The Ikea Effect, or why digital is dangerous for photography

[willie_901]

Golly!

I was intending to make the exact opposite point to the way you seem to have taken it.

If people choose to use digital rather than chemical photography, that's just fine by me. I make roughly a thousand digital images to each chemical image, so I'm certainly not going to rubbish digital.

My apologies. I regret being ambiguous. I was referring to the original blog post. I agree completely with what you wrote.

Again, I apologize for my sloppy sentence (leaving out the words original blog) that caused you concern.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Again, I apologize for my sloppy sentence (leaving out the words original blog) that caused you concern.

No problemo. 😀

 

[mfogiel]

Lots of interesting comments. Thank you.
Personally, my take home points are:
- we are lousy at editing our own work, and the more effort we put in it, the more difficult the editing
- photography in sense of the sheer quantity of images taken, is changing into "instagraphy". While instagraphy could be easier than film, ( so you get less enamoured with the shot) at the base of it lies a more compulsive and immediate process, so it is even less likely to be properly edited
- creating a distance between your shot and the final output helps creating better images, or perhaps it's better said - helps eliminate worse images
- contrary to many comments above, all this confirms, that the process is secondary, and the output is primary, but the faster the process the more difficult is arriving at a well chosen output
Finally - who can point us to some great stories about outstanding photo editors?

 

[Bille]

I've written a short article in my blog, about the psychological mechanism that makes editing photographs difficult. I hope you will enjoy it, and I've no doubt there will be many different opinions about it:

http://mondoinbiancoenero.com/the-ikea-effect-or-why-digital-is-dangerous-for-photography/

Good read, thank you

 

[BlackXList]

I completely agree that it's exceptionally difficult to be truly objective about your own work, and I think that often it's factors external to the image that can affect the way you feel about the images.

However, I don't find that I'm inflating my opinon of my own work, exactly the opposite ni fact.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...
Finally - who can point us to some great stories about outstanding photo editors?

"the Print", I guess.

Not a story, but this is one of the very few available examples of modern editing done with talent, professionalism and taste.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fiddleoak/

 

[jesse1dog]

"the Print", I guess.

Not a story, but this is one of the very few available examples of modern editing done with talent, professionalism and taste.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fiddleoak/

I think I must be going to the wrong link here!
What 'editing'?
And not too many photos I wish I had taken either!

jesse

 

[Mcary]

I wonder if the early cave guys who drew on the walls with charcoal had the same feeling about that newfangled stuff called "Paint"?

Anyone can grab a bunch of berries and smear them on the wall of their cave and call it art. Working with charcoal that takes a real artist.

 

[charjohncarter]

I can't remember his name (I remembered Henry Wessel:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH3gcTzofX0 ) right now but I think he doesn't print any negatives until at least a year has past. In my own case I have negatives that I have not viewed ever and some are 40+ years old. When I do print one, I think I only like them because they are old photos and have some nostalgic feeling.

As to Dr. Airely, I remember reading a study that found that people that are incompetent consider themselves superior workers. While the best workers are always critical of their own work.

 

[hlockwood]

"the Print", I guess.

Not a story, but this is one of the very few available examples of modern editing done with talent, professionalism and taste.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fiddleoak/

I think I must be going to the wrong link here!
What 'editing'?
And not too many photos I wish I had taken either!

jesse

I'm with you jesse. Very few shots there that I would have liked to own. For me it is "the print."

My "proofs" are ~10x15 prints made with Cone K7 (grayscale) inks on archival paper. They sit for a time in archival sleeves waiting to be trashed or adopted and framed.

HFL

 

[noisycheese]

...The passage between making a photograph and showcasing it has become instantaneous.... The world is drowning in sharp but utterly banal snaps...

In other words, digital photography technology has made it much more easy for the shallow, the talentless and those with no photographic vision to quickly produce and display crappy photographs.

Why anyone with a love for photography and a commitment to producing work with arresting visual impact of enduring value would consider this arrangement a threat to their photographic efforts is beyond me.

... Everybody has mistaken technically acceptable pictures for good ones...

Not everyone - just the clueless, visually shallow masses who do not understand or care about impeccable imagery.

Again, why anyone with a love for photography and a commitment to producing work with arresting visual impact of enduring value would consider this arrangement a threat to their photograpic efforts is beyond me.

The late David Vestal said it best:

"Compensating for lack of skill with technology is progress toward mediocrity. As technology advances, craftsmanship recedes. As technology increases our possibilities, we use them less resourcefully. The one thing we've gained is spontaneity, which is useless without perception."

Photography is like anything else: The wheat will separate itself from the chaff. That is inevitable.

Moral of the story? Work your ass off. Continually hone your skills, your vision, your images, your portfolio. This will take years on end of dedication and work. There are no short cuts. It is the only way your images, your prints will be among the wheat rather than the chaff. Let the talentless masses produce crappy photographs by the trillions. Demand more of yourself. Aspire to a higher calling.

 

[Ranchu]

- contrary to many comments above, all this confirms, that the process is secondary, and the output is primary, but the faster the process the more difficult is arriving at a well chosen output

Contrarywise, I really don't agree that waiting to look at the files it is going to make digital look any more like film, and despite all the protestations we hear, it can't be faked well any more than rarely. I also think this primary/secondary thing you've got going here is a false dichotomy. It's a problem trying to reduce aesthetics to words and then form the words into logic, and then assume that the result of that means something about aesthetics again.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

It's a problem trying to reduce aesthetics to words and then form the words into logic, and then assume that the result of that means something about aesthetics again.

Ah, yes, the declension of "aesthetics"...

What I like, exhibits the finest standards of aesthetic quality.
What you like, is popular with the herd.
What he, she or it likes, is rubbish.

:angel:

 

[Ranchu]

I didn't say any of that, but as you like.

 

[shadowfox]

I like the article, the pictures, and the points.
Nice writing, Marek.

I'm "marinating" a couple of rolls myself 🙂

 

[shadowfox]

So, when editing digital you only edit right after making the photo? You can never possibly wait to edit it until a few months later?

I think the point is: How many digital shooters wait months to edit their images?

I'd guess a very low percentage of the population.

 

[gns]

I think the point is: How many digital shooters wait months to edit their images?

I'd guess a very low percentage of the population.

As with film.

This has nothing to do with digital (or film). If you want to postpone looking at your pictures (digital or film), you obviously can. If you would like to, but find you just can't wait, that's about you, not the process you chose.

 

[hepcat]

I think the point is: How many digital shooters wait months to edit their images?

I'd guess a very low percentage of the population.

As with film.

This has nothing to do with digital (or film). If you want to postpone looking at your pictures (digital or film), you obviously can. If you would like to, but find you just can't wait, that's about you, not the process you chose.

And other than "I don't want to," there's no reason to shoot digital any differently than film, yet folks say "film forces me to slow down."

In the words of the inimitable Col. Sherman T. Potter: "Horse-hockey! Whether it's at the computer, in the darkroom, or shooting, it's about discipline, knowing what you wanted the image to look like, and working to make it look like your vision.

 

[rfaspen]

yet folks say "film forces me to slow down."

That *is* horse-hockey. Whenever I read that, I think its because the "film user" is talking about large format. In that case, I do work slower than I do with a 35 rangefinder. But, is that due to film or format? How quickly do folks with a digital back on their studio view work?

In the words of the inimitable Col. Sherman T. Potter: "Horse-hockey! Whether it's at the computer, in the darkroom, or shooting, it's about discipline, knowing what you wanted the image to look like, and working to make it look like your vision.

...and that's hard (in my most annoying whining voice).😉

 

[BlackXList]

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.