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

-doomed- said:
.....

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.
...........
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.
Click to expand...

I liked it :)
I have not even started to prepare my suitcase !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I get more keepers by being a better photographer.

I don't know what's wrong with the rest of you.

If you are not getting a lot of keepers, ie you take photo's that your Mom does not like, you must be a lousy photographer.
 
Last edited:
Here is a similar question: Do you get more keepers per 100 shots when using a larger format film camera than when using a smaller format film camera? I do. Larger format causes me to slow down, be more contemplative, and be more selective, resulting in more keepers per 100 shots, but since I've taken way morepics with smaller format cameras, I've got more smaller format keepers. But if it's calculated per 100 shots, larger format wins.

For me, this translates the same when comparing film keepers to digital keepers. Digital is too easy to snap off pics, just in case it turns out. With film, I am more selective because there is a higher cost to pay per image in time and effort to get a print. More film keepers for me.
 
FrankS said:
...........

.... Digital is too easy to snap off pics, .......... More film keepers for me.
Click to expand...


You seem to implicate that Scarcity is the mother of Creativity. In many cases it is, and this extends to self imposed austerity, or even better, self imposed discipline.

But self imposed discipline can work too with Digital Cameras, unless you believe that man has no control under temptation, since man is evil by root, or literally by Nature. Adam, Eve, Apple & the Snake.

I do not accept the argument because it is always the argument either of Religion or of Crime. According to both, man is never the free master of his acts, nor responsible or accountable for them.

BTW, in my own case I never snapp off with my digitals, simply because I don't, even not out of self imposed austerity, unless when I am shooting Street Photography and I do not want to elevate the camera to my eye level. But freedom is freedom too, and I end shooting much more with digital. Much more keepers, much better keepers.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NickTrop said:
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.
Click to expand...

Whew. Agree. I lay down my shovel.
 
Last edited:
Film is better than digital , bigger cameras are better than small ones, therefore ALL of my med format film shots are keepers.
 
Lets..make a point to remember that Canon in particular pushed the HD Video opportunity not for video but rather to allow shooters to claim creative judgement allowed the to pick through hundreds of frame shot video mode...as they would never be able to actually capture a keeper in a single frame mode.

I find this a "thread" a real waste of time..if for no other reason the to think that next we'll be stuck with the common definition of what a "keeper is" ! Then next the percentage of keepers per thousand images captured.
 
Where does the subjectivity of 'keepers' come into play? If subjectivity is out, than why bother buying M9's, etc...

Lots of people shoot for quality, but I don't know of any digitals that get the 'lomo-look'... I know plenty of people who obsess over the 'film-look' that these toy cameras make. They aren't pros, but it's the uniqueness of those photos that makes them 'keepers'

koniczech
 
Keepers have to do with the degree of diffculty perhaps ... well for me at least.


I've often wondered what would happen if you used a digital camera in this way:

A swag of ten or twenty megabyte storage cards instead of one card that holds several gigs ... each time you want to take a photo you have to insert a card into the slot and replace it with a fresh one for the next exposure and so on! Looking at my archive of LF negatives I'm pretty happy with at least fifty percent of them ... I certainly can't say that about my digital files or my 35mm for that matter!
 
Isn't the real question.... Do you have more keepers after a day of shooting with film or with digital? If you contemplate each shot or shoot until the battery is dead, that doesn't really matter.

Steve
 
I have to admit, I get more keepers when using digital just based on chimping alone. It allows me to see my work right away and make adjustments right away. I love that aspect of digital. However, film gives me more happy accidents.
 
for the record Nick it is an interesting question/suggestion. maybe deep down inside i agree with you... the medium doesn't matter (my opinion folks).
 
emraphoto said:
for the record Nick it is an interesting question/suggestion. maybe deep down inside i agree with you... the medium doesn't matter (my opinion folks).
Click to expand...

With all due respect, it is neither a question nor a suggestion. The "keepers" argument for shooting with film is based on faulty logic, I have exposed this faulty logic, and have officially retired it as a justification of shooting film. You are welcome to disagree with this but will be disagreeing with Truth. It is a matter of debate only among the foolish. When you disagree with Truth, you are ipso facto INcorrect. Because of the whole "ipso facto" thing? The degree to which you disagree with the Truth I espouse is directly proportionate to the degree of falseness of your position. Effective immediately, the "I get more keepers" justification for shooting film is retired among the sensible. If you happen to be "unsensible" - that's fine too, I judge you not and you are not alone - (perhaps even in the majority, as the reelection of "W" illustrated in 2004). The best justification for shooting film is simply, "I like to."

PS... Hi Rueben!
 
"The best justification for shooting film is simply, "I like to." "

that about sums it up for me. i can't quite join you in the absolutes though... i suppose i revel in my right to think things through for myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom