought!</p>

<p>Phil...I wonder if we are all "making" images regardless if they are pre-planned or not? "Taking" photos, to me, sounds like you are leaving with something that belonged to someone else--which, in some cases I guess, is sort of true.</p>

<p>Robert...yes, I have heard that before...need to purge "PRE-visualization" from my cranial Department of Redundancy Department where I store such vocabulary word lists, collections thereof, and such.</p>

<p>Bill C...yep, I think I am being arbitrarily limiting with my two choices. Most of us probably start with pre-planning to some degree--for example, a still life may be completely preplanned down to the exact lighting on each apple and leaf, whereas a sunrise shoot my have some preplanning in terms of timing, location, moon phase, etc, but will still be subject to lots of uncontrollable variables...But in either case I think we all leave open the possibility of discovering something new while in the midst of the process (the hunting part).</p>

<p>Lex...Thanks for the link to Joachim Knill. He does some really cool stuff--and I like his web site style.</p>

<p>Charles...good phrase, that ("tripping"). I keep forgetting I have a cell phone camera--need to get more in the habit of using it.</p>

<p>Chris, Rick, Steve, Stephen, William...I think you all are touching on the "open mind " idea. That is, we all preplan/visualize to one degree or another, but we also keep our mind open to the serendipitous and incorporate that into our photography as appropriate.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Going out without a repertoire of ideas for photos is the same as going out with a dead battery or no film. They aren't fully formed, (the gray area) but are ideas you have already begun to work on. You build on these. If you tend to return home with stuff that is all over the place you are bound to become frustrated. No matter how you eventually make your picture your creative mind needs something thematic (even if only subconsciously) to start with. You build on each success.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>In the end, I guess, who cares as long as the images are good, right!? I just think it is interesting to think about the processes and why we shoot how we do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If by "good" you mean creating a compelling image that's never been seen before, I'ld suggest the more unique and different the processes involved with creating that image, the more "good" the image or else you're just copying.</p>

<p>A photographer acts as their own art director controlling their own small media empire where what's communicated are every decision made in the process (hopefully different from others) by first seeing, then tripping the shutter and on to the final results. There are numerous variables that will offer opportunities for finding unique processes within this decision making venture of image creation. </p>

<p>The more a photographer copies another's processes and decision making the less unique the results. A photographer should be concentrating, questioning and analyzing more on what, how, when and where they are responding to their own decision making processes and not be concerned on whether it's a way, the right method, the wrong direction. They should listen to themselves and act accordingly.</p>

<p>If the photographer picks up on their own uniqueness in this respect, they'll know they're on to something that's genuine within themselves derived from their own experiences and reactions to them.</p>

[MathewDH]

<p>I have planned a few panoramic images for stitching that required I be in place before the event. One in particular was of the Tacoma Narrows third bridge during erection in 2006. getting the bridge from the vantage point was not an issue. However I wanted the train passing by heading south to the right of the bridge. I got the whole passenger train and then did the bridge in sequence. I could only take the one train shot due to its speed and I had to make a best guess when it would pass based on the day before. Planning what elements you want in the picture means studying the scene and being ready for the event.</p>

<p>Sadly, most are taken to see what the day will bring. But this Monday, I have planned another event shoot and it will be done in Infrared. It should be interesting if the weather cooperates. I only get one chance at the photos in a few seconds.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>There is no such thing as "Pre-Visualization".<br /> Ansel never said it. It is a common misquote. He only spoke of Visualization</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Exactly what I was going to post.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>While Adams never used the term "previsualization," it is disingenuous to insist that he did not, in fact, pre-visualize. True, he didn't previsualize in the sense of this thread (from a before-seeing concept to an actual seeing); but he certainly did pre-visualize in that he visualized from the seeing to the finished print. As this visualized print did not exist, its visualization would unquestionably be "pre."</p>

<p> </p>

[alan_zinn]

<blockquote>

<p>As quoted by Steve M. "In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Great quote. Buyin' new equipment isn't the solution either - even Lomo and Hipstamatic. :-) One thing we tend to do is wait for <em>permission</em> to try something from the <em>experts</em>.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Re Adams:<br><i>"The term visualization refers to the entire emotional-mental process of creating a photograph, and as such, it is one of the most important concepts in photography."</i><br><br>I think that covers "the sense of this thread".<br>It's a broad statement, a broad concept. And i think he is right that it is one of, would even say the most important concept in photography.<br>It covers both preplanned, staged photography as well as the hunting-style, as long as we assume that the latter still involves some decision making by the hunter.<br>And it of course does: a let's-go-out-and-find-something-to-photograph approach is part of the emotional-mental process of creating a photograph. Different from a let's-plan-every-detail-in-advance-and-make-sure-everything-is-set-up-to-get the-desired-result-before-picking-up-the-camera approach. But both involve a human being knowing what he/she wants, what she/he would put on film and what not, so both approaches involve (pre-)visualization.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Hunting with deer on the mind will yield a bunch of photos of deer. Hunting with the anticipation to reacting to whatever is out there will most likely yield MUCH different looking images with some that may contain deer. </p>

<p>I don't see any pre-visualization in the latter.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I just go places I think something crazy will happen, or some sex or violence will appear, and when it does, I just point-and-shoot. Seems pretty easy to do it this way. Commercial stuff is different, and I do make decisions and set things up and pick locations and make some lighting choices, although the locations seem to be the same as where I would go otherwise.</p>

[Brad_]

<center>

.

<P>

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2013%20photos/Dollars.jpg"><BR>

<i>

North Beach, San Francisco • ©2013 Brad Evans

</i>

<P>

. </center>

<P>

 

 

>>> Preplanning versus "hunting" for images<P>

 

Neither. I walk around a lot and take pictures of strangers and situations that interest me. Not preplanning, not hunting...