I heard an interesting story on the radio the other day while driving home from work. It was about reading, and the hosts were discussing a number of studies suggesting that reading a physical book is actually superior to reading the same text on an e-reader or tablet. Apparently, when we read from paper, more areas of the brain are engaged than when we read digitally. The research also suggests that comprehension and recall tend to be better when reading the old-fashioned way.
That got me wondering whether something similar happens when we view photographs. Do we have a richer, more satisfying experience looking at a print versus viewing the same image on a screen?
In my own experience, I think we do. I love printing my work and even though I only mostly make small, letter sized prints, I can definitely say that looking at a print definitely feels different than looking at the same image on a screen. I also find myself spending far more time studying a printed photograph than I ever would looking at the same image on a screen.
What do you guys think? Have you noticed something similar to this? Or maybe perhaps the opposite?
I agree. Up until retirement two years ago I managed engineers and project managers in automation. I had a rule that written documents and drawings had to be printed for proofing. Proofing then done with highlighter in hand. Proofing your own work on a screen meant missing a lot of obvious errors.
I think so. I print my work regularly to display them for sale at my local farmers market. The bigger I can print them the better. Seeing a photo as a large print, 16x20, 20x30, or my most recent large print of 24x30 just knocks my socks off. In fact, the print usually reveals details that I miss on the screen. A subtle shift in tone from a digital brush that had too hard an edge might not show up on screen, but in big print it sure does. Same with dust spots that seem to get by in a digital image, it show up in a print, even in the shadow areas. I think with the emergence of the online forums and the digital camera, even the original 3MP cameras made great looking digital images online, but really fell apart when trying to make a print bigger than 8x12. It was one of the reasons that I kept using my LF 4x5 camera as it allowed for great enlargements that looked even better as a print than as a digital image. The print, on paper, should be the last step in the photographic process. Its to bad that the online world has cut that last step off.
Yes, I enjoy viewing prints even small ones like 4x6, 3x4, 5x7, etc. Those are the sizes I typically print at home and they are typically candids of friends and family. I usually print 8x10 of scenics and wildlife, and occasionally I’ll send out for a larger print and get it framed separately. IMHO a picture wasn’t a picture if it wasn’t printed. Of course that is a slight exagerration.
However, my wife recently purchased a digital frame for my 75th, I won’t mention brand. I find to my shock that I love it. Back in the days before digital took over I purchased a few digital frames that I hated! The resolution was awful, resizing abilities were bad, you had to put the images on a usb or sd card to load, etc, etc. This new frame comes with unlimited server space and a miriad of ways to upload photos including giving friends and family access to upload and view my frame. I am finding I enjoy watching my life with family and friends.
It was getting so I was having to rotate prints on and off the shelfs and walls because I didn’t have space to just add them. I find that since this digital frame company does such a great job of making it easy to upload and the display is so good that I don’t mind viewing digital anymore. Sorry for the long post.
Regards,
GEGJr
Hi Tom,
Interesting question. The benefit of analog systems for comprehension and memory (both are far superior when reading a paper book or taking notes by hand, not typing) have been well documented. And for photography, I know many people who believe it’s just not quite a photograph yet until it’s printed. There is something about the tactile experience of holding a discreet physical object that makes us focus on it more intently. It’s hard to swipe to something new when it’s an actual thing in your hands (whether it’s a book or a photographic print), but I think there’s more to it than that. It’s probably kind of primal, like the difference between our caveman siblings describing the berries they found v. giving us a handful of them.
I’ve been reading Bored and Brilliant, by Manoush Zomorodi. It’s mostly about how spacing out and being bored are prerequisites to creativity and problem solving. Her argument is, in part, that mobile devices keep us from experiencing boredom, and therefore, prevent us from being more creative or solving problems in our lives. She had some interesting points about how many pictures are being taken now, and how many pictures we see. In many ways, we are being overloaded with visual information. We would probably do each more justice by taking more time with individual images, whether it’s because it’s printed or because we just tell ourselves “I’m going to look at these four images today.”
I found something else interesting while reading this book. I normally read for pleasure on my Kindle App in the iPhone. It’s not critical to comprehend everything. But this book was not available as an ebook, so I got the regular trade paper. Interestingly, my dog barks at me to put down my phone and play with her when I read on my phone. She doesn’t when I read a physical book. It’s bigger, maybe it looks more important to her? Or maybe even she knows that little device is full cr@p that is not worth my time.
If we hold something in our hands that is bigger than our two hands, I think we give it has a bigger impact.