When I went to photo school, we used 4x5 cameras for most of the entire freshman year. When doing studio work, we had to shoot the subject, process the film, and bring the wet B&W negatives to the instructor so he could inspect them. If he didn't like the exposure or composition or the negative had flaws, you had to re-shoot the subject & start over again.

When we did location photography - we used 4x5 monorail cameras. You learned very quickly to how to assess a subject, find the best location, and make the exposure. We did not use "miniature cameras" until the middle of the spring quarter when we had to produce a slide show.

I don't know if everyone requires that type of forced training, but it does help one to not just shoot randomly. However, it is also, in some ways, very restricting. When I use a camera today, I rarely shoot from more than one vantage point because I'm so sure that where I've located the camera is the best spot. I know the angle of view of all my lenses so well that I can locate the tripod within 2-3 feet of the exact location without looking through the viewfinder or on the ground glass.

I'm not sure that's a good thing. I wonder what I'm missing. When I force myself to explore the subject through the camera instead of visualizing the scene prior to exposure, I have this internal voice that says, "you know that this isn't as good as your visualization of the scene and primary location." So, many times I end up just writing off any attempt to "work through" the composition by taking exposures from alternative points of view. And, when I do force myself to take more exposures, the compositions look "forced."

My point being that the learn to assess your subject first, study the composition, make every exposure count like it was your last methodology may not be the be-all / end-all way of making photos.