Of course he did ... there are plenty of examples of that too, starting with his early red filter Half Dome
shot. He was beginning to previsualize what was going to happen in the print. Didn't you read my post?
I think I've been exposed to a helluva lot more of his work than you have, even though I could hardly
be called one of his disciples! Of course, you could always contact one of his former assistants like John Sexton or Alan Ross for a more accurate clarification of his use of such terminology than anything
I could provide. I see the son in law of his first assistant almost every day, who lives with him - and he's still printing in his 90's (hooray - hope I hold out that long!). In this neighborhood, we're still largely connected to the whole West Coast f/64 tradition - everybody seemingly knows somebody that
either worked with him, or they knew him personally, blah, blah .... I don't really care. But I do heartily recommend "Examples" as the best way to interpret what he meant in the basic manuals. And you won't
need to sell your soul at the crossroads like you would if you tried to understand Minor White.
So why didn't he use the term which he has somehow become famous for?
I suspect he did. But you'd have to ask someone who worked with him. I never knew the guy. The only
retrospective I ever split with him was set up by some museum types late in his life, and he passed away before it actually showed. But per the nitpicky aspects of semantics, I'd infer that it would have
been virtually impossible for him, or anyone else working in an analogous manner, to visualize density
and development options in the field not to "previsualize" the intended effect in specific print values as
well. There were at that time just so many paper types available, mostly graded... And I don't think one
has to impute a specific density value to a specific zone designation for this to equate to the same
general concept. No Zone system model is that inflexible, despite the omniscient dictatorial notions of
Minor White. ...who probably didn't adhere to his own rules that well either.
The word AA used in his books was the correctly used word "visualized".
For some reason many people attribute to him use of the incorrect word "pre-visualized".
The Camera - Chapter One - Visualization
The Negative - Chapter One - Vizualization and Image Values
The Print - Chapter One - Vizualization and the Expressive Image
For now, I'll excuse his use of a z instead of an s as in visualisation!
Ross on AA and "visualization". I can't recall myself ever reading the phrase "pre-visualization" in anything I've read in his writings, but that's not to say it's not out there somewhere, just that I've never seen it. But there's plenty of examples of others using it, probably erroneously, IMO.
Concept wise, he implied it.... what difference does the microtonality of the jargon make anyway? I'll
take Alan Ross' word - he should know, if anyone does. But that doesn't change the subject at hand,
or how Adams visualized the entire hypothetical workflow, beginning to end, as a "previsualization" of
intended print characteristics, whether he officially used the term or not (as if he was God making a
decree!). Besides, I wish you Brits would learn to pronounce English correctly!
I'm putting my sandal on top of my head and walking out the door...