Topic: How long to we spend looking a photograph, on average?

[Late Developer]

I know much will depend where we are and what other things we have on our agendas.  However,  I think it might be interesting to see whether we do the photographic equivalent of skim reading or love to immerse ourselves in the scene in front of us.

I'm also working on the basis that this is for photos that "catch our eye" rather than photos that we gaze upon momentarily in newspapers and magazines or even a lot of what we see on the net.  This is about when we're really interested and looking.

[zapsnaps]

Interesting. I've recently downloaded quite a few images to use as mood board content or inspiration, or because they are cool, or because they have problem for me which stands out and I keep them to show models how not to pose etc. 'Dwell time', as I believe it's called, was about 3 seconds, before I clicked on to the next image. And I emphasis these are images I like enough to download. Looking at photographers' portfolios, I would imagine 1-2 seconds per shot. Perhaps 5 if it grabbed me.

But is that comparatively short time a reflection of the quality of the image, or the way I work? I view many model portfolios a day (somebody has to, right?) and on the hosting site I visit most frequently, I take less than 5 seconds to scan the 20 thumbnails on a page and I know if I'm interested in working with that model or not. I have assessed in that time, her looks, the way she moves and the quality of the photograph (to differentiate between a good photograph and a good pose).

I'm also interested in antiques. I can spend several minutes looking at a piece in a Bond Street dealer's window. Yet when I go to car boot sales, I walk past most of the stalls and scan the entire table while walking past. But I like to think that if there was something there for me, I'd spot it, even at a slow stroll.

So, my long-winded theory: it's as much about visual processing speed as it is appreciation of an image or an artifact. But for some reason, I read really slowly, can't scan and have little recall. Perhaps I'm just a visual guy.

Incidentally, the dwell time at an adjudicated art (or photography) show at the initial selection stage for a group of up to about 6 jurors is... less than 5 seconds per picture.

[Indofunk]

As a test I went to my Flickr "photos from contacts" stream and scrolled down and roughly timed the ones I stopped at and mouseovered (I have the hoverzoom extension on most of the time, which pulls up the full-sized image if you mouse over a thumbnail or otherwise smaller-than-full-res picture). I topped out at no more than 5 seconds, usually around 2-3. And of course, these are people's photos that I am inclined to like a lot to begin with.

[Francois]

I must sadly admit that my attention span when it comes to most photography, especially online, is incredibly short.
But when one captures my imagination, then it gets way longer. And that's the hard part for me, getting my attention.

I see this also related to the fact I don't post comments often in the weekend threads. I spend so little time looking at photos online that I rarely have much to say about them. I think I have something like three photos in my flickr favorites...

But on paper, it can be different... but I don't know why.

[Bryan]

I agree with the comments above when it comes to looking at images online but at a show or museum I will spend a more time if I see something I like.  I don't know why I do that but I based my vote on what I do online since that's where I view most images. 

[Sandeha Lynch]

It probably only takes me seconds to judge whether I'd want to go back to an image, but those images that pass that test I might revisit uncountable times.

[jojonas~]

It probably only takes me seconds to judge whether I'd want to go back to an image, but those images that pass that test I might revisit uncountable times.

ditto. also, I'm often looking longer the consecutive times

[LT]

Depends on the photo.

[Flippy]

I am not going to lie, I will spend two or three minutes looking at a photograph. But as an illustrator what I am doing is looking for details to remember later.

Here is an interesting photo I came across on flickr recently:
House of sheet metal worker #1 by kasa51, on Flickr

It only took me an instant to recognize that this was a photo that was interesting to me - but I then spent about three minutes looking at the image, studying the windows, the roof, the gutters, etc. I found the gutters especially interesting because of a particularly neat detail which is the the open section of gutter which carries water from the second story downspout to the first floor gutter. Although generally more detailed views get most of my attention, I will sometimes spend as much time studying relatively clean or abstract images too.

[Verian]

With something like Instagram I will look at an image for 1-2 seconds on average but here it can go from  3 or 4 up to about a minute, depending. I think the delivery method may have an influence on how long I will look at something, if it's in a book I may look at an image for a few minutes, and go back to it and look at it again and again.

[Late Developer]

Leon's answer is probably the most likely as a great deal will depend on whether the photo catches our eye in the first place and whether we have the time or inclination to investigate beyond a brief look.

When I see "thumbnails" on a web page, it never ceases to amaze me that the ones that attract me end up being photos I really like when I open them up to full size.  I don't know whether this is a subconscious attraction or whether my eyes are able to lock onto things before I've started to think about why.

When I like a photo, I tend to look at the for ages.  Flippy's example illustrates that perfectly as I will often spend several minutes poring over it to absorb as much detail as I can.  I don't even know why.  It could be to try to work out how the photo was taken or decipher  why the composition works, etc. but I don't recall being aware of the reasoning when I'm looking at it. 

[Rob MacKillop]

On-line - probably just a few seconds, though sometimes a minute or so if I really like it. Books, on the other hand, are a different matter - I can look at an image for ten minutes or so, especially if it is a well-produced book with high-quality print.

[SanMiguel]

I'm a bit late to this thread but online there are very few images that I look at for more than a few seconds.  I think that's because there is a lot of mediocre stuff posted.  When I see one that I think (!) is good, then I might study it for several minutes - mostly these are scans of prints and I'm looking at the darkroom technique, or they are scans of negs and I'm thinking how they would print.  Good question!