No, pros didn't throw away the bad ones. They were saved on contact sheets and negatives, and became valuable tools in both the editing process and helping the photographer understand the shooting process. many photogs "shoot to a climax" and having all the frames available is most helpful. And sometimes, years later, the "bad one" could turn out to be a money maker, or have some value for a client.
The question I have is unrelated to shooting a lot of frames. It would be nice to know why the DSLR shooters on this list feel a need to *tell everyone* how many hundreds or thousands of frames they've shot. Most respond to that question as you did: shooting more can improve their photography. We all know that that's true to a certain extent. So why mention the number of frames shot? It doesn't seem to reflect any discernable improvement in many cases, based on the images posted to the PAW, PESO, and PUG. The good photogs are still good, and the poor photogs are still struggling even after 5,000 images. Frankly, I think many photogs are too busy checking histograms and playing with their modes instead of concentrating on subject matter, composition, lighting, focusing, and interpretation. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > A useful rule of thumb, for making good photographs, was always this: Take > a lot of photographs. Then throw away the bad ones. Pro's always did this. > With digital, this is not a financial issue anymore. > I have owned my *ist D for 4 months now. I am still keeping up an average of > 75-100 shots a day. > I do not accept that this is a bad sign in any way. > Besides, I love taking pictures. Only problem is I can't use a flash very > often, because this would be extremely annoying for other people. So, now I > must shoot at higher ISO values. But that's not really a problem.
