On Jan 21, 11:38*am, "Juan Moore Beer"
wrote:
In my film days, I would try not to waste too many shots, possibly because
of the extra time and expense for developing.

I find myself still not taking as many shots as I could, even though I can
take a quick look at them on the LCD and zap them in an instant. *This
weekend, I was traveling a few hours north, and had an extra three or four
hours to kill. *I found some nice scenery, but still only took about a
dozen pictures, most of which I will keep. *There were only a few "shots"
I regret not taking, and that was only because it was too darn cold for me
to get out of the car again ;-)

Do you take more pictures than you would have with film, or is the
restraint more based on quality than cost?

I take way more photos with digital, and now that I am I really wish I
had taken a lot more photos with film, when I was shooting with film.

For me photography is a way to capture what I see in my life and what
my wife and I do over the years. What might seem like a simple
photograph today can have great value in 20 years.

As an example the only photos I have of co-working in the work place
are from digital cameras, I just never though to do this when I was
using film.

When we have people over for dinner or we go to others for dinner I
try and capture the event with my camera, I never did much of this
with film.

On vacations I try to not only get the scenery but also the places we
stay at both in side and out and the restaurants that we ate at both
inside and out. Sure these photos would be boring for others, but I
take them for us.

When shooting people, like friends and family, more shots definitely
helps in getting good shots. I find the first few photos I take of
people they tend to want stop look right at the camera and smile, you
know bad photos, but if I keep taking photos they finally will ignore
me and I get much nicer candid shots.

Scott