Quote Originally Posted by 5stringdeath View Post
I find this a very constraining statement. Sure, we all have different methods of working ... it could just as easily be said you don't take enough photos.

(Nothing personal, just playing devils advocate)

Its said that Garry Winogrand died with over 10,000 undeveloped exposures ... sure you could argue he shot too much, but he was obsessed and edited down some fine books.
Absolutely different working methods will saddle us with less or more negatives. I've done sports, weddings, nature/landscapes, candids, portraits, and each has different methods of working to some extent.

In terms of editing and shooting going together, it's really apparent in the digital world now. It's always been there, but it's sort of come to a head.

People will shoot 3000 photos (because each shot "costs nothing") at a wedding instead of 300, and they'll get stuck in front of a computer several times longer than necessary because they have so much to go through. Their end product isn't any better; they might have gotten a couple more lucky shots, but the whole things potentially suffers because they rushed the editing process. Sports is different; someone takes thousands of shots, and it's someone elses job many times to pick a much smaller quantity of keepers and it has to be done quick before it's old news.

Winogrand may well have been able to produce several more nice books and inspired more photographers if he hadn't been behind to that extent.

People often use the excuse of objectivity in the review and fresh perspective for obscenely long delays between shooting and printing, sometimes it's 100% bs, sometimes it's real and helpful, but I don't initially take their reason at face value. For me, I don't like to drag out the image making process too much, but it happens to a certain extent and we have complete control over it at all times.

I don't take enough photos enough either, but the darkroom aspect is just one of many factors partially regulating that.