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

NickTrop

NickTrop

Veteran
Local time
1:00 PM
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
3,078
View My Gallery
"I get more keepers with film" - and the logical fallacy of false causality.

This is clearly a flaw in logical reasoning and a classic example of the "false causality..." The false causality being, "Because I am shooting with film, I will have more keepers..."

False Causality
Any reasoning based on cause and effect in which the cause is not accurate. For example, assuming that a crying baby must be hungry, when it could be tired or uncomfortable.
http://www.education.com/definition/false-causality/

The reason you have "more keepers" when shooting with film, is that you take fewer pictures than when you shoot with (virtually unlimited) digital. Because you have significantly greater constraints in the number of pictures you take when you use film (by its very nature) in conjunction with the costs (including time) associated with processing and printing negatives, you are far more inclined to play it safe and experiment less than you shoot digital. You are far less inclined to "waste shots"... Thus, you "get more keepers" seemingly than when shooting digital. Film - in and of itself due to some implied property of film, however, isn't the "cause" of the "effect" of having more "keepers". You have more keepers because you're taking far fewer pictures and experimenting less, and "wasting" fewer frames than you do with digital. EDIT/ADD: The medium your shooting with, in and of itself, has nothing to do with the number of "keepers" you have.

I have thus ended the "I get more keepers with film" argument once and for all by exposing it as a flaw in reasoning and have categorized it correctly as a "false causality". I am correct in this matter - as I am in all matters. The extent to which you disagree with me is directly proportionate to the degree to which you are incorrect regarding this matter.
 
Last edited:
"experimenting less"?

hmm, not sure about that one.

"fewer pictures"?

not my experience.

"constraints... play it safe"?

the medium doesn't "constrain" me. the image is there, i take it. no unlimited amount of frames is going to change that. the image is there, the image isn't there. simple.

what you are saying seems to have an air of "spray and pray"?
 
NickTrop said:
I have thus ended the "I get more keepers with film" argument once and for all by exposing it as a flaw in reasoning and have categorized it correctly as a "false causality". I am correct in this matter - as I am in all matters. The extent to which you disagree with me is directly proportionate to the degree to which you are incorrect regarding this matter.
Click to expand...

Well isn't that nice. If there is nothing left to debate, why post this in a forum?
 
GoneSavage said:
Well isn't that nice. If there is nothing left to debate, why post this in a forum?
Click to expand...

There are those who apparently enjoy reveling in their wrongness (loudly in the case of Republicans) or like exercises in futility. Their prerogative. I judge them not, despite their wrongness...
 
Considering how many people read Ken Rockwell's every word like its gospel, you won't ever come slightly close to ending this one.

I actually got into film in part to waste fewer shots. I'd say I personally am getting more keepers that I did with digital, but that would be down to experience since I started shooting film. I even think the idea of shooting film during the learning process has gotten me thinking more about the shot before I take it, if I was to go digital at this point I don't see myself getting back into the old spray and pray methodology of shooting that I adopted. Had I been shooting digital all along, I reckon that habit wouldn't have changed. So perhaps in this case film has helped me "get more keepers", but again I'm not attributing it to any quality of film, more the process I've developed from shooting film.

I wouldn't say I experiment less at all with film, however.
 
NickTrop said:
This is clearly a flaw in logical reasoning and a classic example of the "false causality..." The false causality being, "Because I am shooting with film, I will have more keepers..."

False Causality
Any reasoning based on cause and effect in which the cause is not accurate. For example, assuming that a crying baby must be hungry, when it could be tired or uncomfortable.
http://www.education.com/definition/false-causality/

The reason you have "more keepers" when shooting with film, is that you take fewer pictures than when you shoot with (virtually unlimited) digital. Because you have significantly greater constraints in the number of pictures you take when you use film (by its very nature) in conjunction with the costs (including time) associated with processing and printing negatives, you are far more inclined to play it safe and experiment less than you shoot digital. You are far less inclined to "waste shots"... Thus, you "get more keepers" seemingly than when shooting digital. Film - in and of itself due to some implied property of film, however, isn't the "cause" of the "effect" of having more "keepers". You have more keepers because you're taking far fewer pictures and experimenting less, and "wasting" fewer frames than you do with digital.

I have thus ended the "I get more keepers with film" argument once and for all by exposing it as a flaw in reasoning and have categorized it correctly as a "false causality". I am correct in this matter - as I am in all matters. The extent to which you disagree with me is directly proportionate to the degree to which you are incorrect regarding this matter.
Click to expand...

I shoot Both Digi D3, D3x and D700, M9 plus the lenses that compliment them for some of my pro work and Film for when I think it makes more sense.
As one of the better episodes of Star Trek (TNG) implies 'The best of both worlds'.
 
Is it somehow more noble to get "the" image in 10 shots rather than 100 shots? It's the image that matters, after all. Jim Nachtwey has been quoted as saying, "Think of each frame as a piece of sculpture. Walk around it. Take into account its dimensionality. See it from all angles."

I like to work around a subject given the opportunity, shoot it from many angles, many directions, distances. Every shot is another opportunity to create something unique. If that takes 100 exposures, so what? With digital you can take 1,000 as easily and more cheaply than 10 on film.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Is it somehow more noble to get "the" image in 10 shots rather than 100 shots? It's the image that matters, after all. Jim Nachtwey has been quoted as saying, "Think of each frame as a piece of sculpture. Walk around it. Take into account its dimensionality. See it from all angles."

I like to work around a subject given the opportunity, shoot it from many angles, many directions, distances. Every shot is another opportunity to create something unique. If that takes 100 exposures, so what? With digital you can take 1,000 as easily and more cheaply than 10 on film.
Click to expand...

by no means am i implying any method is more "noble" and i am not Nachtwey. for me the image appears and you either get it or you don't... no amount of hammering away will make it come back. this is of course ONLY what works for me.

we are not that far off, i also spend a great deal of time working on angles and fields of view. important pieces... but the meat and gravy is usually found in 2-3 frames at best for me.

i suppose it would be prudent to start my own collection of quotes should i ever become important enough.

quote 1 - do what works for ya'
 
NickTrop said:
There are those who apparently enjoy reveling in their wrongness (loudly in the case of Republicans) or like exercises in futility. Their prerogative. I judge them not, despite their wrongness...
Click to expand...

You have overlooked the principal that absolute statements are always wrong.

My personal favorite is "x camera makes me slow down and think more about composition/color/framing/exposure."

The slowed mental activity is caused by the interaction of zinc alloy castings and spocky vulcanite body coverings generating alpha waves transmitted through the finger tips to the brain. Or to whatever photographers think with.
 
I have exposed the "I get more keepers when I shoot film..." as logically flawed reasoning. The medium you chose to shoot with has nothing to do with the "number of keepers" you may or may not have. It is a false causality. Effective immediately, please DO NOT use this as one of the reasons you shoot with film. There may be other reasons to use film, of course, just don't use this reason. I have retired this as a justification for using film due to its inherent silliness. Thank you.
 
NickTrop said:
TI am correct in this matter - as I am in all matters. The extent to which you disagree with me is directly proportionate to the degree to which you are incorrect regarding this matter.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, I remember your using this phrase when explaining why the Samsung NX10 was better than any other camera. How are you getting on with it?

You argument, by the way, is fallacious. For one thing, it omits the placebo effect. If a photographer thinks he will take more keepers with a film camera, it is possible for this belief to affect his mental state, and therefore s/he will achieve more keepers.
 
Are we talking about "keepers" as a percentage of pictures taken or something else? Let's say I get five keepers per day shooting film but only one shooting digital, regardless of how many photographs I take in either format. Does your logical fallacy of false causality argument hold up?
 
But you're applying logical reasoning to an equation that is not logical. If people do indeed get more keepers with film, you can't dispute it--it's true. The reasons for its being true might involve a certain amount of self-deception, but so does most successful art. Indeed, imposing limitations on oneself that, to outside analysis, might seem arbitrary and irrational, is responsible for all kinds of inspiration. "I shoot better when I'm working on a project." "I take better pictures in black and white." "I prefer rangefinders over SLRs." It's all voluntary limitation.

Some people DO get more keepers with film. You write:

Film - in and of itself due to some implied property of film, however, isn't the "cause" of the "effect" of having more "keepers".
Click to expand...

Nobody's saying it's any inherent quality of film that creates this effect. It might be more specific for these photographers to say, "The way I feel when I'm using a film camera inspires me to employ working methods which result, for me anyway, in a higher number of good photos."

You might not have any respect for these kinds of psychological games, but they exist, and their effects are real.

Not for me--I shoot pretty much the same way with either medium. But for some people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom