....... but I do think that you are in the very few who shoot less with digi. I tend to take this path also, in other words, less I shoot, more I like digital. More I shoot, more I hate it.
But you come from painting, so do I.
We are used of slowness.
This doesn't make much sense to me, Fred. But I'm an amateur.
As a matter of fact, many years ago I was amazed when I first learned that some professionals would shoot off a whole roll of film in order to get the one good shot that would satisfy the client. I was far more frugal. A roll of film could last me a month.
When I went trekking in Nepal for a couple of months about 46 years ago with my recently purchased Pentax Spotmatic, I took only 3 rolls of 36 exposure Kodachrome 64 and a couple of rolls of B&W.
That oversight probably saved my life. At that time (in 1964) the Tibetans were still putting up a resistance to the Chinese invasion. Lots of them continued to flee into Nepal where they were given shelter in U.N.-run camps. I visited them at one camp in Trisuli, and took lots of photos (ie. about 20).
Here's a couple of examples: [attachment=21887:Mounds_of_rice.jpg] [attachment=21888:Tib_monk_A3_print.jpg]
When I learned that many of these refugees would cross back and forth at will, through the high mountain passes into Tibet and back again, I got very excited about the prospects of some real adventure. I would join one of these groups going back into Tibet, photograph their struggles and way of life, and perhaps even photograph some war conflict between the Chinese and Tibetan resistance groups.
I had National Geographic in mind. I'd become famous. (I coulda
bin somebody ) Of course, I was young and foolhardy. In retrospect I now realise I'd probably have got caught and thrown into a Chinese jail, if not killed.
Fortunately, perhaps (perhaps not), I was down to my last roll of film which was already half-used.
My main concern was not so much the physical risk but the frustration of coming across amazing events to photograph but not having any film left. So I regretfully decided against the plan.
I just mention this little off-topic aside to make the point that I've always followed the principle that one only photographs something that interests one, that catches one's attention, that 'moves' one in some way, whether the camera is film or digital.
There's a strong tendency to take more shots when using a digital camera simply because of the greater potential of the tool. As a result of taking multiple shots of a particular scene you may avoid the mistake of an exposure which is not ideal; you may increase dynamic range (by merging to HDR); you may turn your humble 35mm camera into a tool which surpasses an 8x10 field camera (by stitching numerous shots), and you may also increase your chances of capturing an unplanned, fortuitous, accidental masterpiece.
As George Bernard Shaw commented, when asked what he thought of the proliferation of affordable 35mm cameras bought by the masses, "The greater the total number of photos taken, the greater the number of 'good' photos taken."
