« What do I think of the Cowles Commission? | Main | Guesstimation, or The City in the Sky »
When should you take photographs?
JKottke, a loyal MR reader, asks:
Is taking a photo or video of an event for later viewing worth it, even if it means more or less missing the event in realtime? What's better, a lifetime of mediated viewing of my son's first steps or a one-time in-person viewing?
If you take photos you will remember the event more vividly, if only because you have to stop and notice it. The fact that your memories will in part be "false" or constructed is besides the point; they'll probably be false anyway. In other words, there's no such thing as the "one-time in-person viewing," it is all mediated viewing, one way or the other. Daniel Gilbert's book on memory is the key source here.
Furthermore you don't need the later viewing for the photo or video to be worthwhile. It's all about organizing your memories in the form of narratives and that is what cameras help us do, if only by differentiating the flow of events into chunkier blocks of greater discreteness.
A photo that requires retakes might be more effective than a photo you get right the first time.
Personally, I take pictures of Yana only when she tells me to, which I might add is often. I've never owned a camera, but for most people I recommend the photos.
By the way here are 21 ways to take better photographs.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 5, 2008 at 06:57 AM in Philosophy | Permalink
Comments
I'm interested in the ever-shifting balance of photos-to-video in the digital age.
How are the niches occupied by still pictures and movies changing?
An early (naive) prediction might have been that there will be no more still shots as increased bandwith and server space means that it will be possible for video to be ubiquitous.
And yet...that doesn't seem to be happening.
People obviously continue to value the time-slice, the moment, the "capture" of the pause in the river of experiences.
I'm very glad that the naive prediction isn't coming true. There's something supremely, incomparably charming in the still shot. Others obviously agree.
Posted by: pmp at May 5, 2008 8:42:03 AM
Our memory of something is like a Kalman filter estimate, sort of in reverse.
Normally a Kalman filter estimates trend over time with new observations, a memory is a set of updates we generate to maintain the estimated response of the memory.
Economic activity is the same. We estimate the linear response, then we generate inventory exchanges, modifying the transaction rate such that the expected updates act generate the expected linear response.
Posted by: Matt at May 5, 2008 8:54:08 AM
pmp: nobody who knows the least bit about art ever doubted that photographs will always be appreciated.
I find that pictures and personal journal entries really help me enjoy my life. In addition to increasing the overall value of things I do by making these memories last for much longer, writing about what I do and taking pictures of places I go and stuff like that also gives me an incentive to do more, albeit a weak one. I really do suggest that people take pictures or write about their liver. And organize everything by date, too. You're all economists; do the cost/benefit analysis and add value to the things that you do.
Posted by: Daniel Reeves at May 5, 2008 9:00:43 AM
I think the main value of photos is for loved ones currently separated by distance or descendants separated by time. I almost never look through my own pictures, but I know my grandparents and in laws update the pics of my wife and I yearly and I expect our future kids will be curious how we looked on our wedding day, etc.
I wonder how the Internet will affect genealogy. What will my great-grandpup's make of blogs and my disappointment Battlestar season 4?
Posted by: burger flipper at May 5, 2008 9:02:18 AM
This is a great post; its a question that comes up often, but is rarely addressed (its usually a shrug and frown thing).
Although snapping photos can sometimes ruin or change an event, prevent one from taking part, put a wall up, it usually does not. And it can have the reverse effect, as described here.
Posted by: liberty at May 5, 2008 9:37:20 AM
I hate having my picture taken, so I therefore try not to take other people's pictures. It generally ruins the moment for me. Mainly because of the time lapse, but also because the flash hurts my eyes. But the internet has already revolutionalized photo sharing. Instead of 3 people taking the same picture of a group of people, only one picture is needed, and can be shared via internet. This decreases the time lapse problem and has some effect on quality, but still hurts my eyes.
Posted by: brainwarped at May 5, 2008 12:05:41 PM
Is Gilbert's book on memory _Stumbling on Happiness_ or something else?
Posted by: M Wms at May 5, 2008 12:16:39 PM
Young children benefit the most. Otherwise they'll have few memories - constructed or otherwise.
Posted by: PJ at May 5, 2008 12:39:39 PM
For my personal life, I always choose the memory over the photograph. In my opinion there are no more pure moments to experience because everyone has a camera and they are intrude upon and interrupt any event that occurs.
Posted by: Steve at May 5, 2008 1:33:04 PM
I'm an avid photographer, but I prefer not to shoot noteworthy events as they're taking place, because as mentioned prior, there is a disconnect between the observer and the observed. While a photograph will record the light bouncing off of a subject, paying attention with your totality (emotional responses, sounds, smells, context-of-the-moment, etc.) allows events to be better recorded and retrieved than watching the moment through a viewfinder.
However, as an expression of a unique artistic perspective, still photographs can't be beat.
This is why I find more value in shooting people taking pictures at a newsworthy event than the event itself.
-al.
Posted by: Al at May 5, 2008 1:34:42 PM
I notice that I miss the forest when I am taking pictures of trees (extend metaphor to sports, parties, travel, etc.) -- that's good in terms of looking for the "essence" of the moment (why video will never take over) and also to give me an incentive to explore even mundane things (to get the right angle, etc.)
The downside (?) is that I rarely remember things that are not recorded in photos. I regret that I cannot record more, but some photos are impossible (a conversation) and others miss the metathemes (driving a nice road, sex, cooking a meal). In some ways, video can get at there, but the video would have to be passive if it is not going to keep you from "experiencing the moment."
Posted by: David Zetland at May 5, 2008 2:32:34 PM
Completely off topic, but: Your daughter's name is Yana? That's a great name!
Posted by: Finja at May 5, 2008 2:43:04 PM
Daniel Reeves - "I really do suggest that people take pictures or write about their liver*"
cracking up...hahah
Posted by: anon at May 5, 2008 4:06:14 PM
People should take photos of mundane things they enjoy in their lives during times of sleep deprivation.
They won't have constructed any memories of those times, but the pictures will function.
Posted by: mouse at May 5, 2008 4:31:58 PM
1) If you don't take enough pictures of your changing offspring, you're going to really, really regret it later on.
2) There are ways of taking photographs which do not involve missing the event in realtime. Back in the bad old days of film photography, taking a photograph was expensive, and so you wanted to get it right the first time. Today, you can to some degree substitute quantity for care, and this means your eyeball doesn't have to be plastered to the viewfinder or even to the LCD screen in back. Just turn off the damn flash. Nothing spoils a moment like flash. Use available light if you at all possibly can. And turn off the electronic sounds that your camera emits as a crutch for people who miss the noisy cameras of yesteryear, as they also spoil the mood.
Posted by: Constant at May 5, 2008 4:53:26 PM
And don't make people pose for a photo. Unless you want them to murder you in your sleep.
Posted by: Constant at May 5, 2008 4:57:40 PM
It's a balance, at least for dance photographers. No still can ever capture what is dance so thoroughly that the motion isn't lost to some extent; some of those moments can be memorialized by using video. No video catches all the wonderful moments that come and go faster than one can take a photo; some of those moments can be relished by taking enough shots that sheer chance lets you get them. No eye can catch everything that by chance is before you, so getting multiple people to take photos/videos lets you be a part of a greater community and partake of communal memory. No mind I've met can process an entire event immediately and in real time, all the time.
Many of the photos and videos I take are not for me, they are gifts to my dancer communities, to enjoy later on or from a different perspective, to aid in remembering events and people even years later. It's a counterweight to the well-known effect, that it's very easy to miss the grand event when you are in the middle of it (walking the stage at graduation, performances, making music, dancing...). I derive joy from giving them this as well as from experiencing it. The hardest part for me is to balance experiencing something with documenting it, and as I said over at kottke's website, the best days are when I get both of them down at the same time.
Posted by: agm at May 5, 2008 8:33:16 PM
I completely agree. When I look through my photobooks, I realize how vividly a particular snapshot colors my memory of the whole experience. Without it, would I even remember the moment (that is when I want to remember as indicated by me looking through the photobook in the first place)? Take photos to catalogue your precious moments for the future!
Posted by: Jenn at May 6, 2008 1:25:46 AM
As far as I see it, there's no ultimate answer. It's a simple matter of preferences.
What is better, latte or black coffee?
Posted by: Andreas Hetland at May 6, 2008 2:34:02 AM
I now forget who said it (I neglected to take a picture), but a certain author once stated that until he quit working professionally, he always missed the simple "being there" of travel, since he was always thinking about how he would later describe the experience in prose. So what does one do? Discard notepad and camera, and sit in zazen before each experience so as to be "one" with it unmediatedly?
On the other hand, if one takes a photograph of "an experience," the taking of the photograph is then another experience that she should be having "unmediatedly," so at least she should be able to go back at later date and enjoy the ostensibly unmediated memory of taking that photo, no?
Posted by: Tokyo2night at May 6, 2008 12:12:19 PM
Heisenberg uncertainty principle, or rather observer effect, come into play in photographs. Who knew.
Posted by: E in Maryland at May 6, 2008 12:45:17 PM
I disagree; when I'm shooting photos, I'm focused only on getting good shots - paying attention only to the camera, lighting, subjects, props, etc - not to the events taking place.
I've shot tons of graduations, weddings, ball games, you name it. If you were to ask me specific details about a particular event, I'd be hard pressed to tell you anything without looking at the photos. But ask which camera I used that day, and I'll know right off the top of my head.
Posted by: ronbailey at May 6, 2008 1:38:06 PM
In response to
"The fact that your memories will in part be "false" or constructed is besides the point; they'll probably be false anyway."
I did my thesis on Photography and it's effect on how we look at things (photograph and it's influence on architectural design to be more specific). My best conclusion was that a photograph is an extraction of reality and context, the viewer of the image could only understand what was in the picture, and make assumptions of the past and future. I came to this reasoning by also studying Truth VS Reality, and which is which in a photograph... In my thesis defense, the panel of jurors brought some philosophers to the table. This is such an interesting subject.
Posted by: BabingtonBreeze at May 6, 2008 1:57:08 PM
Most times if I'm touring something famous I'll take better still photos than mine off Flickr or whatever. I enjoy taking pictures of people or events more.
Are you thinking about Daniel Schacter's book on memory? A quick Amazon search didn't turn anything up.
Posted by: Kevin at May 7, 2008 3:50:42 AM
