> It > appears that they don't care about skill because increasing the number > of shots improves the odds of getting something by chance. On the other > hand, a large part of creativity is play. Oh how true is that. But surely, when "we" play it is directed experimentation. Just randomly firing more and more shots hoping to get some good ones on the review screen just teaches you to be more riliant on chance ... no? > I shoot a lot of frames > because it costs nothing to try every impulse. There are loads of times I wished I had been able to get quicker feedback on my "experiments" - and indeed, maybe even cheaper. But actually, for me, there is a balance in the benefit of the ease with which trials can be conducted. With film (cost of media / processing) I do think hard and plan my "experiments". When I get the results, they answer the specific questions. Given on-the-fly "experiments" the thought/planning element reduces, almost inevitably. OK, to a point it needent: but another thing I've learned ove rthe years is too much unplanned data tends to add to confusion rather than settle it .... > Also I miss more shots > with a digital camera due to the infernal shutter lag. And THAT is the biggest, I mean HUGE disadvantage of digital compacts. In my one limited trail with them a few weeks back I missed every single "moment" on the children's faces. Transient quizzical looks, all gone in the 1/2 second the camera took to think "does he really want this photo?". > Looking at it from another angle - having active and redundant > photographic devices pointed at every square foot of the planet WILL > cause a radical change in the way we live - how could it not? I'm not sure Alan. What it is doing here is driving crime out of the towns into the countryside (rural area). But for every scene there are infinite ways of viewing it. Who is looking at the cameras? Who has the time? Who are looking at the watchers while they are watching? Bob
