Especially on dark rides? I remember one weekend at DL back in the Dark Ages, where I took uhh I think about 60 rolls of film shots, and I was pushing it. But add in AEB (layman's term: I took three shots for each scene to ensure correct exposure) and it doesn't seem like too much. And Fantasmic, well, I had the DL show timed to be able to take three rolls. And the timing had to be perfect, because of the time to rewind the roll, pop out, and reload. And for Fantasmic I didn't use AEB - it was one shot or nothing. Most point and clicks wouldn't give good pictures inside a ride, and people it seemed, weren't taking as many pics during rides/shows as they do now. Is is the "instant gratification" of digital or is it just the fact that now, for $150 plus a $18 memory card, you can get almost 700 pics with a quality rivaling the premier prosumer negative films for 4x6s? I used to always chuckle inside when folks at DL took flash pics of Fantasmic!. Their flash wouldn't reach the island for one, and if it was the water screen, it would reflect off the water for their shot. Another favorite place for people to take ignorant flash pics is Grand Canyon/Primeval World - flash bounces right off the plexiglass, blinds everyone on the train, and the pic will be nothing but white. Yet it still continues to this day. Flashes are easier to turn off now than they used to be (Those buttons, smaller than a fingernail, sheesh) but people (most, not all) still continue to ignore requests for no-flash photography. Granted there used to be CMs that were on the ball at DL and would use the intercom to get their attention, especially if it was an ongoing thing. I went out of my way to not ruin the magic/show for other guests while I was doing my thing (like standing at the beginning of the standing area for Fantasmic! with my monopod) or not knocking them down to get a shot, etc. Others don't seem to give the courtesy, and it does ruin the show. Besides, we all know how pics of Pirates taken with a flash look. Fake, unreal, yada yada yada. Personally, I like the options digital has given me. Now that I'm past the Microdrive phase (D30 included a microdrive as part of a rebate) where you had to wait seconds for the "buffer" (if you could call it that) to clear onto the card. But it sure held more pics than my 128 MB CF Type II card! And that cost me a pretty $60 back in the day! Now, hundreds of pics on a single memory card, and changing the card can be done faster than the rewind/reload phase of the EOS 3 or A2. And easier to just "delete" those missed shots. Harder to throw out a negative strip of 4 shots with 3 bad ones. Sometimes I wish people would think a little more before they click. Anyone else noticed this at the parks? More pics being taken now than five years or more ago?
nothing kills me more than questions my peers and clients tend to ask: 1. how many shots did you (or, are you going to) take? 2. so and so photographer promises us at least 1,000 shots for our wedding. 3. just take pictures now, think later Those questions really bother me. Since when the quality of photography or the joy of photography is determined by the number of shots taken. To me it's all about the process of taking the pictures (ie, think before shoot) and the number of successful pictures (number of pics I'll be proud to call my own) also the number of pictures can I grab without re-taking and/or needing post processing (this is an exercise I use to boost my personal best). and with regards to flash photography... well, so many people still think that high-ISO performance doesn't matter because they can always use flash, so many people also think that IS is not worth the money because you can get the same result by buying a tripod. Oh well, these are the same people who ask me why I don't need to use my flash and/or tripod when I take night scenes.
Seems to me that you're covering several different topics here! But I'll put my worthless opinion in, just to kill time while I wait for an eBay auction to end. 1) Does digital make you shoot more pics? YES! Since I went digital, I have been shooting a lot more pics, because I don't have to worry about the costs of processing or printing them. ALl I have to worry about is whether I have enough storage at home, and for the moment, the answer to that is "Plenty." 2) Did the digital revolution lead to more flashers on rides and in shows? That's a tough one to quantify. I think perhaps a little yes, since people do tend to shoot more overall pics when they go digital, but I don't think the digital revolution has made any more insufferable idiots come out of the woodwork and shoot more flash pics in dark places. The number of morons with cameras has remained consistent, but the morons, like the rest of us, are shooting a higher volume of pics in all situations since they went to digital. Of course, the insufferable idiotic morons' pics STILL don't turn out any better when they try taking a pic of the castle from the second floor of the train station with a point-n-shoot digital with the flash turned on. 3) Kelly brought up a good point - since I went digital, my composition (which was never the greatest to begin with) has suffered. Since I'm shooting more, I'm being less careful about setting up and framing my shots, and my shot quality has suffered. But Kelly, since I'm not a pro photographer - or even a good photographer, truth be told - I can still see the perspective of the average Dick and Jane who arechopping for a wedding photographer. For me, quality and quantity in anything I shop for mix like a gin and vermouth to come up with the driest bargain. Okay, the martini analogy isn't great, but you get the picture (no pun intended) - I want both quality and quantity, and to a certain extent I am willing to lean more toward one than the other to get a good value in a product. In other words, if Dick and Jane are concentrating entirely on the quantity without looking at quality, they will likely wind up with mediocre photos - but they will have a LOT of mediocre photos. And if Dick and Jane are swayed by the ethereal beauty of some uber-photographer and pony up $10K for a package of 50 of the most incredibly beautiful wedding pics in the history of photography, they are likely going to wonder, "Why didn't he take a shot of the cake cutting? Or the garter belt? Or the bouquet? We spent more on pics than we did on our honey moon and got 50 shots of the wedding party, but no shots of anybody dancing or having fun or anything else important!" Quantity and quality need to balance each other out like the scales of justice in order to get a good value in any product.
WillCAD, I actually agree with al your points. Only it really bugs me when the prospective client is comparing my 300-400 (average frame count) with the 1,000+ frame counts. Honestly, can anybody (other than using motor-drive-mode) really compose 1,000+ shots for a 10-hour day? PS: the first line of my pet-peeve questions supposed to be: "how many shots did you (or, are you going to) take during a vacation of xx days?" (I forgot to finish the sentence).
