Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thank you Joe. I'll now admit that my question about pre-visualization was a troll. Visualization and pre-visualization has been repeatedly discussed, on the LUG, over the years. I was interested in seeing what this new batch of LUGnuts had to say. As usual, you are the definitive answer. :-) Jim At 01:55 PM 12/5/00 -0800, Joe Codispoti wrote: > >Pre-visualization may be a misnomer but it is very effective. I cannot think >of an appropriate name for visualizing how the print would look after having >modified exposure and development in order to change contrast ratios in the >original scene. > >The problem is the limitation of the language. In some cases semantics >cannot be explained . Californians are particularly guilty of coining words >and phrases that are ill conceived but become trendy and part of the >lexicon. The latest one is "deroading" as in getting off the road. >I wonder what images are conjured in the mind of people with limited >knowledge of English at hearing the word "manhole". "Hopefully" (introduced >in 1962) is an other that makes no sense. > >Pre-visualization, that's where it's at, dig it? > >Joe Codispoti > > >From: "Jim Brick" <jim@brick.org> >> Can someone explain the term PRE-visualization? Is this visualization >> before visualization? Or is it just simply "visualization?" >> >> If you visualize something, you are doing it before the act. If you >> pre-visualize something, you are visualizing it before you visualize it >> before the act. >> >> Merrium Webster doesn't seem to understand pre-visualize. >> >> Jim