I don’t know what “photo reading” is, but I just went to photoreading.com where it says:
That's why so many people just like you are using the Ferrari-style of reading called PhotoReading. It blasts printed materials to the brain at phenomenal rates, a page a second. You actually "mentally photograph" the page at 25,000 words a minute.
I’m really skeptical about these kinds of claims. It implies that one is going to read 25,000 words per minute, which is impossible.
At the top of the page, it says:
PhotoReading: Learn and absorb reading material 3 times faster than you can now
So is it three times faster than my current speed or 25,000 words per minute?
NASA’s research also says that it doesn’t work:
PhotoReading is a technique developed by Paul Scheele that claims to increase reading rate to 25,000 words per minute (Scheele, 1993). Users of the technique claim to be able to PhotoRead an entire book within 10 minutes, and during that process develop a relatively complete or sufficient understanding of its contents (see Appendix B for copies of recent advertisements). PhotoReading is not speed-reading, but rather claims to rely on an unconscious component of the mind.[…]
Conclusions
These results clearly indicate that there is no benefit to using the PhotoReading technique. The extremely rapid reading rates claimed by PhotoReaders were not observed; indeed the reading rates were generally comparable to those for normal reading. Moreover, the PhotoReading expert showed an increase in reading time with the PhotoReading technique in comparison to normal reading. This increase in reading time was accompanied by a decrease in text comprehension. These results were found for two standardized tests of text comprehension and for three matched sets of expository texts. The decrease in reading comprehension as result of using the PhotoReading technique also seemed to depend on question type. Comprehension accuracy decreased 30 percent on the conceptual questions as a result of using the PhotoReading technique, compared to a decrease of 10 percent on the text-based questions. This result makes sense in light of current theories of reading comprehension (i.e., Kintsch, 1998). Accordingly, comprehension on the text-based level requires less effort than does a deeper understanding reflected by performance on the conceptual questions (e.g., McNamara, Kintsch, Songer, & Kintsch, 1996; McNamam & Kintsch, 1996).