MIT finds landscapes forgettable

[alfredo]

http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2011/05/mit-study/


It’s more likely you’ve heard of Ansel Adams than of Marc Riboud, but it turns out you may be more inclined to remember the latter’s photographs.

According to a recent study, photos with people in them are more likely to stick in the viewer’s memory after seeing a series of photos. Researchers at MIT have created a computer algorithm to track which photos people remembered most, and they’ve found that portraits tend to trump landscapes in memorability.

[NV Whino]

1. If I may quote from one of the comments...

" This study is less memorable than all of the photos presented here."

[alfredo]

4. MIT is the Nerd Vatican.

[Blue_In_AK]

2. Perhaps,

but I tend to prefer my landscapes people-free unless I need one there to convey size or something -- and even then I'd rather use a natural object for that purpose. People are over-rated.

And if the landscapes in that article are representative of what they consider good landscape photography, no wonder the people pictures won out. They're nice, but rather mundane.

[alfredo]

3. I guess it means that it is harder to make a memorable landscape.

I find black and white landscapes more memorable.

[Alameda]

6. I wonder how much is the uniqueness today of black and white

people are so used to seeing color it isn't as dramatically registered as black and white. I remember black and white television, in fact I remember NO television. Then, we got color!!! I still love the black and white. In it you see something different from hum drum "reality". You see shapes and contrast more clearly. It's wonderful. I find taking photos in color to be more of a challenge. They are just too close to "reality"

[alfredo]

7. Does color advance the story?

[Alameda]

10. exactly.....good point.

[alfredo]

14. The peony I entered into the contest would not have shown

the architecture of the plant as well if left as a color image. It wouldn't have shown the backlighting as well either.

[handmade34]

24. "People are over-rated."

:rofl:

I adore people, but love your comment

[Stevenmarc]

5. I tend to agree

If I had to come up with a list of favorite photographs the only landscape that makes the cut is Steichen's Pond Moonlight

[alfredo]

8. I think it is the social animal in us.

[Stevenmarc]

9. It goes deeper than that

Landscapes just don't hit the primal emotional level that photos of people have the ability to.

There is no way a pretty waterfall is going to compete with a photograph like Nick Ut's Photograph of Kim Phuc. Quite frankly when you've seen one waterfall you pretty much seen them all where the Nick Ut photo put a very real face on the Vietnam war.

[Alameda]

11. there are many legal problems in photographing people

and many people get upset about how they look and don't want others to see themselves like that. I can respect that, as I myself hate to be photographed. Then there are legal matters associated with taking photos of humans. Too often I've seen tourists take photos of children or people and put ignorant and insulting captions on the photos.

I rarely take photos of people, and when I do, I hardly ever show them publicly. What is the law regarding taking photos of humans?

[Stevenmarc]

12. The legal aspects aren't all that difficult to negotiate

You need a model release if you intend to use the images for commercial use, that's pretty much the law. If you are in a public place you really have no expectation of privacy and can be photographed.

It's actually been a very rare instance that anyone has become miffed that I photographed them and then I simply delete the photo, end of story, besides pretty much every time that has happened that photo would have been ditched from my workflow because they tend not to be all that compelling at the end of the day. I also tend not to use the big honking DSLR when I'm street shooting, which intimidates a lot of people, I basically take a more stealth approach.

I also have a few personal rules for street shooting. I avoid shooting kids unless they are in the shot with the adult I'm shooting. I don't shoot homeless, I find it unnecessarily opportunistic and quite frankly a cliche urban shot. If I shoot street performers I generally tip them first, it's the right thing to do. Oh and if a cop hassles you just delete the shots and walk away even if you are within your rights, this is why you carry extra cards, just switch cards and run the other card through recovery software, the cop is happy and you still have your shot, win win.

And who are all these tourists that put insulting comments on photos, we are obviously traveling in different circles because I've never witnessed this particular behavior and I live in NYC where we have more than a few tourists on any given day?

[Alameda]

13. as for insulting captions or descriptions....

I have seen many photos of children in other countries where they are described as poor or homeless, when they are just kids
dirty and playing. It's more a matter of cultural sensitivity. I hate to be photographed, particularly if my hair is a mess or about a zillion other reasons. If you have ever been in North Africa, as I was years ago, people do not want their photos taken. Maybe now it has changed, but I'll never forget people running from my camera. They were very adamant about it, so I guess that has stuck with me.

[alfredo]

16. When photographing children, I try to engage the parent.

I try to show the photo to the parent for their approval. I've only had one person show reservations. I deleted the image.



Sometimes you don't need to have an identifiable person in the shot.



Sometimes they are very personal. Every now and then I feel a pang about this image.

[Mira]

26. Masterpieces. You simply astound me. The first and third are unique and tug

at my heart in different ways.

[handmade34]

25. people in photos

can tell an intriguing story; or two or three, depending on interpretation. I always ask permission from adults when taking photos of children and always respect if people ask not to be photographed... it can be very intrusive though...

[alfredo]

15. Empathy.

[postatomic]

17. Inaccurate journalism on the part of Wired

The word "forgettable" is never used in the actual Paper published by MIT and the huge leap to referencing Ansel Adams is very irresponsible on their part. You can read it here:

http://cvcl.mit.edu/papers/IsolaXiaoTorralbaOliva-PredictingImageMemory-CVPR2011.pdf

This study is flawed on a number of levels. First; they had to select what photographs would be used in the study. They used a set of criteria that define good photographs but I have to ask "if a study is being done to determine what type of photographs are most memorable how do you determine what are the most memorable and what are the least memorable photographs to be used in the study?" You would have to apply your standards to millions (billions) of photos to come up with a couple of hundred. When it comes down to apples and oranges there is going to be a subjective element that sneaks in.

Next; the photos viewed by the study group were only seen for 1 second and they receive positive reinforcement (Pavlov's dog) when they correctly push a button indicating that they have already viewed a particular photo. I suppose the control group would work best if they were all doing crystal meth and viewing the Lady Gaga twitter page.

The conclusion of this study indicates that it would be useful for those that are putting photos on internet places like Facebook. How is this useful? It's the like a great television commercial that most people remember but they can't tell you what the product being sold is.

My alternate study would be simple. Bring a couple of dozen people into a Fine Art photography gallery and let them wander about viewing all the photographs. Chances are they would have close to a 100% recall of the images they viewed because they are actually looking at the photographs. Taking in the beauty, the details, and digesting any emotion that a particular photo tickles in them. Not viewing them like the chap in Clockwork Orange.

The study is bullshit and Wired needs to work with The Onion on improving their journalistic standards. :P

Just my opinion which I'm always happy to throw out.
:hi:

[alfredo]

18. Faces are more important than objects.

People tend to remember what is important and ditch what isn't.

Our survival depends on being able to see a face in the underbrush. I can't say if their methods are sound, but faces and the familiar are probably more memorable than a long valley. It's human nature.



http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/122782/122782,1289596233,30/stock-photo-face-shaped-rock-formation-65331442.jpg



Not many LoL Bridal Veil Falls images out there.

[regnaD kciN]

20. Whereas...

My alternate study would be simple. Bring a couple of dozen people into a Fine Art photography gallery and let them wander about viewing all the photographs. Chances are they would have close to a 100% recall of the images they viewed because they are actually looking at the photographs. Taking in the beauty, the details, and digesting any emotion that a particular photo tickles in them. Not viewing them like the chap in Clockwork Orange.

...if one were to take a series of the greatest paintings of all time and test them in such a rapid-fire manner, I bet you'd find that most people would remember the Mona Lisa, many might remember The Last Supper (because, frankly, they've seen it so many times before), but I'd bet that would be about it. Probably, most Van Gogh images would get confused together, and, as for Monet's water-lilies? Fuggedaboudit!

In a way, this might bolster the claim that faces do tend to stand out in people's minds. But it would bolster even more the notion that, if subject to that particular methodology, most of the world's "classic" artworks wouldn't make much of an impression at all. So, is that a problem with the art, or with the methodology? Boys and girls, can you say "garbage in, garbage out?" Sure, you can!

[Stevenmarc]

21. Which

Of Monet's Water Lilies were you referring to? You do realize that it was a series of over 200 paintings and I'll have to say the triptych that was on display at MOMA a couple of years ago was particularly memorable considering it's over 40 feet wide and a rather striking example of the impressionist style.

[postatomic]

23. Most of the best photography wouldn't be included in their study

Because it doesn't fit the "model" they created to select the photos for the "study".

Classic Art would not be included either.

There is a movement to change the 'face' of photography. Facebook is playing with identity recognition, there is geo-tagging, and useless studies by some MIT geeks to determine what photos will be most memorable on your twit or pussbook pages.

Photography has always struggled to be excepted as Art and the trends I see are doing little to change that. Many people that are considered by the standards applied today to be good photographers are just clones of each other to me.

Good Landscape Photography is complex and doesn't use the same 'color wheel' you would use for decorating your bedroom or creating a MIT "study". Hence, it is difficult to memorize when it is flashed at you in quick bits. You'll also notice in the MIT pixel fuckology that B&W isn't considered.

Is Art memorable? Absolutely. By those that are trained to 'see'. But not by the general populace that is constantly being dummed down on virtually everything.

[regnaD kciN]

19. I've found nothing published by Wired to be very memorable...

I liked "Tom Tomorrow"'s description of the mag as the "Playboy of the '90s" back then -- essentially, a lifestyle magazine for young men selling them the accouterments of a "cool" life as defined by the time. In the 50's, that would be the life of a "swingin' bachelor"; in the '90s, a tech-savvy hipster. But, in each case, the main purpose of the publication was to deliver a desired demographic to advertisers seeking to sell that well-salaried, under-financial-responsibilitied group lots of gadgetry and other stuff so that they could keep up with their peer group. But, personally, I've always found their content (which seems to be chosen to be "interesting" or even "controversial" rather than accurate and informative) to be of little value as a whole.

[alfredo]

22. Fast food science and technology.