Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Nick,
No you haven't, because it's anecdotal, not logical. As soon as 'logic' is invoked, one can either accept or reject the premises, but it is perfectly possible to draw a logical conclusion from a false premise.
'Silliness' may as readly be a view of the premise as of the logic, but I really don't think you can dismiss the argument (such as it is).
Another premise/argument is "I get more keepers with film because each transparency is (perceived as) a tangible store of value and I am therefore more unwilling to throw away marginal pictures than I am to delete them from my hard drive."
By that line of reasoning, I too get more 'keepers', for a given value of 'keeper'. It's just that the values of 'keeper' are different.
EDIT: By way of agreeing with you, if people REALLY believed the 'slow down' and 'higher cost' arguments they'd switch to 11x14 inch or bigger. Most reductionist arguments are easily destroyed by a reductio ad absurdum.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
It is more noble when one can capture a wedding with 500-600 film shots instead of having to sift through 1500-2500 spray and pray shots to get the same thing. Saves time.
Paul T.
Veteran
True,
Not that I want to encourage Nick and his rather pompous trolling... but a friend last week had been working on a shoot with Nick Knight.
He shoots everything on a Red camera - ie, digital high resolution video. Thousands upon thousands of frames. THen he selects his keepers from there. Welcome to the brave new world.
peterm1
Veteran
The number of keepers as a % of images shot is not the issue. In a digital world the marginal cost per image is effectively zero. All that matters is the number of keepers and their quality as effectively they are costless.
I have no doubt that I am a better photographer with digital. I have learnt more in the past 18 months of shooting digital seriously, than I did in the preceeding 15 years of shooting only film seriously. The ability to take more shots, virtually at no cost, combined with instant feedback gives me immediate opportunity to learn and improve my technique, which I am convinced I have done.
Did I have more keepers in percentage terms with film? Not sure really and I do not care! I certainly did not have more in total even though since shooting digital my standards for what is a keeper have become much tougher.
I also know it cost me a motza to shoot only film and that by the time I had processed the results I had totally forgotten the settings I used. And of course, the cost per image was around $1 by the time you factor in film cost, developing and printing. In fact to be accurate, by the time you factor in the thrown away cost of all the images that were not keepers, the cost per keeper was probably more like $5-$10 per image kept and used. OUCH! Thats just not reasonable when there is an alternative. I am happy to shoot film now and then but I cannot see myself ever going back to it as as my main source of photography.
Moreover, the ability to get good full resolution digital images straight from the camera, means I have been able to learn how to post-process my images properly, (somehting that was never an option for me wiht film) thus improving the quality of my photographic output even more. When I have shot film and had it scanned in the hope that I can get the best of both worlds, my film lab only offers to scan at a near useless 1000 x 800 maximum resolution unless I pay even more for higher resolution, so even this route is not really tenable.
I have no doubt that excpet for occasional use, digital is a better option. It is cheaper and gives me much better results. If you are one of the lucky few who can shoot film and reliably get good results then good luck. I am not.
I have no doubt that I am a better photographer with digital. I have learnt more in the past 18 months of shooting digital seriously, than I did in the preceeding 15 years of shooting only film seriously. The ability to take more shots, virtually at no cost, combined with instant feedback gives me immediate opportunity to learn and improve my technique, which I am convinced I have done.
Did I have more keepers in percentage terms with film? Not sure really and I do not care! I certainly did not have more in total even though since shooting digital my standards for what is a keeper have become much tougher.
I also know it cost me a motza to shoot only film and that by the time I had processed the results I had totally forgotten the settings I used. And of course, the cost per image was around $1 by the time you factor in film cost, developing and printing. In fact to be accurate, by the time you factor in the thrown away cost of all the images that were not keepers, the cost per keeper was probably more like $5-$10 per image kept and used. OUCH! Thats just not reasonable when there is an alternative. I am happy to shoot film now and then but I cannot see myself ever going back to it as as my main source of photography.
Moreover, the ability to get good full resolution digital images straight from the camera, means I have been able to learn how to post-process my images properly, (somehting that was never an option for me wiht film) thus improving the quality of my photographic output even more. When I have shot film and had it scanned in the hope that I can get the best of both worlds, my film lab only offers to scan at a near useless 1000 x 800 maximum resolution unless I pay even more for higher resolution, so even this route is not really tenable.
I have no doubt that excpet for occasional use, digital is a better option. It is cheaper and gives me much better results. If you are one of the lucky few who can shoot film and reliably get good results then good luck. I am not.
Last edited:
viridari
Photon Recovery Agent
I'm not even a Republican but trying to drag partisan politics into this pretty much killed any chance of taking this seriously.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
There is something ALWAYS
Absurd, Arrogant & Vain
in Nick's 'Way of Thinking'
......
Cheers- H
Absurd, Arrogant & Vain
in Nick's 'Way of Thinking'
......
Cheers- H
abenner
undecided
I don't know if I agree with the argument or not, I don't particularly care much one way or the other, but to me the premise of the argument is flawed. The statement "I get more keepers with film" which begins the thread is entirely different than the statement "because I am shooting with film, I will have more keepers," which seems to be the logic that is being challenged.
It seems to me that even accepting that Nick's argument is in fact true, the statement "I get more keepers with film," can also remain just as true.
It seems to me that even accepting that Nick's argument is in fact true, the statement "I get more keepers with film," can also remain just as true.
remegius
Well-known
Nick, you are a piece of work. One of the great joys of this forum is to see you throw out the line and then watch all of the fish bite. Do NOT stop doing that.
Cheers...
Rem
R
ruben
Guest
In my opinion Nick has borrowed my Lonely RFF Member Living Up There In The Hills, i,e, those like me who have to pay film in full cash and therefore have less budget to invest. But let us not forget there are, or there were at the time, successfully world touring paid photographers, who got their film for free, and a generous budget for processing, paid by their editors.
I know it from the time I was processing their films in Jerusalem at a time that BW film processing started to become highly expensive and no one was ready to put up a quality processing service in Jerusalem, despite the fact that from time to time those dandys of Photography were leaving in my darkroom over thousand dollars in processing only.
And you may know that simple local newspaper folks two decades ago, they also enjoyed from free film and free processing.
And quite interesting was to look at the negatives of my overseas folks, because they all have it in common: first they grabbed with accuracy what they felt it is the decisive moment, the right angle, the right subject, etc, etc. And then they machine gunned it with half a roll !!!!
Of course I was curious in observing if there was any difference between frame and frame since they don't used to change so much the angle of view. The only default difference being the time between frame and frame. And there were differences, which having the budget you would not like to miss.
Think. What could be the "keepers" of a National Photography guy ? 1 per thousand shots ? perhaps less. Less "keepers".
So when we start the comparizon, lets' put both mediums on a starting equal footing, becuase we are, in my opinion, up to something here.
If I can imagine now any of those guys with free budgets, (one or two of them left me dozens of unused rolls of film), how many "keepers" they had then and they have now, I would say that their ratio continues to be the same. But they have went digital - do you have any idea why ?
I would tell my opinion about why: time first of all. Time includes the fact that the Digital Camera is a more developed camera than the Film AF SLR Camera, who in turn is a more developed instrument than our beloved Rangefinder Camera, nonstanding the fact that Rebbie Cartier Bresson preached about the sin of the SLR camera saying it is a machine gun, not a camera. Fantastic an Anarquist!
Time is versatility, expressing itself in your ability to watch at the final image immidately after clicking and all the other features there is no need to repeat here.
Now you can always bring me as an example those hunky banky chapachula wedding photographers who machine gun a wedding like Rambo in the Jungle. Kindly don't - show some pitty for those who honestly deserve it.
Because the argument about "keepers" is a self defensive and confusing lie from the corners of film users, who turn their backs on technological development. I am not saying that each film user is a retarded mind, no and no. But some of them lack the wisdom to reckognize evolution (and this happens in all fields, not just in our photographic church) without fear. The unlogical fear of feeling obsolete.
Many lack the wisdom to say "fine, I do accept that the digital camera is a superior camera, but I myself prefer film or film cameras because x,y, z"
And the photographic church, be it said in its favour, is quite tolerant in every direction. It also accepts the mith that a digital camera must ensure a better result just because it is advanced Technology, without analysing and evaluating.
I myself have repeated it over and over that in my humble opinion the end result of film after high class manual printing will always win over any of those new printers. And I am specially gratefull to have had the luck that an acquintance showed me her paid big enlarged color manual printed prints (you imagine the price) and I was astonished, nothing less.
Because evolution, in every field, is always full of contradictions and complexities. There is always two steps forwards and one backwards and the opposite too. And it is precisely because of the contradictory way of evolution that we find those pleasure niches for manufacturing again folding film cameras, rangefinder film cameras and the soups of rangefinder and digitals. Evolution is mutlifacetic, there is a place for everyone.
But the superiority of the Digital Camera over the film camera is not to be ignored, just because we can make better prints at our home darkroom than those we can do from a digital file. This concept is a dead end I wish for my enemies only.
Because if you cannot machine gun images only due to your budget and time, but otherwise you would, then your problem is not the medium but your apprioach. You can use a Digital Camera to machine gun images, without any reason and then you have waisted your time.
But you can take advantage of the "free budget" Digital Camera to shoot more, free of time/budget constrains and improve more and more - how otherwise are you supposed to improve if not by the mounting experience ?
Why do you fail to grasp that the capability to gather more experience provided by the "free budget" Digital Camera is a step forwards ?
Why you ignore this superiority bringing to absurd example those hunky banky chapachula wedding photographers who machine gun a wedding like Rambo in the Jungle ?
What I am saying also implies the contrary from what my good friend Nick is saying. I say that unless you belong to the free budget free time strata, you are more likely to get much more "keepers" with Digital. Because for all its problems, the Digital Camera is a superior camera.
Cheers,
Ruben
I know it from the time I was processing their films in Jerusalem at a time that BW film processing started to become highly expensive and no one was ready to put up a quality processing service in Jerusalem, despite the fact that from time to time those dandys of Photography were leaving in my darkroom over thousand dollars in processing only.
And you may know that simple local newspaper folks two decades ago, they also enjoyed from free film and free processing.
And quite interesting was to look at the negatives of my overseas folks, because they all have it in common: first they grabbed with accuracy what they felt it is the decisive moment, the right angle, the right subject, etc, etc. And then they machine gunned it with half a roll !!!!
Of course I was curious in observing if there was any difference between frame and frame since they don't used to change so much the angle of view. The only default difference being the time between frame and frame. And there were differences, which having the budget you would not like to miss.
Think. What could be the "keepers" of a National Photography guy ? 1 per thousand shots ? perhaps less. Less "keepers".
So when we start the comparizon, lets' put both mediums on a starting equal footing, becuase we are, in my opinion, up to something here.
If I can imagine now any of those guys with free budgets, (one or two of them left me dozens of unused rolls of film), how many "keepers" they had then and they have now, I would say that their ratio continues to be the same. But they have went digital - do you have any idea why ?
I would tell my opinion about why: time first of all. Time includes the fact that the Digital Camera is a more developed camera than the Film AF SLR Camera, who in turn is a more developed instrument than our beloved Rangefinder Camera, nonstanding the fact that Rebbie Cartier Bresson preached about the sin of the SLR camera saying it is a machine gun, not a camera. Fantastic an Anarquist!
Time is versatility, expressing itself in your ability to watch at the final image immidately after clicking and all the other features there is no need to repeat here.
Now you can always bring me as an example those hunky banky chapachula wedding photographers who machine gun a wedding like Rambo in the Jungle. Kindly don't - show some pitty for those who honestly deserve it.
Because the argument about "keepers" is a self defensive and confusing lie from the corners of film users, who turn their backs on technological development. I am not saying that each film user is a retarded mind, no and no. But some of them lack the wisdom to reckognize evolution (and this happens in all fields, not just in our photographic church) without fear. The unlogical fear of feeling obsolete.
Many lack the wisdom to say "fine, I do accept that the digital camera is a superior camera, but I myself prefer film or film cameras because x,y, z"
And the photographic church, be it said in its favour, is quite tolerant in every direction. It also accepts the mith that a digital camera must ensure a better result just because it is advanced Technology, without analysing and evaluating.
I myself have repeated it over and over that in my humble opinion the end result of film after high class manual printing will always win over any of those new printers. And I am specially gratefull to have had the luck that an acquintance showed me her paid big enlarged color manual printed prints (you imagine the price) and I was astonished, nothing less.
Because evolution, in every field, is always full of contradictions and complexities. There is always two steps forwards and one backwards and the opposite too. And it is precisely because of the contradictory way of evolution that we find those pleasure niches for manufacturing again folding film cameras, rangefinder film cameras and the soups of rangefinder and digitals. Evolution is mutlifacetic, there is a place for everyone.
But the superiority of the Digital Camera over the film camera is not to be ignored, just because we can make better prints at our home darkroom than those we can do from a digital file. This concept is a dead end I wish for my enemies only.
Because if you cannot machine gun images only due to your budget and time, but otherwise you would, then your problem is not the medium but your apprioach. You can use a Digital Camera to machine gun images, without any reason and then you have waisted your time.
But you can take advantage of the "free budget" Digital Camera to shoot more, free of time/budget constrains and improve more and more - how otherwise are you supposed to improve if not by the mounting experience ?
Why do you fail to grasp that the capability to gather more experience provided by the "free budget" Digital Camera is a step forwards ?
Why you ignore this superiority bringing to absurd example those hunky banky chapachula wedding photographers who machine gun a wedding like Rambo in the Jungle ?
What I am saying also implies the contrary from what my good friend Nick is saying. I say that unless you belong to the free budget free time strata, you are more likely to get much more "keepers" with Digital. Because for all its problems, the Digital Camera is a superior camera.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
andredossantos
Well-known
Wait, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed so let me ask for a clarification. If I shoot 36 frames of digital and 36 frames of film and get more keepers with film over a long period of time wouldn't this mean that I do indeed get more keepers with film?
In actuality, I think that film reinforces "good" habits and it's simply a matter of putting those habits to good use no matter what medium you choose. "Read" the light, be deliberate, don't machine gun for no reason, etc
The amount of keepers for me is sometimes more with digital but mostly more with film. I don't think this is because I am better with film per say but that my sample size with both is not sufficiently large. In the long run it would even out, I'm sure.
In actuality, I think that film reinforces "good" habits and it's simply a matter of putting those habits to good use no matter what medium you choose. "Read" the light, be deliberate, don't machine gun for no reason, etc
The amount of keepers for me is sometimes more with digital but mostly more with film. I don't think this is because I am better with film per say but that my sample size with both is not sufficiently large. In the long run it would even out, I'm sure.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
This thread is interesting on various levels. First, some posters apparently either failed to recognize, or else chose not to recognize, the tongue-in cheek, playful nature of Nick's claims of his own infallibility. Mock arrogance, I'm sure! Then we have Joe Brugger making the absolute statement that absolute statements are always wrong. Reminds me of "This statement is false." (If it is false, then it's true, which makes it false . . . no, true.) I'll bet Joe was fully aware of the paradox, and thought he'd beat Nick at his own irony.
So . . . the logicians have had their run. I'm expecting a statistician now, to tell us that in order to validate or invalidate the proposition that you get more keepers one way or the other, we will require multiple observations across 50 photographers. Half of them will shoot film, the other digital. Then the experiment will be repeated in counterbalanced order, with the digital group switching to film, and the film group switching to digital. Probably should have a control group, as well. Not sure what they would be doing. Finally, the results must be analyzed using analysis of variance; analysis of covariance; stepwise multiple regression; and factor analysis.
Raid, where are you, buddy? Feel like chiming in?
So . . . the logicians have had their run. I'm expecting a statistician now, to tell us that in order to validate or invalidate the proposition that you get more keepers one way or the other, we will require multiple observations across 50 photographers. Half of them will shoot film, the other digital. Then the experiment will be repeated in counterbalanced order, with the digital group switching to film, and the film group switching to digital. Probably should have a control group, as well. Not sure what they would be doing. Finally, the results must be analyzed using analysis of variance; analysis of covariance; stepwise multiple regression; and factor analysis.
Raid, where are you, buddy? Feel like chiming in?
pagpow
Well-known
Say, Nick.... go fishing much?
Thanks for posting this, it resulted in an amusing read ...
I'm with dave.
Giorgio
I always get sooo confused between casual thinking and causal thinking.
PS Were you by any chance at the Council of Trent?
mwooten
light user
this is hurting my brain
R
ruben
Guest
Yes, you are right in that YOU indeed get more keepers with film, and no sin is involved.
But there is a great difference between the habits and skills of a single individual, and the evaluation of types of cameras and mediums. Your case, which will be always legitimate, does not implicate anything else than your case or my case.
We are talking here about whether X is X, or X doesn't exists and every one is nothing else than an individual case, which is equal to say that X does not exists.
But you still owe to the thread an evaluation about camera development, or at least about the general convenience of mediums, each one with its strengths and weaknesses.
You still owe to the thread to diferentiate your specific case and elevate yourself above it, in order to look at the valley from the height of the mountain and tell us what you see.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
There is another reason the thesis may or may not be true (assuming there is any value here other than Nick's entertainment value) rather than digital vs. film. Anyone want to guess?
mgd711
Medium Format Baby!!
hlockwood
Well-known
FrankS
Registered User
Classic Nick!
-doomed-
film is exciting
I physically get more keepers with film. I keep all my negatives ,good, bad, or otherwise. Whether or not I shoot more "keepers" in the printed sense is a different matter altogether. I shoot probably as many "keepers" with digital that I don't keep in the physical sense.
I have now taken the original premise of the thread and used a more literal description of keepers. I have a binder that will soon probably become many binders , which I will then build a small fort to keep all of my film gear(which will be converted into weapons) safe from the eventual magnetic pulse(this is going to happen I read it here on RFF) which will render all of my digital files useless. Thank god I've shot loads of film and when electricity finally fails and oil disappears I will then burn my negatives and inhale the toxic fumes from the burning plastic and silver while keeping warm and debating what animals I shall beat to death with my leicas.
Of course this would only be the last option as I'm sure I have plenty of time until this whole thing goes down.
Until then I'm sure this debate will rage on and my ramble will go unnoticed or blasted for being inappropriate or going completely sideways , but I would be crazy not to mention my plans for surviving the supposed apocalypse.
I have now taken the original premise of the thread and used a more literal description of keepers. I have a binder that will soon probably become many binders , which I will then build a small fort to keep all of my film gear(which will be converted into weapons) safe from the eventual magnetic pulse(this is going to happen I read it here on RFF) which will render all of my digital files useless. Thank god I've shot loads of film and when electricity finally fails and oil disappears I will then burn my negatives and inhale the toxic fumes from the burning plastic and silver while keeping warm and debating what animals I shall beat to death with my leicas.
Of course this would only be the last option as I'm sure I have plenty of time until this whole thing goes down.
Until then I'm sure this debate will rage on and my ramble will go unnoticed or blasted for being inappropriate or going completely sideways , but I would be crazy not to mention my plans for surviving the supposed apocalypse.
Finder
Veteran
And this sums up the fallacy of the film/digital argument--and you could replace the word "Digital" with "Film" and it would still be a silly statement. Any value statement related to technology to refer to a medium is meaningless. Regardless of how it tastes and the skill of the brewer, my beer is better than yours because it was brewed in a newer vat.