On 5/7/2010 6:52 PM, Fernando Gonzalez Gentile wrote:
> That's it - congrats !
>
Thanks!
> My problem is that I think two or three shots are enough .... and such a
> beautiful species is unseen here.
> Still learning from you, Moose.
>
Not that much to learn here - other than to be lucky and shoot digital. :-)
I guess getting out in nature is my contribution to the luck part. Last
week, I shot a Quail in a tree, but didn't hang around it long enough.
Carol did, and watched it do what she called "interesting stuff" on a
nearby bench. Oh well.
I too would have tried fewer shots were I shooting film. I was never
willing to use up that much film on variations of focal length, ISO and
aperture. I very much doubt I would have gotten the best shot using
film. Also, with only 36-37 frames per roll, the likelihood that I'd be
rationing frames in order not to run out is high. I can certainly recall
that sinking feeling that I'm going to miss the shot as a roll runs out.
I could argue with myself that the cost of shooting and developing a few
more frames is small. Still, that's how I used to act, wise or not. The
truth is, now that the camera is up around 10,000 exposures, that the
average cost per image is down to under $0.25 for the camera. And
marginal cost of an additional shot that I keep is almost immeasurably
small as space on HD.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|