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

NickTrop said:
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!
Click to expand...

Nick, you are completely right, but you already knew that, and I guess I have to explain: I'm not being cynical.
 
Even if there is no direct causal link: if the photographer is getting more keepers using film than with digital then I think it's arguable that the photographer could say "I get more keepers when using film." without binding himself to a Tropian fallacy.
 
All my photographs are keepers. I just have to set a very high standard for myself, otherwise the galleries fill up.

Honestly though a keeper is subjective and could always be looked upon with less value when the photographer's interests change or techniques improve (all in the eye of the beholder though).

I enjoy shooting with film and usually only really like one or two shots on a roll. Yet some people would look at the roll and see six shots they like. So does the roll have two or six keepers? Who am I pleasing? What are the standards? How do they change?
 
Don't engage in the empirical nature of the argument, I took it apart in my previous post and showed it to be doubtful by using his own arguements against him.
 
I do get more keepers, because someone forgot to put a 'Delete' button on my Norita. Infact none of my film bodies have one... this design flaw seems to be repeating itself.
 
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. 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.
Click to expand...

Nick consider the following. "I get more keepers with film" is merely a statement about an observed fact. It only indicates a significant correlation between keepers and the use of film. Butcorrelation does not imply causation. Example: there is a positive correlation between ice cream consumption and public drowning. But does eating ice cream cause people to drown? No. Does drowning cause an increase in ice cream consumption? Hardly! It is the time of year (summer) that is responsible for both. It is a third, unnamed factor that must be identified before the relationship between the two is explained.

In this case you have identified the third factor as the degree of care, or the lack of it, as the third factor. I think we can all agree. But note: "I get more keepers with film" makes no claim about causality in the first place. If it's true for the person who says it, then it's true, period. Only a statement based on observation and (perhaps) record keeping. No need to find fault with it on logical grounds, as it makes no inferences to begin with. Or as my wife, a philosopher, would say, it's a false dilemma.
 
Hey Nick!

It's April 2. Thanks, I quite enjoyed your prank, it was much more fun than the other one here. I think next we should rename "Leica" to "Omaha", or something.
 
This is increasingly a thread for the hard of thinking, or for decent people who believe that those who attempt to defend the indefensible are doing so sincerely rather than for nuisance value.

Cheers,

R.
 
for obvious reasons like you listed, i get a higher persentage of keepers with film. however, if i go out with a digital camera and a film camera i find i get more keepers with film regardless of how many photos i take.
 
I shoot film (all I have are film cameras) and maybe one or two rolls in about 100 get thrown out (completely trashed) mostly due to a faulty camera, bad film or whatever...
I keep any other film developed (B&W or color) therefore all (99%) of my film shots are "Keepers"...I don't own a digital camera but I have use one or two...of all the pictures I've taken with these digital cameras I have maybe two or three...
Thus, I can truly state...I have more "Keepers" with film...and with this I can also state I am right in my words...:bang: :D ;)

Thanks Nick, for allowing me to see my truth...:p
 
Al Patterson said:
Hmm. And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Click to expand...

None, angles don't exist ipso facto they cannot dance, or it is an existential pin in which case who cares, or it simply relativism, but you would need to ask Nick about that ... who is conspicuous only by his absence :D see post No1
 
Sparrow said:
None, angles don't exist ipso facto they cannot dance, or it is an existential pin in which case who cares, or it simply relativism, but you would need to ask Nick about that ... who is conspicuous only by his absence :D see post No1
Click to expand...
angles certainly do! - and Nick is probably sat having a good laugh at all the nonsense - initiated again! :D
 
Well, that seems to be enough. We are not the official thread police; but can we do a citizen's closure of this thread?
 
From 36exp roll I get 6-7 strips I can keep. With digital, I can't keep anything unless I extract memory card out of camera, and even then I get only one keeper :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom