Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Least memorable photos: mountains

Post general questions and discuss issues related to climbing.
 

Least memorable photos: mountains

Postby nartreb » Fri Jun 03, 2011 10:48 pm

http://cvcl.mit.edu/papers/IsolaXiaoTor ... PR2011.pdf

Very interesting paper describing how to measure and predict a photo's memorability. Not surprisingly, photos of people are very memorable. Landscapes are least memorable, mountains especially. Though I bet this audience would skew that statistic a bit. Semantics matter to memorability. To most people a portrait is not just a portrait, it's "an attractive male, about twenty-five, with dark hair and blue eyes", but they probably don't distinguish beyond "a photo of a mountain", whereas to some of us it's "a class 4 ridge, looks like granite, over a highly crevassed glacier in an alpine/arctic valley, probably northern Rockies or Alaska".
User Avatar
nartreb

 
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 10:45 pm
Location: online or in boston, Massachusetts, United States
Thanked: 107 times in 88 posts

Re: Least memorable photos: mountains

Postby lcarreau » Sat Jun 04, 2011 2:25 am

I hold an opposite view. I cherish the landscape shots more than the "Homo Sapiens" shots.

You're probably painting with a broader brush, but I think "popularity" AND "POTD STATUS" have a lot to do with SOME people posting shots of themselves and others.

Then again, a few folks post strictly landscape AND mountain shots, (some with the same peaks over and over), and they "WIN" hands down.

The human mind is .... a terrible thing to take a picture of.

:wink:
User Avatar
lcarreau

 
Posts: 4051
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:27 pm
Location: Court of the Crimson King, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 878 times in 659 posts

Re: Least memorable photos: mountains

Postby mvs » Sat Jun 04, 2011 1:39 pm

This audience would *definitely* skew the perspective a bit...we are always grumbling for more pictures from the northeast aspect of the peak, or what does it look like in mid-November, or...

There is definitely a place for people in our mountain shots, but showing the person participating in the drama of the scene, not standing in front of it and smiling or something like that.
User Avatar
mvs

 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 7:44 pm
Thanked: 282 times in 108 posts

Re: Least memorable photos: mountains

Postby lcarreau » Sat Jun 04, 2011 2:02 pm

Comedy and Drama - yes, what images of people are based upon, but you can always have too much of a good thing.

Image
User Avatar
lcarreau

 
Posts: 4051
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:27 pm
Location: Court of the Crimson King, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 878 times in 659 posts

Re: Least memorable photos: mountains

Postby Scott » Sun Jun 05, 2011 4:03 pm

Mountains are easier to remember than people. If I read a name of a mountain or see a photo of a mountain, I can remember that I climbed it and usually I can remember which time period. Often though, I can't remember at all the names of the people whom I climbed it with (which is one reason why I have started keeping better logs/diaries). In fact I already forgot the name of one of the two persons I hiked the Halls Creek Narrows with last weekend.
User Avatar
Scott

 
Posts: 7463
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 1:03 pm
Location: Craig, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 572 times in 317 posts

Re: Least memorable photos: mountains

Postby nartreb » Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:12 pm

I think so too. I remember faces (whether or not I've seen someone ever before, and usually in what context I last saw them) but I have to hear a name about a hundred times before it'll "stick" to a person. If I'm reading a book or a play, I'm constantly flipping back to find out whether Jim is the brother, the lover, or the butler. War and Peace was hell, since everybody could go by any one of first name, last name, patronym, title, or nickname.

My ability to recognize faces doesn't work as well for photographs and movies. If a movie has two major characters who look the least bit alike, I'm lost. Black-and-whites where everybody dresses formally are the worst, especially if anybody changes costume or hairstyle.

Voices don't help. After at least a decade of listening to almost every Car Talk, I have absolutely no idea which voice belongs to Tom and which to Ray, and I don't remember which one owned the Fiat or had multiple divorces.

But I've seen photos friends or relatives have taken where I instantly said, "oh yeah, you're on mt so-and-so, facing east. I was there ten years ago."
(Edit: I'm usually wrong about the "ten years ago"; if I say that it was probably 15 or 20 years ago. My sense of elapsed time (on scales longer than a few days) is absolutely wretched, too.)
User Avatar
nartreb

 
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 10:45 pm
Location: online or in boston, Massachusetts, United States
Thanked: 107 times in 88 posts

Re: Least memorable photos: mountains

Postby lcarreau » Mon Jun 06, 2011 4:37 am

Tom is the one on the left ..

Image

I believe I'll ALWAYS remember Lurch ...

Image
User Avatar
lcarreau

 
Posts: 4051
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:27 pm
Location: Court of the Crimson King, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 878 times in 659 posts

Re: Least memorable photos: mountains

Postby Noondueler » Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:41 am

To my observation black and white landscape shots tend to get passed over more than color.
User Avatar
Noondueler

 
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:55 am
Location: Cobb Mountain, California, United States
Thanked: 70 times in 27 posts

Re: Least memorable photos: mountains

Postby Clark_Griswold » Tue Jun 07, 2011 6:11 pm

Noondueler wrote:To my observation black and white landscape shots tend to get passed over more than color.

Thats because the photographer thinks B&W is equal to high art, but hardly anyone else agrees and they aren't as nice to look at. I skip them entirely. We have an eye that sees color quite well. It provides us with more information, so what good is it to look at an image that is less informative and ugly? Leave the B&W images of the 19th century back where they belong. I have found a new trend of using filters and editing photos to be very irritating. Some people change the image so much it hardly looks real.
...
User Avatar
Clark_Griswold

 
Posts: 1707
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:51 am
Location: Tucson, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 306 times in 234 posts


Return to General

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.