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 it has a bigger impact.
In my experience of going to photographic galleries and seeing the print is a “whole body” emotional experience. The transfer of the photographers creation or recording to the viewer is much more complete and detailed when you see the print.
.
I went to the Ansel Adams exhibition 30 years ago timed with the release of the 400 prints book - and that was an experience I remember to this day. My own work, if good enough, I try and print at least A4 (22x30cm) , usually A3 (42x30 cm) - A good photographic printer, great inks and colours was an essential buy (I currently have a Canon Pro-300)
Looking at the print you avoid the vagaries of screen brightness, colour correction etc etc - and you view the image at a viewing distance of 6ft or so - again a different experience from online, and an image may appear to be blurred at 200% but fantastic on the wall.
You can also see a series of prints and see how different images talk to each other, and convey a narrative more coherently grouped on a wall rather than on sequential screens or even pages.
I print about once a week at least - now to try and make so images that merit it!
The only thing I can say is that I value my evaluation of a print of mine more than I do a digital image. I am always amazed when a print rolls off the printer of the same image I worked on photoshop. Issues become more obvious in a print. Decisions about which version is better is much clearer with a print. The truth is that seeing a print is a different visual experience than one on a screen. Why that is I don’t really know. It’s not the touch and feel of a print, which many will tell you. That’s a minor aspect. You may be right that the brain reacts differently. Reflected light I believe is gentler on the brain than light directly shining into your eyes. You just tire faster. Another words there is a stress level when looking at a digital image that is absent with a print. Perhaps paying closer attention is more difficult with a digital.
After reading the above comments I agree that there is a tendency to lose focus or be distracted online. Remember the expression ‘I’d like to curl up into bed with a good book’? That meant a leisurely morning dedicated to one single pursuit. The digital world is different. My browser has 25 open tabs. As soon as mine starts to flag I switch another. In fact as I’m reading one tab I’m thinking whether the other one is more interesting. My time becomes fragmented.
I agree, there is something different about viewing a photo as a print as opposed to a digital image on a screen. As a photographer, I don’t see a photograph “finished” until a print is made, and then the print is not finished until it has been matted and framed. Then you can stand back and really experience the scene again almost like when you first tripped the shutter.