Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 24 May 2014 (Saturday) 22:42
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Psychologists Say a Problem Develops in the Brain When You Take Too Many Photos

 
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 546
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
May 25, 2014 22:46 |  #16

Heh! You know, I mentioned earlier my concert experiences, when I was younger I'd "rock out", but as an active amateur photog, well, I've had fun shooting the crowds who are rockin' out, and those shots are the "memories", other people rocking out!

And then, you know, a thread here in POTN that I like to keep up with is the "Night Club Photo" thread, it's been going for a good number of years, people go to clubs as photographers and get some nice fun shots!

Well, I was remembering, back 20 years ago, I was in my 40s and had a circle of friends who tended to be younger, in their 30s, and hey, we had some fun "clubbing"! No cameras, no cell phones, just us having a party and dancin' to the music!

Now I'd imagine I'd have a whole different experience going there to do photography, whether as a job, or just to have fun capturing the action!:)!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mpix345
Goldmember
2,870 posts
Likes: 68
Joined Dec 2006
     
May 25, 2014 22:55 |  #17

Clean Gene wrote in post #16928287 (external link)
...
That's not to say that people shouldn't shoot a lot or be serious about getting the best images. I'm just saying that if my son takes his first steps and my primary concern is on making it look good as a photograph, then I'm probably losing something there.

I think that is an excellent point. And based on what I see on POTN I think a lot of folks veer too far toward "getting the shot" rather than "living the moment" with kids and family. Just my opinion. I don't think it's necessarily about what I remember. I don't want my daughter to remember me as the guy with the camera.


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 546
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
May 25, 2014 23:22 |  #18

mpix345 wrote in post #16930256 (external link)
I think that is an excellent point. And based on what I see on POTN I think a lot of folks veer too far toward "getting the shot" rather than "living the moment" with kids and family. Just my opinion. I don't think it's necessarily about what I remember. I don't want my daughter to remember me as the guy with the camera.

Yeah, and then there's the single Guys With Cameras -- try asking a gal out for a date while you've been fixated on grabbing photos not just of her, but of every "photogenic" girl in sight:):)!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
43,601 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3194
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
May 26, 2014 13:55 |  #19

pwm2 wrote in post #16929496 (external link)
I don't think the debate is that photography destroys our memory, but that we forget to concentrate on the live action and memorize it at event time because we instead focus on getting good shots. So we leave the event without the great live memories because our mind were somewhere else.

^^^
Our mind is on technical issues, further distracting from experiencing as fully the moment.
Our mind is on creative issues, as well "Will this shot be better if I back up and use a longer lens?", again distracting from experiencing as fully the moment.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
43,601 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3194
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
May 26, 2014 13:58 |  #20

mpix345 wrote in post #16930256 (external link)
I don't want my daughter to remember me as the guy with the camera.

Or worse, as I have seen in my own stepdaughters' annoyance with their own father, who is constantly pestering them 'pose for another photograph'...the pest with the camera. The guy does not comprehend he concept of the 'candid moment, captured in photograph'


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
May 26, 2014 20:50 |  #21

I haven't read all posts. The link OP gave is yellow press.

This is an article about it in psych magazine:
http://www.psychologic​alscience.org …emory-of-museum-tour.html (external link)

This is the actual abstract from primary literature:

Two studies examined whether photographing objects impacts what is remembered about them. Participants were led on a guided tour of an art museum and were directed to observe some objects and to photograph others. Results showed a photo-taking-impairment effect: If participants took a photo of each object as a whole, they remembered fewer objects and remembered fewer details about the objects and the objects’ locations in the museum than if they instead only observed the objects and did not photograph them. However, when participants zoomed in to photograph a specific part of the object, their subsequent recognition and detail memory was not impaired, and, in fact, memory for features that were not zoomed in on was just as strong as memory for features that were zoomed in on. This finding highlights key differences between people’s memory and the camera’s “memory” and suggests that the additional attentional and cognitive processes engaged by this focused activity can eliminate the photo-taking-impairment effect.

link: http://pss.sagepub.com …095679761350443​8.abstract (external link)

Personally, I can either enjoy an event and be "in it" or I can run around with a camera thinking about light, composition and critical moments I'm missing.

For a study, something was picked that can be measured. Far reaching interpretations are not the author's, but yours to suggest and think about.


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Aki78
Senior Member
Avatar
963 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 34
Joined Jun 2006
Location: New Hampshire USA
     
May 26, 2014 21:02 |  #22

Huh..

What was the article about again?!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
May 26, 2014 21:12 |  #23

In my experience the article is right about the amount of pictures one keeps.

I'm talking strictly about shooting for memories, for yourself. The less pictures I take, the better I appreciate them and rebemeber them. The more often I look at them. The more I enjoy it.

I just finished editing an upload from my friend's camera: we spent three nights camping and hiking. I shot maybe a dozen frames. He gave me about 600. I was able to skim them down to 60 which tell the detailed story. Once I develop the 12 I have, I'll probably narrow it down to 20 and delete everything else.


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Clean ­ Gene
Goldmember
1,014 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
May 27, 2014 00:22 |  #24

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16928691 (external link)
I spend at least 10 hours a week going thru my work - all of the digital images I have taken since getting into digital photography 8 years ago. And some weeks, it's more like 20 hours. In fact, just about anything interesting that has happened in my life over that time span, I can tell you from memory what date it happened on, simply because I have photos of it, and each photo has time & date info included as part of the file.

I am, daily, referring back to the dates on my old images so that I can amass a greater knowledge about what time of year particular things happen, such as when the absolute peak of the Whitetail Deer rut is, or when the Mountain Bluebirds stop building their nests and start laying eggs and incubating them, or precisely what dates in May both the Lupine and Balsam Root are in bloom at the same time (at given elevations). Without the information in the digital files, I would not remember exactly what time of year these things take place . . . hence, photography, and particularly digital photography, has vastly helped my memory, because of the sundry details about events that I have recorded. Because I have a record of these things, I can go back and study them, and then commit them to memory.

That's all fine and well, but do you really think that most "photographers" do that?

Here's my point: it sounds to me like you are a SERIOUS photographer. That you treat it as WORK, regardless of whether you're getting paid for it or not. If you're devoting that kind of time and effort to frequently looking through all of your old work (and not just the good stuff), then you probably treat photography as your job.

Do most photographers treat photography that way? I don't know, but I'd wager hell no. I'd wager that most of them are just trying to "capture the moment" or some other cliche that works well in an advertisement, and aren't approaching it from the mentality of actual WORK.

And again...there's nothing wrong with that approach. But I think it's important to have some kind of perspective regarding WHY people partake in photography. What is the purpose? If the purpose is to excel at one's art, then it makes sense that it be treated as work. But I'd put money on most "photographers" having no such intentions. This seems to be MOSTLY about the non-serious photographers, since MOST photographers are not serious about it and don't treat it as their jobs.

Having said that, there's nothing that digital photography has done for the average joe that they couldn't do before. Photography has been accessible to the masses for a long time. Affordable prints have been available for a long time. Sure, the data on digital files is CONVENIENT, but there was never anything stopping anyone from simply taking a pen and paper and writing down dates, times, and notes. People's phot albums didn't end up sitting in boxes in the attic collecting dust because of inferior technology. No, people's photo albums sat around collecting dust because appreciating those photographs was inconvenient and required work, and people just plain didn't feel like putting in the effort. The same is true today. Sure, dates and times are conveniently and automatically tagged, but it's way easier and cheaper for people to make more images these days, which means that it's just a lot more content to sort through in order to find what one wants. And just like before, that's WORK. Which a lot of people don't really want to do.

Also, your organizational system might work for you, because what you want to look at is date-sensitive. You talk about when things tend to happen, which probably means that you specialize in or take a particular interest in seasonal events. If that kind of organization fits your photography, fine. Just be aware that not everyone does that kind of stuff. In the hypothetical scenario of someone doing highly contrived portraits in a studio setting, dates might not mean a thing since any one of his/her shots could have been made at any time of the year (since it was contrived and in a studio). Alternatively, If one shoots street photography and happened to remember once seeing a really cool street shot, date might be a poor indicator. When exactly did this cop beat a hobo? That's not exactly a seasonal event, so it's sort of hard to sort by date. A more useful tactic might be to organize by event rather than date. But the point being...failure to adopt an organizing style that works for the photographer results in it being really freaking hard to find what one wants to find. That makes it hard as hell for John Doe to find the photographs of his son taking his first steps, which means that those photos probably get filed away never to get seen again. Instead of getting put away in the attic never to be seen again, it gets put away in some obscure computer folder never to be seen again.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
May 27, 2014 00:32 |  #25

Clean Gene wrote in post #16932726 (external link)
That's all fine and well, but do you really think that most "photographers" do that?

Here's my point: it sounds to me like you are a SERIOUS photographer. That you treat it as WORK, regardless of whether you're getting paid for it or not. If you're devoting that kind of time and effort to frequently looking through all of your old work (and not just the good stuff), then you probably treat photography as your job.

Tom's not doing photography. He's doing bio research from exif data.

It would actually be cool to properly tag the pictures and make plots to see when things happen. But I suspect it's not common to do that.


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Clean ­ Gene
Goldmember
1,014 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
May 27, 2014 00:51 |  #26

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16932736 (external link)
Tom's not doing photography. He's doing bio research from exif data.

It would actually be cool to properly tag the pictures and make plots to see when things happen. But I suspect it's not common to do that.

Which is exactly my point. It sounds like what he's doing is WORK, the purpose is for RESEARCH, it's essentially his JOB even if he's not getting paid.

And especially considering how ubiquitous photography has become these days, I would be absolutely shocked if most "photographers" go through that trouble in order to preserve the moment. If preserving the moment is the REASON for why the picture was taken, then I'd wager that MOST people would be better off just appreciating the moment since they're never gonna look at the pictures again. Sure, you can put your effort into making it a good picture, but statistically it's probably gonna suck. If it doesn't get deleted outright, there's a good chance it just gets stored away in the junk folder, the digital equivalent of putting the prints up in the attic for the next 30 years.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 546
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
May 27, 2014 01:16 |  #27

Clean Gene wrote in post #16932760 (external link)
Which is exactly my point. It sounds like what he's doing is WORK, the purpose is for RESEARCH, it's essentially his JOB even if he's not getting paid.

And especially considering how ubiquitous photography has become these days, I would be absolutely shocked if most "photographers" go through that trouble in order to preserve the moment. If preserving the moment is the REASON for why the picture was taken, then I'd wager that MOST people would be better off just appreciating the moment since they're never gonna look at the pictures again. Sure, you can put your effort into making it a good picture, but statistically it's probably gonna suck. If it doesn't get deleted outright, there's a good chance it just gets stored away in the junk folder, the digital equivalent of putting the prints up in the attic for the next 30 years.

Hmm, not sure how this all ties in to the topic of the thread, Tom was pointing out that for him the "SERIOUS" photography all does work into his "psyche" and he made some great points. You're making points about "most" photographers, are you pointing to psychological issues about "most" photographers (not about Tom)?


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Clean ­ Gene
Goldmember
1,014 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
May 27, 2014 02:03 |  #28

tonylong wrote in post #16932798 (external link)
Hmm, not sure how this all ties in to the topic of the thread, Tom was pointing out that for him the "SERIOUS" photography all does work into his "psyche" and he made some great points. You're making points about "most" photographers, are you pointing to psychological issues about "most" photographers (not about Tom)?


Well, he certainly wasn't bringing up his personal experiences for no reason. I assumed that he was bringing up his personal experiences in the same way that former drug addicts do. As in, cite the low rate of obese people maintaining a weight loss, and you'll always have the one person saying, "I used to be 400 pounds, then I went to 185 and easily stayed there for the next 30 years. So what's your excuse?"

I mean, I'm not doubting him or anything, but if he was just sharing stories for the heck of it, I'm not really sure why he specifically replied to me. Don't get me wrong, good for him. It's just that, if that was the extent of his intent, then it doesn't really apply very much to what I was saying.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Acetoolguy
Senior Member
Avatar
418 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 133
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Buzzards Bay MA
     
May 27, 2014 04:20 as a reply to  @ Clean Gene's post |  #29

Reading too many pseudo science studies is bad for the brain.


Never use a paragraph when a sentence will do.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
May 27, 2014 09:16 |  #30


yes, some posters on this forum suffer "brain problems"




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,028 views & 0 likes for this thread
Psychologists Say a Problem Develops in the Brain When You Take Too Many Photos
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is pan21
715 guests, 253 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.