[08amczb]

When I show my photos to my wife she always view them very quickly. She remembers them and she chooses her favorits, so she is interested, but I think it takes more time to examine a photo. When I like to examine a photo it takes a minute or tow. The subject, lighting, shadows, cathc lights, bokhe, the focus, lines, negative space... and the full impression. Now we have a compromise, which is slow enough for me and fast enough for she, but I'm interested in how many seconds/minutes are you spend with viewing one (good) photo?

[magkelly]

It depends upon the photo. It doesn't usually take me 2 minutes though. Just casually looking through photos I'd say 30-45 secs maybe. If I am really studying them maybe a minute or so. It really depends on why I am looking. Looking at a photo in an art gallery, that can be a lot longer, but if I am just trying to decide whether or not certain photos are keepers not that long actually. I don't dawdle even in art galleries. I'm definitely not one of those people that takes 20 mins to appreciate one painting....

[csa]

I've never timed myself while looking at my photos. If it's a really good photo, I'll examine it to see if there's any place it can be improved; otherwise I cannot say "how long" I look at each one.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Sturgeon's Law applies: 98% of everything is crap. So 98% of the time I'll look at a photo for less than a second, and 2% of the time I'll go back to it over and over again until I feel I've fully understood and appreciated it. There are some photographs that I've looked at hundreds of times over the years and discovered new things every time. Cartier-Bresson's portrait of Matisse, for example: Henri Cartier-Bresson, Henri Matisse

(In the case of my own photographs, 99.9% are crap.)

[normhead]

The average image, I probably don't look at for longer than about 5 seconds... if I like an image I print it and put it up on my wall, where I'll probably look it a lot more, but maybe not longer. It's rare photograph that can hold your attention of more than that.

[Ptr_Mrtn]

Well first, if a photo doesn't catch your eye at first glance it probably isn't a good photo. The same goes for spending a long time examining it. If you examine for 5 minutes and get tired of looking at it, then it is probably not so great either.

---------- Post added 12-05-14 at 10:45 AM ----------

As the photographer, you can choose to show everything or only your best work. To find your best work you must eliminate anything that doesn't catch your eye right away, then eliminate anything that you can't look at for an extended period of time.

[normhead]

Well first, if a photo doesn't catch your eye at first glance it probably isn't a good photo. The same goes for spending a long time examining it. If you examine for 5 minutes and get tired of looking at it, then it is probably not so great either.

I remember once going through the AGO (Art Gallery of Ontario, Matisse exhibit) with a friend. She wanted to stop and study a lot of the images, I tended to take them in quickly and more on. Especially with the new rapid fire , digital image, photographer are used to evaluating quickly, and moving on quickly. A painting, where everything in the painting is created intentionally and which has no un-intentional elements can be more demanding. With a painting, you have to ask, "why did the painter put that object there and portray it in that way, what was his message?" With a photo, a lot of the photo , unless done in studio, can be un-intentional. You can study it as long as you want, button the end, it's still unintentional. In photography we look for elements that work together to portray a mood. We function on the basis of recognition, not creation. With a painter, it's "what did he create and why?" with a photographer, it's "what did he capture and why?"

In a lot of instances for a photographer the why is "because he/she was there." and there's no need to go beyond that.

[Ptr_Mrtn]

In photography we look for elements that work together to portray a mood. We function on the basis of recognition, not creation. With a painter, it's "what did he create and why?" with a photographer, it's "what did he capture and why?"

I would say it is more "what did he include in the frame, how did he make the elements work together, and why"
You can include or exclude anything you want in your photograph and change your perspective to alter the way in wich elements react visually

[normhead]

I would say it is more "what did he include in the frame, how did he make the elements work together, and why"
You can include or exclude anything you want in your photograph and change your perspective to alter the way in wich elements react visually

Sometimes, yes, other times no.

[micromacro]

If it does not catch my eye, it takes less than a second. If it does, it's unpredictable. One minute, 3 minutes, ones again and again.

[stevebrot]

Sturgeon's Law applies: 98% of everything is crap. So 98% of the time I'll look at a photo for less than a second, and 2% of the time I'll go back to it over and over again until I feel I've fully understood and appreciated it. There are some photographs that I've looked at hundreds of times over the years and discovered new things every time. Cartier-Bresson's portrait of Matisse, for example: Henri Cartier-Bresson, Henri Matisse

(In the case of my own photographs, 99.9% are crap.)

What he said...

When I am judging, I generally take more time, but usually it takes an extraordinary image to hold my attention for more than a couple of seconds. And yes, I seldom linger over my own work.


Steve

[mikeSF]

never thought about it, but 1-3 seconds unless it really catches my eye, then i might dig in a bit.
That said, i usually don't like to look at my own work because all i can see are the flaws. hate that.

[Ptr_Mrtn]

Sometimes, yes, other times no.

I get what you are saying

[aleonx3]

If the photo is good, well balanced and pleasing to look at, I study it for a bit like seconds and file it in my memory..
If the photo is bad, OOF, flat, full of distortion, terrible color and tone, I study it and try to remember that to ensure that I don't do it myself or don't repeat it if it was from me...

[Vaards]

I can identify crappy picture faster than 1/10th of second!