How long do you watch a photograph

[anidel]

For how long you examine a photograph?
And what keeps you lookign at it?

Do you try to see what the photographer wanted to share?
The technique used?

You do that for every photograph you stumble upon ?

 

[Ned]

It all depends on the photograph. If it's a nude, I examine it for 3 minutes.

 

[sprinke]

It all depends on the photograph. If it's a nude, I examine it for 3 minutes.

Oh, Ned, Ned, Ned.

 

[riveredger]

It all depends on the photograph. If it's a nude, I examine it for 3 minutes.

lol . . . thanks for that laugh

 

[5115]

Anywhere from 1/2500 sec - 5 minutes.

The ones I look at the longest are the both visually pleasing and confusing enough that I'm trying to work out what the subject is or how the hell they managed to get the shot. Most of the time I don't really care what the photographer was trying to share.

I have hundreds of people in my G+ photography circles and read maybe 7 or 8 different blogs and tumblr streams that generate hundreds and hundreds of photos a day - if I tried to analyze each one I'd go crazy. I probably seriously (5min) look at one or two pics a day and just flip through the others to get a feel for what they are.

 

[anidel]

ehehe good laugh.

I asked beacuse I sometimes just look at the photograph and only stop examining it if it catches my eye. I try to figure out what was it and once I realize it, I try to understand how the photographer managed it.
Most importantly, I try to understand (but often fail) how much post-processing has gone into it.

The idea of the questions came after re-watching a scene from "Smoke" ([ame="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114478/"]Smoke (1995) - IMDb@@AMEPARAM@@http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTgxNjQ4MTQ0OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNTQ2OTcyMQ@@._V1._SX100_SY139_.jpg@@AMEPARAM@@BMTgxNjQ4MTQ0OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNTQ2OTcyMQ@@@@AMEPARAM@@SX100@@AMEPARAM@@SY139[/ame]) where Harvey Keitel (Auggie) tells William Hurt (Paul) that he needs to watch the pictures slowly.
That made me think about how much I spend on them.

 

[Hikari]

No very long. But I will return to good images often.

The photographers intent, if there is one, is irrelevant. I will judge an mage based on my experience. That is the only way you can do it.

The technique should be seamless in that it secondary to the image itself. If I notice the technique more than the image it probably means it is not a good image, just interesting technique.

 

[sprinke]

Smoke was a great movie.

If I remember correctly, Harvey Keitel was taking pictures of the New York street, right? Such pictures could be jam-packed with people and each person has their own story -- their own moment of life they are living when the picture was taken. I can definitely see how you might spend a long time examining such pictures and trying to figure out what was going on with each person in the shot.

 

[kinlau]

Depends on the setup. If it's part of a series with some sort of common theme, then I like to look thru the whole series, and come back to certain shots.

A really good landscape will often have interest in the foreground, middle and background. if printed large, I like to soak that in.

Many good photographs will just have that 'something' that draws you in. If I feel it, then I'll spend more time looking and thinking about it. There's lots of famous photogs I just don't get, and I've tried to spend more time looking, but it just gives me headaches, so I stopped doing that.

For nature shots, I'm also drawn by the subject itself, so I start to look for clues about habitat, species, behavior etc.

 

[tdekany]

Could you post some of the images that you like from other people if it isn't too much trouble? Or maybe PM me? Thanks.

No very long. But I will return to good images often.

The photographers intent, if there is one, is irrelevant. I will judge an mage based on my experience. That is the only way you can do it.

The technique should be seamless in that it secondary to the image itself. If I notice the technique more than the image it probably means it is not a good image, just interesting technique.

 

[Hikari]

I normal don't like list of photographers--these are really personal choices. You can do a search for these photographers:

Mary Ellen Mark
Sabastiao Salgado
Raghubir Singh
Domon Ken
Kevin Bubriski
Hiroshi Hamaya
Olivia Parker (black and white work)
Shoichi Ono
Josef Koudelka
Alex Webb
Eugene Richards

Oddly enough, my work is mostly color and I am looking at painters now more than photographers.

 

[Bhupinder2002]

It all depends on the photograph. If it's a nude, I examine it for 3 minutes.

YEs Ned and It can be a nude tree , nude flower , nude sun , nude beaches etc etc.. only human beings wear clothes and everything else on this planet is actually NUDE..lol
Cheers
Bhupinder

 

[DeeJayK]

YEs Ned and It can be a nude tree , nude flower , nude sun , nude beaches

Oh, Bhupinder, nude beaches can take way more than 3 minutes to study.

(Sorry, my inner twelve-year-old couldn't resist that one.)

 

[Ned]

Haha... Yes, I love nude beaches even more than nude photos.

Those are the pleasures I miss since moving mainland off the Islands.

 

[Minniesmum]

YEs Ned and It can be a nude tree , nude flower , nude sun , nude beaches etc etc.. only human beings wear clothes and everything else on this planet is actually NUDE..lol
Cheers
Bhupinder

sooo true Bhupinder....I often think humans are the least attractive beings naked....

 

[Minniesmum]

Haha... Yes, I love nude beaches even more than nude photos.

Those are the pleasures I miss since moving mainland off the Islands.

I can relate to this Ned. I was born near the sea and still live only 10 miles from it ( on a different continent now lol ). I couldn't survive without my beach " fix"..

 

[anidel]

I normal don't like list of photographers--these are really personal choices. You can do a search for these photographers:

Mary Ellen Mark
Sabastiao Salgado
Raghubir Singh
Domon Ken
Kevin Bubriski
Hiroshi Hamaya
Olivia Parker (black and white work)
Shoichi Ono
Josef Koudelka
Alex Webb
Eugene Richards

Oddly enough, my work is mostly color and I am looking at painters now more than photographers.

I don't see my name in that list!!

 

[anidel]

Anyway that was interesting. I was curious to know how other look at pictures.

It is definitely interesting how few people actually try to understand the photographer intent (unless it's very clear from the image).

Thanks!

 

[Rover]

If it grabs me, I can look at it for a while, or repeatedly. I don't look for the message the photographer was tring to capture, I look for what it is telling me.

 

[ripleys baby]

Anyway that was interesting.

Thanks!

Strange when now and again, things go off topic.

FWIW I think i can tell right away if i like a shot or not. I never try to read anything into it . I do find myself going back to look at an image again and wondering why i like it.