I was waiting to see if someone would catch on.... It's not always the tool, but often the craftsman who uses it, that makes the difference. Just because the media is cheaper, doesn't mean you need to shoot more.
Originally Posted by michaelbsc
I once went on a shooting hike with a friend, we were dug into the shore of a lake off a trail, I had a 200mm lens (35mm) and a doubler on so about 400mm of lens power,
on the big old Manfrotto, observing some birds on a log, almost on the other side, probably 200m away. I got one shot, when a group of people came along the trail, all with fancy Nikon DSLR's, the ones with massive zooms attached, talking at a volume that would drown out a space shuttle at liftoff thrust. They proceeded to mercilessly machine gun the scene. I would think it a safe bet, that the only one of the 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 or so images taken during that particular minute that wasn't crap was the one I got off before they arrived Of course afterwards, we packed up and went back to the trail head, it wasn't worth stopping, because there was no wild life for about 10km on either side, because the loud talking had moved it all to another part of the park. We saw their tour bus head left, we followed it to the next trail, they stopped, we didn't.
Funny thing is, even with a DSLR, I don't really shoot more, if I can get what I want in one shot, why take 10 or 100 or 1,000?
See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com
The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....
Some of us are just avoiding the bait Wogster.
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
And, of course, the borderline thread eventually disintegrates.
That's just, like, my opinion, man...
Re: One Reason Why Film Rules
Originally Posted by Sirius Glass