But I was talking about learning, and the way to work on technique is to test enough different possibilities in enough different conditions to find out what looks best.
That's why I said what you quote below. Seeing takes practice. Practice is best when it leads to proficiency. Too often for too many copious exposures only lead to more copious exposures.
Digital, in the concept Jeff described above, can be very beneficial as it gives immediate feed back on how you have photographed what you thought you were seeing thereby revealing the proficiency of your technique.
It's not the immediate feedback that I think is good for teaching, it's the ability to try every permutation for oneself to find what one likes. Too many people don't test enough variants and end up doing things "by the book" instead of finding other things they might prefer.
That has merit. My point, however, is that the process doesn't require lots of film or data string. It's a matter of refined vision and seeing and the ability to pare a scene down to its essential parts by eliminating what doesn't belong.
I know we're talking about the same thing. I just don't believe it requires so many exposures. It requires thought.
Peace! Sidney
