Reading mode: Light Dark

Do you have aphantasia?

Do you have aphantasia?

  • Total voters
    0
Go to last post
Sundre said:
Photongraphy said:
I've never heard of this before, and I find it very interesting. Thanks for sharing this information and your personal experiences.

My head's full of images, hard to imagine but good to know this can be different/blank for other people. Something to think about.

Just beginning trying to grasp the concept, but I'd expect that people who paint/draw are an even more interesting group to examine than photographers. Curious how you think about that.
Click to expand...
I think painters with aphantasia tend to rely heavily on photographs. This article explores it in depth, with a painter who used to be able to visualise but lost the ability after a stroke.
Sundre said:
Are you a photographer yourself? If so, does it influence the way you workm?
Click to expand...
Not a pro, no. But I take a lot of photos, of course!

It doesn't seem to affect my photography per se, except for one thing - model photoshoots. I need to tell the model to do this or that, and the only way I seem to be able to do it is trial and error. Keep trying different poses sort of randomly until something feels right. Maybe I can get better at it, who knows.

My visualising photographer friend sees the right pose in his head and simply asks the model to assume the pose he visualises.
Click to expand...
You might even end up being the more original of you both👍
 
BobT3218 said:
Sundre said:
Thank you for sharing. One photographer I know found it very odd that I can take photographs without composing them in my mind beforehand, which he says he always does. He generally sees the photo he wants in his mind, and then goes looking for it.

The human brain is a very interesting piece of machinery.
Click to expand...
That's interesting. I never preconceive an image to photograph. It sounds too hard but I'll give it a try. Basically, for me, the fun in photography is discovery. I look for interesting things, capture them then see how I can explore the interesting thing in post.
Click to expand...
Me too. Goes to show how very differently things can work behind the scenes when creating images!
 
Photongraphy said:
Sundre said:
Photongraphy said:
I've never heard of this before, and I find it very interesting. Thanks for sharing this information and your personal experiences.

My head's full of images, hard to imagine but good to know this can be different/blank for other people. Something to think about.

Just beginning trying to grasp the concept, but I'd expect that people who paint/draw are an even more interesting group to examine than photographers. Curious how you think about that.
Click to expand...
I think painters with aphantasia tend to rely heavily on photographs. This article explores it in depth, with a painter who used to be able to visualise but lost the ability after a stroke.
Photongraphy said:
Are you a photographer yourself? If so, does it influence the way you workm?
Click to expand...
Not a pro, no. But I take a lot of photos, of course!

It doesn't seem to affect my photography per se, except for one thing - model photoshoots. I need to tell the model to do this or that, and the only way I seem to be able to do it is trial and error. Keep trying different poses sort of randomly until something feels right. Maybe I can get better at it, who knows.

My visualising photographer friend sees the right pose in his head and simply asks the model to assume the pose he visualises.
Click to expand...
You might even end up being the more original of you both👍
Click to expand...
I do seem to end up trying more angles at least :-D Not necessarily much fun for the model, but you can only use what you've got.
 
Wu Jiaqiu said:
when i use a pin i just type the numbers, i don't visualise them i just know the numbers, i'm terrible with names......
Click to expand...
Some people call that muscle memory, not that you literally remember in your muscles but your mind recalls the movements you made rather than the numbers involved.
 
I'm dutch and yes, we do have very silly names from an 'outlanders' point of view. Sorry, we just enjoy you all struggling 😆
 
Sundre said:
Ranlee said:
I'm not sure what to say. When I try to visualize an apple or hammer or tractor I see a vague representation of the object for a very brief time (I have to do a constant refresh if I want to keep seeing it). I can put a worm half way in the apple or change its color but again, nothing stays for more than a split second and no minute details. It's hard to explain but kind of like I don't really see the object but just an idea of the object, which is the reality isn't it?
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing. Sounds like you may have hypophantasia, i.e. a lower than normal ability to visualise.

Normal visualisers see more or less an accurate visual representation of the object they imagine, rather than "the idea of an object". Those with vivid visualisation (hyperphants) can often see it just as clearly as they see with their physical eyes, for however long they please.

Visualisation can be hard to grasp if you have always had aphantasia - it's a bit like being born blind and trying to imagine seeing: you have no frame of reference.

It is very obvious to those who lose their ability to visualise after eg. brain damage. This is one example of that, although it may be experienced differently by different people.

What I can say is that normal visualisers and hyperphants would not say they see "the idea of the object" since they actually see a visual representation of the thing in their mind's eye. They simply see the object visually in their minds. Possibly not entirely life-like but not entirely unlike either, depending on where exactly they are on the visualisation scale.

I myself seem to compensate with a relatively acute spatial sense. I do not see anything in my mind's eye, but I have a "mental sonar" which I can use to manipulate objects in my mind without seeing them - much like I imagine someone born blind would. I can map out my surroundings mentally and rotate objects in my mind, although this is not accompanied by the usual visual representation of those objects.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I expect I am a somewhat deficient visualizer but not to a degree requiring compensation. I certainly can't claim any heightened spacial awareness, far from it. I'm also an avid reader (mostly fiction - I read for enjoyment) and manage to enjoy descriptive novels with no problem. I see what is being described in the book much the same as I see the apple. Vaguely lacking in detail yet just clear enough that I can mentally join the scene. I manage to ramble along that way.

On the other hand, I dream with incredible detail.
 
Ranlee said:
Sundre said:
Ranlee said:
I'm not sure what to say. When I try to visualize an apple or hammer or tractor I see a vague representation of the object for a very brief time (I have to do a constant refresh if I want to keep seeing it). I can put a worm half way in the apple or change its color but again, nothing stays for more than a split second and no minute details. It's hard to explain but kind of like I don't really see the object but just an idea of the object, which is the reality isn't it?
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing. Sounds like you may have hypophantasia, i.e. a lower than normal ability to visualise.

Normal visualisers see more or less an accurate visual representation of the object they imagine, rather than "the idea of an object". Those with vivid visualisation (hyperphants) can often see it just as clearly as they see with their physical eyes, for however long they please.

Visualisation can be hard to grasp if you have always had aphantasia - it's a bit like being born blind and trying to imagine seeing: you have no frame of reference.

It is very obvious to those who lose their ability to visualise after eg. brain damage. This is one example of that, although it may be experienced differently by different people.

What I can say is that normal visualisers and hyperphants would not say they see "the idea of the object" since they actually see a visual representation of the thing in their mind's eye. They simply see the object visually in their minds. Possibly not entirely life-like but not entirely unlike either, depending on where exactly they are on the visualisation scale.

I myself seem to compensate with a relatively acute spatial sense. I do not see anything in my mind's eye, but I have a "mental sonar" which I can use to manipulate objects in my mind without seeing them - much like I imagine someone born blind would. I can map out my surroundings mentally and rotate objects in my mind, although this is not accompanied by the usual visual representation of those objects.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I expect I am a somewhat deficient visualizer but not to a degree requiring compensation. I certainly can't claim any heightened spacial awareness, far from it. I'm also an avid reader (mostly fiction - I read for enjoyment) and manage to enjoy descriptive novels with no problem. I see what is being described in the book much the same as I see the apple. Vaguely lacking in detail yet just clear enough that I can mentally join the scene. I manage to ramble along that way.

On the other hand, I dream with incredible detail.
Click to expand...
Sounds like that works very well for you :-) I wish I could enjoy visual descriptions as I am an avid reader. Some authors are very descriptive while others are only moderately so. There have been some books I dearly wanted to love, but the authors spent so much page real estate describing things that I had to give up.

I suppose the one upside of that is that I never feel disappointed with how characters in a book I love end up being portrayed in a film, since I never pictured their looks in the first place while reading. That is a pet peeve for quite a few readers.
 
Last edited:
Sundre said:
Sounds like that works very well for you :-) I wish I could enjoy visual descriptions as I am an avid reader. Some authors are very descriptive while others are only moderately so. There have been some books I dearly wanted to love, but the authors spent so much page real estate describing things that I had to give up.

I suppose the one upside of that is that I never feel disappointed with how characters in a book I love end up being portrayed in a film, since I never pictured their looks in the first place while reading. That is a pet peeve for quite a few readers.
Click to expand...
Sometimes its so glaring it can't be ignored. Like casting Tom Cruze who I believe is about 5'6" or so to play Jack Reacher who in the books is about 6'5" and who moves and handles himself accordingly. I refuse to watch a Tom Cruze as Jack Reacher movie. :-D
 
jxh said:
Wu Jiaqiu said:
when i use a pin i just type the numbers, i don't visualise them i just know the numbers, i'm terrible with names......
Click to expand...
Some people call that muscle memory, not that you literally remember in your muscles but your mind recalls the movements you made rather than the numbers involved.
Click to expand...
I've only recently discoverred that my wife and I remember phone numbers quite differently. My wife remembers numbers by visualising the whole number. I remember them by recalling the sound of reading it out. Her method is obviously better.
 
Photongraphy said:
I'm dutch and yes, we do have very silly names from an 'outlanders' point of view. Sorry, we just enjoy you all struggling 😆
Click to expand...
Do you realise that you have just given us a perfect example of Dutch humour? It's self-deprecating and just a tiny bit macabre.
I'm Australian and know what it's like to have a quirky sense of humour. Our humour can be subtle, laced with local idioms and rhyming slang so can be difficult to understand.
 
I wouldn't go so far as visualising a whole scene and then going looking for it. What I do, and I am sure many others do the same, is to see a potentially nice picture and wish there was something else in it, perhaps a boat to complete and balance a seascape, or a bird feeding from a hanging flower as examples.

Does that count?

tom
 
I visualise so strongly when being spoken to, that while driving I ask people not to describe things to me - otherwise I don't see the road ahead!
 
This is fascinating.

I'm on the opposite end of the scale.

Also, the more familiar I am with an object, the more likely I am to be able to do a visualization of a complete, full color, full detail, 3D rotation of it. Interestingly enough, if I am trying to visualize something that currently does not exist but that I may want to build (like a table), I have to generate real world measurements first, based on existing objects, before I can do an accurate internal visualization.

As to faces, I can't remember faces worth bupkis. When I was teaching, the only way I could remember a student's face and name was if they handed me a paper with their name written on it while I was actually looking right at them at the same time. It took me the entire first month of the term to get everyone straight, and as soon as the term was over >POOF< my brain sent that image data to its own circular file. It hasn't gotten worse as I have aged, fortunately, so I think it's just a bit of crossed wiring in there somewhere. But, inanimate objects? I'm good!

Brains are interesting things.

-J
 
Last edited:
I think I'm somewhere in-between. I do see an apple and I can visualize a different kind of apple at will, but the image isn't clear and it's short lasting, like a flicker. I can't hold the image and study it in detail.

I cannot visualize something complex with all details, like someone else said he could get a clear picture of a whole car engine. If it's something I know well I can get snaps of different sections of the whole, but not everything at once with detail.

When I try to see places with my inner eye I've noticed that if I have a photo of the place I rather see the photo than the "live image" and I can hold the image of the photo longer in my mind.

So I guess I may be borderline. :-)
 
tomhongkong said:
I wouldn't go so far as visualising a whole scene and then going looking for it. What I do, and I am sure many others do the same, is to see a potentially nice picture and wish there was something else in it, perhaps a boat to complete and balance a seascape, or a bird feeding from a hanging flower as examples.

Does that count?

tom
Click to expand...
That counts as thinking what is needed to complete the scene.

In my case I often may wait until people or traffic or whatever moves into what I considered to be a nicer part of the frame, then I shoot.

In my camera club days I learned the "rules" and one that is missed by many is adding the third element. I interpreted that as, say, framing a bridge in a scenic setting, make sure you wait until appropriate traffic is on the bridge, that being (in that particular case) the third element that demonstrates the purpose of the bridge. Then the scene makes sense.
 
jalywol said:
This is fascinating.

I'm on the opposite end of the scale.

Also, the more familiar I am with an object, the more likely I am to be able to do a visualization of a complete, full color, full detail, 3D rotation of it. Interestingly enough, if I am trying to visualize something that currently does not exist but that I may want to build (like a table), I have to generate real world measurements first, based on existing objects, before I can do an accurate internal visualization.
Click to expand...
In my case before building anything, I may work out a few basic dimensions on the back of an envelope and then proceed to build it and make it look the way I think is nice. Absolutely no detailed plans are created or followed.

The biggest thing in recent years was rebuilding afresh my decayed old decks on the rear of my house, two stories and the width of the house and more for both levels so very big timber decks involved. It all just flowed as I go. Neatly and nicely over-engineered so no qualms about stability and longevity. But no printed plans at all as evidence of how I proceeded, it just happened.
jalywol said:
As to faces, I can't remember faces worth bupkis.
Click to expand...
I remember faces well, but no way can remember the names attached to them. When in Nagasaki on holidays we met a local on holiday and chatted to him as he had good English. Maybe a week later we were wandering in Yokohama many many miles away and bingo, there he was again, I think we recognised each other at the same moment. Who said Aussie Euro types can't recognise Asian faces?
jalywol said:
When I was teaching, the only way I could remember a student's face and name was if they handed me a paper with their name written on it while I was actually looking right at them at the same time. It took me the entire first month of the term to get everyone straight, and as soon as the term was over >POOF< my brain sent that image data to its own circular file. It hasn't gotten worse as I have aged, fortunately, so I think it's just a bit of crossed wiring in there somewhere. But, inanimate objects? I'm good!

Brains are interesting things.
Click to expand...
Yup, it's on my Christmas list to get one that works. :-)
 
Adrian Harris said:
I visualise so strongly when being spoken to, that while driving I ask people not to describe things to me - otherwise I don't see the road ahead!
Click to expand...
Yikes! I imagine there are certain kinds of stories you don't want to hear ever.
 
jalywol said:
This is fascinating.

I'm on the opposite end of the scale.

Also, the more familiar I am with an object, the more likely I am to be able to do a visualization of a complete, full color, full detail, 3D rotation of it. Interestingly enough, if I am trying to visualize something that currently does not exist but that I may want to build (like a table), I have to generate real world measurements first, based on existing objects, before I can do an accurate internal visualization.

As to faces, I can't remember faces worth bupkis. When I was teaching, the only way I could remember a student's face and name was if they handed me a paper with their name written on it while I was actually looking right at them at the same time. It took me the entire first month of the term to get everyone straight, and as soon as the term was over >POOF< my brain sent that image data to its own circular file. It hasn't gotten worse as I have aged, fortunately, so I think it's just a bit of crossed wiring in there somewhere. But, inanimate objects? I'm good!

Brains are interesting things.

-J
Click to expand...
Very interesting indeed. I have never had any problems recognising faces, and will often go "I've seen this actor somewhere..." when I watch TV. I may even remember things like "that girl I met at that party, she had such a photogenic face, I need to ask her to model for me one of these days" - but I can't visualise any of it at will. I "just know".

Apparently our face recognition/memorising apparatus resides at a very different part of the brain as compared to the bits we use to actively visualise things.

What's even more fascinating is that brain imaging studies indicate that people with aphantasia have more active brains during visualisation than normal visualisers do. More brain areas light up and aphant brains work harder when they try (and fail) to visualise.

Scientists aren't sure what that's about - one possibility is that the brain is misfiring somehow and inhibiting itself. Bit like a car engine that makes one hell of a ruckus without managing to start. No one knows for sure.
 
meow said:
I think I'm somewhere in-between. I do see an apple and I can visualize a different kind of apple at will, but the image isn't clear and it's short lasting, like a flicker. I can't hold the image and study it in detail.

I cannot visualize something complex with all details, like someone else said he could get a clear picture of a whole car engine. If it's something I know well I can get snaps of different sections of the whole, but not everything at once with detail.

When I try to see places with my inner eye I've noticed that if I have a photo of the place I rather see the photo than the "live image" and I can hold the image of the photo longer in my mind.

So I guess I may be borderline. :-)
Click to expand...
Perhaps a touch of hypophantasia there :-) Sounds like that might make you want to take a lot of photos!
 
Sundre said:
meow said:
I think I'm somewhere in-between. I do see an apple and I can visualize a different kind of apple at will, but the image isn't clear and it's short lasting, like a flicker. I can't hold the image and study it in detail.

I cannot visualize something complex with all details, like someone else said he could get a clear picture of a whole car engine. If it's something I know well I can get snaps of different sections of the whole, but not everything at once with detail.

When I try to see places with my inner eye I've noticed that if I have a photo of the place I rather see the photo than the "live image" and I can hold the image of the photo longer in my mind.

So I guess I may be borderline. :-)
Click to expand...
Perhaps a touch of hypophantasia there :-) Sounds like that might make you want to take a lot of photos!
Click to expand...
No. According to my friends my fantasy is very well developed. 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top