The Ikea Effect, or why digital is dangerous for photography

[hepcat]

Film does make me work slower.

That might be because I'm aware that I only have 24 or 36 shots inbetween having to take time out to change film, or it might be because mentally it's easier to make the connection to each shot costing x amount.

Whatever the reason, I notice a difference in my approach, I work fluidly with both, but differently with each.

I'm not trying to sound elitist here, but I don't "get" that at all. Why would you approach shooting differently just because you're changing media? What you've said above is that you value film more (for whatever reason) so you take more time with it? What about your digital images? Are they not as important? Are you suggesting that your approach with digital isn't as disciplined as your approach with film? I just don't understand why a change in medium (in small format) would dictate a different approach to shooting.

 

[BlackXList]

It's not at all that they're not important, I view both as equally important.

To be fair I should say that much of my digital is live music in low light, so being able to work quickly is very much of the essence, wheras 99% of my film work is available light, and not in such a compressed timeframe, (both of which are big plusses for digital).

It's entirely possible that the differences I'm aware of are because of purely psychological reasons as I said.

I wasn't meaning that I "value" film more than digital, I simply couldn't do large portions of my work on film, so I put great value in both.

Maybe it's easier to see each 24 - 36 shots on film in financial terms, just because the transactions are more frequent than with digital.

That doesn't mean I think it's worth more, just that I'm aware of there being a financial element more often with film than with digital, it's not necessarily totally logical, but I'm aware of it.

I've currently got a (work) set up so that my main film SLR and my main digital SLR are incredibly similar, the digital is full frame, so the focal lengths are the same on both, and I feel comfortable switching between them. I find both very comfortable to use, but for some reason they feel different (both feel good though).

 

[Ranchu]

I do agree that I don't slow down with film. Less gizmos to distract me and a medium I can be confident of the DR abilities helps. It's nice to know what I'll get before I take the picture, more or less. It's easier, not slower. I never think about what it costs, and try to make a judgment whether to take a picture on that basis. How alien! I do remember shooting a lot of digital pictures to see what it did, and shooting a lot to have more to pick from. Bleh.

 

[BlackXList]

I was thinking about this today, specifically the question that they're both small format, so what should the difference be?

The conclusion that I came to, was that as well as technical differences, (choosing ISO etc.) I shoot differently if I'm using colour film, than if I'm using b/w, both film, just a different thought process. same with film/digital.

 

[hepcat]

I was thinking about this today, specifically the question that they're both small format, so what should the difference be?

The conclusion that I came to, was that as well as technical differences, (choosing ISO etc.) I shoot differently if I'm using colour film, than if I'm using b/w, both film, just a different thought process. same with film/digital.

Ok, I'll bite... this is fascinating.

I'll grant you that you may visualize what you're shooting differently in b&w rather than color and perhaps even make decisions differently about what to shoot based on color or relative brightness... but what, specifically, do you actually do differently while shooting one or the other?

 

[rfaspen]

You know what? I was out shooting an old railroad site yesterday and had this in mind too. I became conscious of the way that I visualize and shoot to accomodate the one ISO film I had with me (100). Don't know if I slowed down one bit, but I was very cognizant of the ISO thing that's potentially quite different with digital. Not that this "difference" is news to any of us, but I was so much more aware of my own nuanced actions because of this thread.

What specifically is different about this? I learned years ago to manage depth of field using film, and instinctively think in this context. Now, with digital and the instant ability to change ISO, I can attempt variations of my DOF approach during a given "session" of shooting. That doesn't come naturally though -- quite a lot of years of film behind me 🙂 I suppose I'm used to working in the constraint of a single ISO and don't get too worked up about it as long as there's enough light for me to do *something*.

Am I making sense?

 

[hepcat]

You know what? I was out shooting an old railroad site yesterday and had this in mind too. I became conscious of the way that I visualize and shoot to accommodate the one ISO film I had with me (100). Don't know if I slowed down one bit, but I was very cognizant of the ISO thing that's potentially quite different with digital. Not that this "difference" is news to any of us, but I was so much more aware of my own nuanced actions because of this thread.

What specifically is different about this? I learned years ago to manage depth of field using film, and instinctively think in this context. Now, with digital and the instant ability to change ISO, I can attempt variations of my DOF approach during a given "session" of shooting. That doesn't come naturally though -- quite a lot of years of film behind me 🙂 I suppose I'm used to working in the constraint of a single ISO and don't get too worked up about it as long as there's enough light for me to do *something*.

Am I making sense?

That absolutely makes sense... my point, and one that you seem to lend credence to, is that it's not the recording media that forces the differences in the way we shoot something; but rather the considerations of DOF, point of focus, stopping (or blurring) action, and whether it's color or b&w. Having shot medium format with interchangeable backs for years, and having essentially the same options at my disposal immediately as we have with digital (variable ISO, color/b&w) I just don't see the difference in "shooting" that others report. I still select the lowest ISO possible for the scene giving consideration to DOF, and select the shutter speed I want based on how I want the scene/image to look. That pre-visualization is important though, and shooting it to that pre-visulization is almost impossible using any "program" mode where the camera controls some or all of those variables. I don't shoot digital any differently, and that also accounts for the depth of my frustration with DSLRs. That's why I'm curious to hear what other folks do differently in shooting with digital than film.

 

[BlackXList]

Ok, I'll bite... this is fascinating.

I'll grant you that you may visualize what you're shooting differently in b&w rather than color and perhaps even make decisions differently about what to shoot based on color or relative brightness... but what, specifically, do you actually do differently while shooting one or the other?

Well that's already a difference in how you're working, whether you find youself thinking "I have b/w in the camera, this shot has the colour as an important part of it, therefore it doesnt work with the b/w film I have in the camera".

It alters the way you think and therefore work, because it's one parameter, the format is the same, they're still small format.

The ISO issue is a good example.

As film users we like to talk about the intangibles and "feel" of film, I think that can work its way through to the person taking the photograph.

As far as interchangeable backs, my FF DSLR and the 35mm SLR I use are uncannily close, so the mechanics aren't that different, but for some reason, I feel differently using them.

For some reason, I enjoy film on the street more than I do crop sensor digital. I also enjoy digital compacts over crop sensor digital at the moment,

It's not necessarily logical, and not entirely technical, maybe it's my responses to the various connotations that is the real issue.

 

[gns]

Here's a different take on digital imaging and social media's effect on photography...
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Mass-exposure-why-museums-are-focusing-on-photography/32219

 

[MikeDimit]

About IKEA..Well I am trying to buy for years a bookcase . I was looking in all stores. Nope! Books are still in use, but you can buy only single bookshelf . Well, film is the same. It is in use but for the marketing mass of people it is something gone with the wind of change. That suits me as I can now buy cameras I was just dreaming. I think that shooting digital is more liberating as you can shoot and after that make a picture on a computer. With film you shoot only when you see the "picture" in advance.