I experienced an interesting contrast in styles on Saturday. My daughter was off to the prom and I was taking pictures of her and her date. I was using the 645 (A75 f2.8) and the *istDS (DA40 f2.8). I took 15 shots with the 645, and about 35 with the DS. The useful aspect of the using the DS as a weapon of mass exposure is that at least some of the pictures had good facial expressions. Of course, when we later went to the school for casuals I took the DS with the 40, which worked really well. The DS prints came out fine; I'll let you know how the 645's come out when I get them <g>.
Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/10/05 9:23 PM >>> 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: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> 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.
