if you are one to study your shots, every shot you take should make you a
better photographer. rationing shots when learning is especially not
helpful. that's why all the courses and books say to shoot and study. in the
editorial stock world, providing 5 or 20 slightly different variations on a
theme is what the photo editor wants, if they are all excellent. that's why
a successful working stock photographer could be taking 50-75K slides a
year. switching to digital for someone like that is both a no-brainer and
probably hardly affects the rate at which they shoot. for someone like me
who shot about 3K frames a year on film am now shooting 5K because i don't
have to take so many insurance shots and can try more variations in a short
time. in the editorial stock world, your best shot may have nothing to do
with what the photo editor wants, so you have to supply variety.
Herb...
----- Original Message -----
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: Digital profligacy
The main thrust of my initial statement is that digital seems to
encourage every photographer to shoot many more frames than film.
That trend seems disconnected from skill level or competency. The
apparent lack of added expense in taking many times more frames seems
to encourage everyone that I know who's gone digital to do so. I'm
not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing - I can see both good
and bad coming from it.
