Psychologists Say Taking Too Many Photos Could Be Affecting Your Brain

ShutterPal wrote: You see what I mean though?  I does get you thinking about things.  

Not me. You couldn't get me thinking if you hit me on the noggin with a Funk and Wagnalls. I am getting stupider (more stupid?) with every shutter trip, and I of course, care not.....

Well what are your memories worth?  Trade off, to losing the opportunity.  No memories are recorded.  

EOS Man wrote: Good article.  I agree with it.  I've been to many events, birthday parties, weddings, family BBQ's where I had all sorts of photos, but when I slow down and actually think about my involvement, it's almost as an outsider.  My mind was never 100% invested into each of those events.  I was invested in capturing the moments, the photo of someone performing something or showing happyness.  

I think this paradigm, most photographers need to be aware of and try to step out of it from time to time.  

 

So the big question is, after reading this.  Will you change how much time you are taking photos?

Conner wrote: So the big question is, after reading this.  Will you change how much time you are taking photos?

Nope!
If I remember correctly this study was posted in here a couple of months ago when it first commented on from another site. First she had very few people that were a part of the study, and second I could never find out whether the people she used were actually photographers, or your average college student. Because this also makes a difference in the outcome.
As John pointed out if I am at some gathering, and happen to be both participating, and shooting, I am not just mindlessly shooting. I shoot something because there was something worth shooting. So I am capturing something, or a moment that most missed. I do not miss a whole lot of what is going on, nor do I ever feel like I am the odd man out.
Now as far as someone shooting say sporting, entertainment, or events for pay. They do not really care about being a part of the whole thing beyond getting the money shots, and getting paid, they would rather be apart from the event. Having any long lasting memories is not really important.
Also I bet that if she used actual photographers to look at some objects, and then photograph others we would have remembered more of them. This is due to the fact I know for me I would have be deciding whether it made a good shot, or not, and how the light played on it, or didn't. So I think the whole premise is cracked.

I'm going to agree with Joves on this.  Although first glance it makes somewhat sense, but upon closer look, there are back doors to this thought and those doors are wide open. 

Joves wrote: If I remember correctly this study was posted in here a couple of months ago when it first commented on from another site. First she had very few people that were a part of the study, and second I could never find out whether the people she used were actually photographers, or your average college student. Because this also makes a difference in the outcome.

This isn't issue for photographers, it's an issue for the masses. Photographers would be the exception, not the rule.

As John pointed out if I am at some gathering, and happen to be both participating, and shooting, I am not just mindlessly shooting. I shoot something because there was something worth shooting. So I am capturing something, or a moment that most missed. I do not miss a whole lot of what is going on, nor do I ever feel like I am the odd man out.

Yeah, but that's you. Does that make your experience average, or exceptional, and how does that compare to the average bozo with a cellphone? It seems pretty evident that a photographer would accurately remember what actually happened. Again, we're not talking about photographers, we're talking about the average person that can put their cellphone down long enough to do the grocery shopping.

Now as far as someone shooting say sporting, entertainment, or events for pay. They do not really care about being a part of the whole thing beyond getting the money shots, and getting paid, they would rather be apart from the event. Having any long lasting memories is not really important.

Again, non sequitor. 

Also I bet that if she used actual photographers to look at some objects, and then photograph others we would have remembered more of them. This is due to the fact I know for me I would have be deciding whether it made a good shot, or not, and how the light played on it, or didn't. So I think the whole premise is cracked.

Because she used average people in her study? I don't think studying whether actual photographers can do their job is in the least bit interesting. So I'll disagree with your assertion, just for the fun of it.

garyrhook wrote:

Joves wrote: If I remember correctly this study was posted in here a couple of months ago when it first commented on from another site. First she had very few people that were a part of the study, and second I could never find out whether the people she used were actually photographers, or your average college student. Because this also makes a difference in the outcome.

This isn't issue for photographers, it's an issue for the masses. Photographers would be the exception, not the rule.

As John pointed out if I am at some gathering, and happen to be both participating, and shooting, I am not just mindlessly shooting. I shoot something because there was something worth shooting. So I am capturing something, or a moment that most missed. I do not miss a whole lot of what is going on, nor do I ever feel like I am the odd man out.

Yeah, but that's you. Does that make your experience average, or exceptional, and how does that compare to the average bozo with a cellphone? It seems pretty evident that a photographer would accurately remember what actually happened. Again, we're not talking about photographers, we're talking about the average person that can put their cellphone down long enough to do the grocery shopping.

Now as far as someone shooting say sporting, entertainment, or events for pay. They do not really care about being a part of the whole thing beyond getting the money shots, and getting paid, they would rather be apart from the event. Having any long lasting memories is not really important.

Again, non sequitor. 

Also I bet that if she used actual photographers to look at some objects, and then photograph others we would have remembered more of them. This is due to the fact I know for me I would have be deciding whether it made a good shot, or not, and how the light played on it, or didn't. So I think the whole premise is cracked.

Because she used average people in her study? I don't think studying whether actual photographers can do their job is in the least bit interesting. So I'll disagree with your assertion, just for the fun of it.

That is what I expect. But she is making broad sweeping assertions on her own as well, and calling it a fact. That was the problem I had with it when I first read it. So I see her study as being irrelevant to the population as a whole. She just needed to write something to get published to raise her standing in the world of academia.