What I've seen is just the opposite wrt to creating strong photos and powerful images. The overall quality of photographs has dropped substantially in the past decade or so, and while digital cameras are not the only reason for this, they are one of the prime contributors. Do you know that there are people (and I bet some are on this list - in fact, I KNOW some are on this list) who have NEVER seen a gorgeous B&W silver print, whose only exposure to photographs have been ink jet prints, images from the web, photos appearing in magazines and books, and color minilab prints made with consumer quality (i.e., low quality) zoom lenses mounted on cameras using automatic everything.
While those things, individually, will not cause a drop in quality, taken collectively, and in a climate where MORE MORE MORE rather than BETTER BETTER BETTER is rampant, quality will suffer. We are, because of automation and the need for speed, entering the age of the generic photograph. Shooting more, exposing more frames, is only a small part in the formula that equates to quality. shel Rob Studdert wrote: > > I don't understand why there seems to be so many comments on the list > suggesting that shooting digital cameras will likely not strengthen our skills > as photographers? > > Isn't the first advice that any photographer gets is to shoot then shoot some > more? The way I see it is that digital makes this easy given that there is no > film costs plus it records all the technical shooting data for review after the > fact.
