Quote Originally Posted by ntenny View Post
The only beef I really had with the article is that it doesn't give enough credit to the fact that people used to do the same thing with point-and-shoot film cameras; not so much the machine-gun imaging, but looking at the camera rather than the thing photographed is a complaint quite a bit older than d*g*t*l.
It is true that digital has not so much created a new phenomenon but accelerated an old one to new extremes.

Also, I thought this was a bit suspect:

"And yet fast photography is not the enemy of good results, by the logic of volume: If you take a thousand photographs, one or two will turn out great. "

In fact, good photos rarely come about by chance. Garry Winogrand took a lot of photos, but taking a lot of photos isn't going to make you Garry Winogrand.

In some cases, like much street photography, sports photography, and such things, the process can happen very fast, but getting something good is usually the result of being prepared and alert.