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.
Where to begin:

There are many avenues of photography. Product, fashion, black and white scenic, color scenic, street, sports, portrait, wedding, photojournalism.....and every one has a different technique. You may set up a food shot for days and take a couple of pictures. Fashion photography usually involves a model in motion to give the clothes movement, so they use a motor drive to be able to get a great planned/accidental shot.

Next time you shoot a wedding party with 10 people just take one shot and see how long your career lasts. Or a football game, or a war zone. Or a 3 year old's portrait.

So the original premise of the thread is so myopic and self centered that it makes no sense.

The other factors are that photographers are not like surgeons where they are (supposedly) trained and when they start operating in hospitals they are already good at it. Photography takes years of practice for someone to be able to park at a scene, set up and then only need a couple of shots to nail a masterpiece. While he/she is learning they need to blast off a lot of shots to reach a point of expertise.

So since this was intended as a film vs digital thread and large format vs 35mm sensor digital camera comparison it fails in it's simplemindedness.

Also on that topic, a person shooting a large format camera will generally behave differently that when he's shooting a 35mm.

Why? because he can.

One other thing to add: if you are driving a car that can only go 50 miles an hour, it's pretty easy to drive at 50. If you have a car that can go 100 miles an hour, driving at 50 is much much harder. Takes a lot of discipline.