The point that digital is cheap per shot and so one can take many frames at no extra cost is not really a valid reason when comparing it to film, in fact the reverse is true... Having been recently looking through a 'How to' Photoshop book again, as far as digital is concerned it is so easy to clone eyes for the 'blinking bride' or remove the telegraph pole growing from a head or the taxicab in front of the church. So really with digital, only a few shots ARE necessary... but with film, on the other hand, it is not (was not) easy to make these corrections and so more shots would be a 'safer' option. This surely shows that photographers from the analogue era were more skillful at 'timing' and 'seeing' the shots than those in the digital era. Of course a Rolleiflex TLR or Leica did not suffer from mirror black-out like SLRs, so the photographer could actually see what he had captured. Try and do that with a digital camera without viewfinder on a sunny day... Have to take 4Mb of shots per setup just to make sure just one shot does comes out... John On 01/03/2010 13:45, "CarlosMFreaza" <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yes Eric, knowing you have a few frames in your camera, you always > want to get the best from each shot, but if you have a doubt about a > new shot to improve something about the same subject, "film is cheap" > (it also depends about the kind of photography you are doing of > course). The number of shots you can take with a digital camera is > beyond my imagination, when I use my digital P&S camera I think about > it like a film camera regarding the number of shots in spite of the 2 > GB. > > Carlos --- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list