[h=1]Taking photographs ruins the memory. I report....You decide.......[/h]
Taking photographs ruins the memory, research finds - Telegraph
Taking photographs ruins the memory, research finds - Telegraph
Ruin your memory!
- Thread starter Alan
- Start date
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
pop·py·cockˈpäpēˌkäk/
noun[COLOR=#878787 !important]informal[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]
noun[COLOR=#878787 !important]informal[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]
- 1.
nonsense.
synonyms: nonsense, rubbish, claptrap, balderdash, blather, moonshine, garbage;
informal
rot, tripe, jive, hogwash, baloney, drivel, bilge, bunk, eyewash,piffle, phooey, twaddle;
informal
bushwa, malarkey, gobbledygook,mumbo jumbo;
informal,
bunkum, tommyrot;
WhiteLight
Senior Member
i stop reading when i read the first line 'A study has shown....'
give it a few days & a NEW STUDY will show that taking photos increases memory ten fold till your thoughts can outrun a Kraken or Roadrunner or Milkyway 2 (those are today's super computers FYI )
give it a few days & a NEW STUDY will show that taking photos increases memory ten fold till your thoughts can outrun a Kraken or Roadrunner or Milkyway 2 (those are today's super computers FYI
)Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
Why are we talking about sea monsters?
WhiteLight
Senior Member
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Nonsensical dissension aside, I believe there's a very valid point here. I didn't read the entire article, I just read the first sentence under the banner, and I'm inclined to say that I absolutely agree with the premise.
Taking a picture for posterity at a birthday, wedding or concert may harm our ability to remember the event fully, researchers believe in a phenomenon known as 'photo-taking impairment effect'
I've added emphasis to the two pieces that I believe are key here.
I do believe it's possible to photograph an event and still fully participate in and/or experience it, but it takes practice and extra work. I've had the opportunity to shoot a lot of concerts and events around Bethlehem Musikfest and the various Artsquest concerts and festivals in my area, and I have to say that there are shows where I got some great photos of some great artists, but I also have to be honest and say that I missed a lot in the process of photographing them.
I'm a musician and have been for much longer than I've held a camera. If I think back I know that there are great moments in that show where I was more invested in capturing a great photo than I was in listening to what the artist was doing. That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it, but there is definitely stuff I missed because I was checking settings or reviewing the last shot or changing a lens. That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it. But you cannot be fully invested in a sensory experience when any one of your senses is otherwise distracted.
Can you do both? Absolutely, but only under strict circumstances. I have a rule now for shows that I want to see as much as I want to shoot - one lens, one setting, auto ISO, no peaking. This prevents me from being distracted by the camera in my hands and allows me to shoot without thinking about it to the level of distraction. I will only check photos and make adjustments between songs, and then usually only after the first couple. I turn image review off to prevent myself from wanting to look, and so as not to distract others around me in a dimly lit room as 5 second strobes of a just passed moment pop up.
Wilco is one of my favorite bands, and their singer Jeff Tweedy is as insightful a person as I've ever read. It's nearly impossible to attend a concert now without experiencing the sea of smartphones between you and the artist. At a concert in Memphis he took time to chastise someone in the front for experiencing the entire show through the small screen he held between himself and the artist, and it was caught by someone else further back doing the same. And I believe he's right.
If we choose to capture the memory in any way other than by fully experiencing it and living it back in our minds then we forfeit some of it. It may be a lot, it may be a little, but as the premise suggests it's not "fully" experienced. I understand that going in, and have learned to take precautions to minimize it. I've learned to decide beforehand whether or not I want to attend as a participant or as a documentarian, for that decision dictates just how I will view, and remember the event. I also believe that while I may not experience the event fully as a documentarian, there are aspects - moments - of it that I will experience more fully than anyone else, and that is the trade-off.
Taking a picture for posterity at a birthday, wedding or concert may harm our ability to remember the event fully, researchers believe in a phenomenon known as 'photo-taking impairment effect'
I've added emphasis to the two pieces that I believe are key here.
I do believe it's possible to photograph an event and still fully participate in and/or experience it, but it takes practice and extra work. I've had the opportunity to shoot a lot of concerts and events around Bethlehem Musikfest and the various Artsquest concerts and festivals in my area, and I have to say that there are shows where I got some great photos of some great artists, but I also have to be honest and say that I missed a lot in the process of photographing them.
I'm a musician and have been for much longer than I've held a camera. If I think back I know that there are great moments in that show where I was more invested in capturing a great photo than I was in listening to what the artist was doing. That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it, but there is definitely stuff I missed because I was checking settings or reviewing the last shot or changing a lens. That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it. But you cannot be fully invested in a sensory experience when any one of your senses is otherwise distracted.
Can you do both? Absolutely, but only under strict circumstances. I have a rule now for shows that I want to see as much as I want to shoot - one lens, one setting, auto ISO, no peaking. This prevents me from being distracted by the camera in my hands and allows me to shoot without thinking about it to the level of distraction. I will only check photos and make adjustments between songs, and then usually only after the first couple. I turn image review off to prevent myself from wanting to look, and so as not to distract others around me in a dimly lit room as 5 second strobes of a just passed moment pop up.
Wilco is one of my favorite bands, and their singer Jeff Tweedy is as insightful a person as I've ever read. It's nearly impossible to attend a concert now without experiencing the sea of smartphones between you and the artist. At a concert in Memphis he took time to chastise someone in the front for experiencing the entire show through the small screen he held between himself and the artist, and it was caught by someone else further back doing the same. And I believe he's right.
If we choose to capture the memory in any way other than by fully experiencing it and living it back in our minds then we forfeit some of it. It may be a lot, it may be a little, but as the premise suggests it's not "fully" experienced. I understand that going in, and have learned to take precautions to minimize it. I've learned to decide beforehand whether or not I want to attend as a participant or as a documentarian, for that decision dictates just how I will view, and remember the event. I also believe that while I may not experience the event fully as a documentarian, there are aspects - moments - of it that I will experience more fully than anyone else, and that is the trade-off.
Last edited:
Jake,
I will add this to what you have articulated here. When my daughter was married I did not even bring a point and shoot with me. We had hired a photographer to document the event, we had a second photographer who took stereo slides of the wedding, and between us we had about 6 other photographers who were there shooting for us just as friends. ( The joke of the day was the paparazzi was there). I remember the day like it was yesterday, however after the event many of the friends we spoke who had taken pictures for us did not recall events that had happen that day.
I believe they were so intent on getting the shot they saw in their mind that they missed much of what was going on around them. We would look at photos and I would recall that event and if they didn't take the shot many time they would say " I missed that". Our mind is a marvelous thing but multi-tasking is not it greatest trick. How many times have we looked at a photo and said, I didn't even see that when I took the shot. We are so intent on the subject that the rest of the world goes away.
I don't think there is one answer to this. However if it causes us to think about what we are doing when we have a camera up to our face then all the better. It might even cause us to improve our photography. And that's not a bad thing.
I will add this to what you have articulated here. When my daughter was married I did not even bring a point and shoot with me. We had hired a photographer to document the event, we had a second photographer who took stereo slides of the wedding, and between us we had about 6 other photographers who were there shooting for us just as friends. ( The joke of the day was the paparazzi was there). I remember the day like it was yesterday, however after the event many of the friends we spoke who had taken pictures for us did not recall events that had happen that day.
I believe they were so intent on getting the shot they saw in their mind that they missed much of what was going on around them. We would look at photos and I would recall that event and if they didn't take the shot many time they would say " I missed that". Our mind is a marvelous thing but multi-tasking is not it greatest trick. How many times have we looked at a photo and said, I didn't even see that when I took the shot. We are so intent on the subject that the rest of the world goes away.
I don't think there is one answer to this. However if it causes us to think about what we are doing when we have a camera up to our face then all the better. It might even cause us to improve our photography. And that's not a bad thing.
I recall years ago having a couple friends get married. When they came back from the honeymoon, I was asked to watch the videos and look at the photos they had taken..................
Oh
My
God!
They had NINETY-some hours of VHS tapes, and over 2,000 photos! Dam! They had only spent two days at DisneyWorld! How can you take 90 hours of video in two days?!?!?!
Well, they started taking video as soon as they left for the airport! "Here we are, driving to the airport." "Here we are, checking our bags." "That's Angie, sitting at the airport waiting for our flight." "Here's Brian, walking down towards the plane".
Between the scores of video tapes and the albums stuffed with 4x5s, they started to argue about who did what when, and had to settle the argument by using the video and photos.
"Here's the door to our room." "Oh, that's the car we rented.... a Buick Riviera!" "That's the waiter for lunch on the second day." "No, dear, that's the waiter for dinner on the first day." "No, that's was the second day, but maybe it was for breakfast."
I can see where this article was headed, as I had some first-hand experience with Recording Overload causing Event Amnesia. Brian & Angie probably could not recall a single, even if very important, moment from their honeymoon if they didn't have a video and/or photo of it.
That night was probably the worst 3 hours of my life.
Oh
My
God!
They had NINETY-some hours of VHS tapes, and over 2,000 photos! Dam! They had only spent two days at DisneyWorld! How can you take 90 hours of video in two days?!?!?!
Well, they started taking video as soon as they left for the airport! "Here we are, driving to the airport." "Here we are, checking our bags." "That's Angie, sitting at the airport waiting for our flight." "Here's Brian, walking down towards the plane".
Between the scores of video tapes and the albums stuffed with 4x5s, they started to argue about who did what when, and had to settle the argument by using the video and photos.
"Here's the door to our room." "Oh, that's the car we rented.... a Buick Riviera!" "That's the waiter for lunch on the second day." "No, dear, that's the waiter for dinner on the first day." "No, that's was the second day, but maybe it was for breakfast."
I can see where this article was headed, as I had some first-hand experience with Recording Overload causing Event Amnesia. Brian & Angie probably could not recall a single, even if very important, moment from their honeymoon if they didn't have a video and/or photo of it.
That night was probably the worst 3 hours of my life.
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
Over Thanksgiving My wife and I spent the week with my mother taking care of her while my sister was out of town. During that week I scanned old photos. I am so glad someone took those for future generations. So while I see the point of the last two posters I also look at it for future generations to be able to share memories that might have been before they were born.
That is me second from the left in the cowboy hat.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
Between what I see here and my personal experience I think we all need to hit a happy compromise with our photography of personal events in our lives. For our Christmas family gatherings I will only shoot 15 or 20 photographs. 1 or 2 of everyone sitting around the table and the rest of people opening their gifts. WE do have some young children in the family and I may shoot some of them later playing in the floor with their new toys. Enough shots to share the memories with those who were not able to be there while not taking all my time away from the real reason for being there. Also my mom is 87 years old and her memory is not the best so she really enjoys going through all the photos over and over.
