"I get more keepers with film" - and the logical fallacy of false causality.

Steve M. said:
Like that Dylan song "we all saw the same thing, we just saw it from a different point of view".
Click to expand...

There is a difference between seeing something from a "different point of view" and seeing something that "isn't there". The former is acceptable, the latter may mean you need meds or to be institutionalized.
 
Sometimes self imposed limits have away of teaching one patience. In a world that's rushing hell bent for leather into oblivion, I need an occassional exit ramp where I can water the horse, pick it's hooves, and just have a moment to gander at what the heck I've been rushing past at a full gallop.

Film and it's limitations of just how many frames are in a roll offer me that exercise in patience. Before I get crucified by this site's pharisees and sadducees - notice I said "me." I didn't say "you" or "everyone" or "all." With a 6 x 9 folder, a light meter, an auxillary rangefinder, and a roll of 120 - I have small number of shots to play with and hopefully have them turn out how my eye perceives the scene. Then there's the shear pleasure in the exercise of patience in taking a roll of film and personally developing it. The anticipation of the developed image on the roll as it is drying is part of the joy. Perhaps all or some of the shots turned out or maybe I got them all wrong. For me it isn't the fact of getting there that's important - it's the trail "I" traveled to get there.

Too much of my life has been spent hurling down the road at a high rate of speed that's dictated by a lead pony. This road is one road traveled at the gait dictated by me and it's a nice day for leisurely trail ride.
 
Last edited:
The original post whilst perhaps empirically correct for some, is not logically so; at least not in the way argued (even with the most charitable reading). The argument is a non sequiter, unsound and invalid. To try and claim otherwise is clearly foolish.
 
NickTrop said:
You are advocating "relativism", you know. Are you sure you want to go there?
Click to expand...

Only in so far as each of individual has a different set of skills and different experience to draw on.

Clearly it is absurd to to contend that the same solution can be prescribed for each individual don't you think?

It's like suggesting the quickest way to the post office is by bicycle to someone who cannot ride one, no?
 
Ah yes, I see what you are doing. Very clever. You won't fool my like that again. You evil genius you! Can't believe I even entered into this debate. Luckily I've got the cogito to keep me sane.
 
NickTrop said:
Sparrow - I went to film exclusively (at an early age too, it's all that was available), to digital (my only camera broke, digital was "what was in... in the early 2000's), to film (preferred the film look, digital was still evolving, high-end cameras that were "as good as film" were out of my price range and would obviously be obsolete in rapid time, good film cameras and lenses were downright cheap on the used market), now to both since the cost of really good digital cameras has come down in price, IQ quality has improved, and their obsolescence factor has (like PCs) stabilized. I'm only being honest based on my experience. There is no "higher keeper" ratio based on some magical properties of whatever medium you're using. Automation has made digital cameras easy to use, in fact easier if you did a "motion study", as any manual film camera with the same level of control, and the "menu" futzing is largely myth. I held the same bias/myth but now I see it differently.
Click to expand...

Nick:

How's the new Samsung working out! You sure stirred the pot here. Some of the newer folks don't get it, but give them time! :D
 
JeffGreene said:
Nick:

How's the new Samsung working out! You sure stirred the pot here. Some of the newer folks don't get it, but give them time! :D
Click to expand...

Jeff -

Howya doing? I ended up buying the Nikon D5000 with 35mm f1.8 prime over the Samsung (which still isn't released in the US to my knowledge...) That's a post for another day.... (Short answer, the NX is on the right track and if I wasn't planning to use it for motion capture I would have went with it. But I like the way the D5000 implemented their video capture a lot better... When I heard Nikon made a reasonably priced 35mm f1.8 prime for it, I went with that instead...)

Best,

Nick
 
After a further charitable reading of the original post, I now attempt to clarify the argument. Feel free to correct as appropriate.

You are attempting to disprove the argument:

"Because I am shooting with film, I get more keepers..."
(my bold and italics)

I take this to be:

"The ratio of shots I value, to the ones I don't (which I may or may not keep), is higher when I shoot film compared to digital."

I think you concede that this may well be true but, and critically in your view, this is not due to the inherent attributes of film over digital.

The attributes of film that you cite are:
Film is limited
Costly (I'm guessing you mean buying and processing etc)
Time consuming (again in terms of processing etc)

You then go onto claim that this means:

"...you play it safe and experiment less (with film compared to digital)...Thus you get more keepers".

Digital is limited in these same attributes, but for the sake of argument, we agree that its not as limited/costly or time consuming.

You conclude that the limitation of film are not the cause of the effect of having a higher ratio of valued shots.

So, I take your argument to be:

"With film you get more shots you value as a ratio of the number of shots you take, but this isn't due to the inherent nature of film"

So, the argument really turns on:

"Are the attributes (more costly, time consuming etc) you claim are the limiting nature of film, an inherent property?"

A limiting nature of Gold is its rarity. Perhaps the constraints of film, contribute to its inherent nature?
 
Nick,
In FACT, I KNOW that the number of keepers is inversely proportional to number of flickr pages viewed. This is the "Its Been Done Before" effect.

Regarding the "Film effect", since a random selection of flickr images shows roughly equal numbers technologically unidentified as those purported to be made with film or silicon, I'd agree that it doesn't matter.

My preferences? I use film because putting it in and taking it out of a black camera in front of strangers makes me look extremely cool, and artistic. I use digital when I want to impress the Gen Xers (or whatever letter we're up to now).
Jamie
 
NickTrop said:
You are advocating "relativism", you know. Are you sure you want to go there?
Click to expand...

Only in so far as each of individual has a different set of skills and different experience to draw on.

Clearly it is absurd to to contend that the same solution can be prescribed for each individual don't you think?

It's like suggesting the quickest way to the post office is by bicycle to someone who cannot ride one, no?




PS Did I miss your reply Nick?
 
All I have to say now is.......


beatdeadhorseh.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top