man & nature # 227 ~ just wondering
Thursday, September 3, 2009 at 09:32AM 
Washington Street ~ Westport, NY • click to embiggenA few days ago, Don asked:
... what is the average time a viewer looks at a picture such as in National Geographic or even on-line as compared to someone viewing at a gallery?
To be perfectly honest, I have no idea. That said, my experience and intuition says that pictures in a book/periodical or in a gallery get a lot more viewing time than those viewed on-line. All I know for sure, is that I spend more time looking at a picture or a group of pictures when I am in a gallery or looking at a book/periodical. That may be so simply because pictures just look and feel "more natural" in print than they do on screen.
That said, I have a question regarding average time spent viewing a picture - how much time, on average, do any of you out there spend viewing any of my pictures here on The Landscapist?
And, as long as I'm asking questions about my pictures, how many of you would keep coming back if all I posted were my pictures - no words, just pictures?
FYI, this is not a scientific survey - nothing is going to change here on The Landscapist as a result of your answers. I'm just curious.
Reader Comments (10)
Guess most photographers suffer from bloated-ego-syndrome which makes watching other peoples work a real challenge since it will always be regarded as inferiour. Self confidence is important of course, otherwise few photographers would produce anything worthwhile.
I actually prefer viewing photos on a monitor to books, but most websites are so poorly designed that I refrain from viewing work there. I use a 46" LCD TV which makes photos look better than any print, even though the 1080 HD standard lacks a little resolution to be picture perfect. I just wish there was some good slideshow software out there (Adobe Lightroom 3 developers, please listen - just a simple timeline, some simple transitions, zoom option, steroe audio capability and any imaginable video output capability). For anything with significant text content I prefer books of course, even blogs would be nicer on paper.
Sorry, I forgot to answer your questions. I usually don't spend many seconds watching your photos, and your blog would be off my list pretty quick without the text. To me photography is all about subject and although your work is excellent, your neighbourhood is low on my list of places of interrest. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy your work, but we're geographically speaking worlds apart. I will however drop by with a coubple of bottles of Pinot Noir if I can get my Road Trip of the US together in a couple of years. It's been a long lasting dream of mine to drive from New Engalnd to the Great Planes to photograph the people I meet.
I would still come for the pictures but I would sure miss the words. Today's photo is another lovely shot - that fading paintwork......
I suspect there are very few blogs that would hold a person's interest as a pure photo blog--we are just so awash in a great sea of photos. Even if you throw out most of the "pretty picture" types there is a tremendous glut of it. I have an extremely short list of blogs that are photos only that I visit, and those I visit less frequently.
I'm here to enjoy your commentary, but I always click through to see the photos... :-)
I view online pictures just the way I do in museums or galleries - passing by many looking for the few to spend some quality time with. One thing I do find with online photos is that I often remember them after relatively short viewing, which may get me thinking or coming back in a way other media don't.
Books are somewhat different because I make many return visits to the same material.
I'd be happy returning to a photo only Landscapist site but I still want the words.
I agree with Eric and Martin, I come for the images and the words.
A few years ago before I found The Landscapist, I would skip over sites like this but I have learned a lot here in the last couple of years both by Mark and his followers.
I must be weird.
If I can get a screen sized shot of a photo I like then I will look at it time and again in slide show fashion and set to music. Total time viewing each image keeps climbing as the days grow old.
If I can't get a screen sized image then at most four seconds.
I tend to spend more time on your urban pictures. A bit less on the more naturalistic one (except for the complex ones). Time may vary but it goes from 10 to 15 seconds to a minute. Any now and then I get back to some of them. Some of your decay pictures scored the highest times.
The expected time spent on a picture by a viewer is a very interesting topic.
Your pictures are far more explicative than your writings :-D but the "user's curve" related textual ongoing is quite interesting to study on the media related plane.
Hey Mark: this article may be interesting to your readers:
http://tao-of-digital-photography.blogspot.com/2009/08/on-art-of-observing-gallery-viewers.html
Looking at your images? Well, I visit rarely. I let a backlog of some 30 posts come together, and then I read some. Not intentionally, but it happens. In fact it happens with all those sites that don't just post pictures, or at least of them, those that have something to say.
You normally have a lot to say, thus no backlog is longer than yours :)
I look at all of your images in the big size. Normally it's in the range of 1 or two seconds, no more. Basically it's as long as I need to get the composition. I don't actually claim to understand your photography, but as I've often said, the outcome, i.e. the images, looks very familiar to me. Thus, although I can't tell what actually made you make the image, I can normally tell why I would have made it that way, if I had made it. It's about as long as I need to find out, what my reason to take the image would have been. Does that make sense?
Yes, even without the text I would come back. More regularly I suppose, but for heaven's sake don't stop writing :)