Another question:
Did The Masters of the Genre also work in this way, shooting bags and bags of bloppers to get something worthwhile, or is this more an offshoot of modern technology? I simply can't imagine working in this way or even wanting to. I make an exposure if and when I'm as certain as can be there's an image there of which I'd be proud, proud to share and proud to publish. This is much as I did when shooting film and continue to do so to this day.
A genuine question, not any sort of dig.
And a very relevant question at that.
There have been contact sheets published of HC-B's oeuvre, and I think that he was as unsure as anybody else today. The difference, I think, might be that he wasn't so much doing street as documentary: he had focus and magazine/agency direction for what he hunted a la sauvette. (My iPad refuses to provide accents by holding down the letter: they appear, but vanish the moment I try to touch them!)
Just walking in the street without focus makes anything photographic difficult except for my current amusement, which is simply reaction to what tickles the fancy.
As HC-B's published contacts prove, there were many decisive moments following one closely upon the other; some genuine decisive moments, you might think, which makes me believe that everybody can play with hype if they want to for some reason.
My digital shooting rate is far lower than my working one; it was normal to shoot a 36 exp. cassette for one shot, much of it build-up. Today, it's mostly a click per subject. I'm inclined to be both as unwilling to spend much time splitting hairs in PS as I am to indulge my own second opinions. That's one area where I think Eggleston gets it right. Of course, that's if I don't think I may be dealing with that rare thing, a series. I took the camera along this afternoon for my second wander of the day, and probably shot five frames. No gales or rain today, but I managed to use sunshine - I think.