Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
I have sometimes heard it said that some famous film photographers only achieve their status by taking many shots and then selecting the best. I don’t believe this, as If this is true, then surely digital photography would have thrown up a plethora of brilliant photographers, which to-date it has not.
(Emphasis mine).

I think there is some truth on the statement, if we take that "only" out of it. Taking many shots is not sufficient for good results. On the other hand, there are circumstances where it is necessary to take many shots and only after choose the winner image. Sport photography, photojournalism, fashion photography, or any kind of work involving models, rented apparati, children. Whenever humans are involved there's a degree of randomness in the final result. A good portrait can depend from a subtle change in expression of which neither the model nor the photographer were aware at the moment the picture was taken.

This reminds me the scene in "Blow up" by Michelangelo Antonioni, when the photographer takes many pictures of the model in a fast sequence, it's obvious he's not bothered with "choosing" while taking pictures, selection will come later.


Personally, for my kind of work, I prefer doing all the editing "in camera". Post production takes a lot of time. Productivity matters. It's rare that I take two shots and then I choose one. Choosing in itself takes a lot of time. Better no alternatives than too many alternatives . Besides, careful and meditated composition, patient waiting for the pedestrian to go off-frame, or to get in-frame, is part of the image hunting pleasure.