Yes, but Shel, sometimes, when you are following around a very stubborn 18mth old who refuses to co-operate, despite having a vision of how the shot *should* look, you sometimes have to compromise.... AND sometimes, the compromise is surprising in that the results are better than what you had originally anticipated anyways... Or you'll be sitting at a wedding taking a 5 minute break and see a really great moment with the Groom and his new Father in Law joking around, so you grab the camera quickly without too much (conscious) thought and shoot off 6 or 7 frames in a couple of seconds, knowing that it is a great moment and in the hope that just one of those frames will capture exactly the right expression...
Of course, this is the case with film OR digital, but I can tell you that if I'd climbed a 20,000ft high mountain and had two glass plates left to shoot with (did anyone else watch that Ansel Adams docco?), I'd be considering the shot MUCH more carefully than if I were sitting at a kids birthday party shooting candids with a digital camera in my hand... tan. > Sheesh, tanya ... perhaps one might do well to think about > every shot, regardless of haw many frames are left. When > you reach a certain level in any art or sport, the thinking > becomes automatic, transparent ... the photography just > happens, and all the technical stuff needn't be given any > time consuming thought. It's like muscle memory. > > And this is true for 35mm photography as well as larger > formats. > > shel > > Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: > > > > I think that for the > > likes of Ansel Adams etc, if you are shooting with glass plates, medium > > format etc, and you only have one or two frames left, you are really FORCED > > to THINK about what you are going to put into the photograph. You would > > probably spend much more side on the technical stuff to ensure that it is > > JUST right, iykwim, so that you don't, in effect, waste an opportunity... >
