Aren't we all spoiled brats?

**ebooks4pentax** · 06-10-2007, 12:38 AM

I was just thinking today of how much money I spent on my Pentax DSLR equipment. The K10D alone cost me $1,050.00 with the kit lens and the battery grip. We are so used to complain on how much everything cost,

that we sometimes forget that technology has reduced costs for many items, DSLRs being one. It also has made our lives (as photographers) much easier.

The last 35mm I owned cost about the same price as my K10D. I was shooting an average of 3 rolls of 36 per week. That's 156 rolls per year. The cost of one 35mm cartridge with 36 exposure, developed into negatives conservatively cost $8.00. I am not counting the prints. That is roughly $1,248.00 per year.

So basically, I am saving at least $1,248.00 per year.

A 1Gig SD card cost about $50.00 and is reusable indefinitely. Instead of buying fast films (ISO 400 - ISO 1000) for low lighting subjects, I rotate a dial, change the ISO, all while keeping the same SD card. In the film days, one was never 100% sure how the shot would come out. I used to compose my pictures meticulously and bracket one stop over and one under just-in-case. Then I would either develop the slides at home or bring the film to a store for developing into prints. It sometimes took one week before I knew what my shots looked like. Now, I look at my camera LCD monitor seconds after I pushed the shutter release button. If I don’t like the shot, I take it again until I get it right. Mind you, I cannot recreate a moment such as unique portraits, action shots, etc. I can however still use a bracket mode with up to 5 shots in less than 1.2 seconds.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

What do we do now? We find ways to complain again. Now we are pixels counting, we want faster consecutive shooting, we want better colors, we want, we want, we want…….

If we keep wanting cameras to be easier and easier to use, where does the art of photography goes?

Isn’t composing the pictures, catching that perfect moment after staying at one location for hours waiting for the right lighting, getting up at 5:00 A.M. so that we could catch the sunrise, using that tripod with a 200mm + lens to avoid camera shake, etc,. the reason we love photography?

Most of us make prints no larger than 8 ½” x 11” except for special pictures where we want to frame and hang on the wall, and of course for the paying customers.

Does how the color looks with a 10MP camera, using ISO 800 and enlarged 100 times really matters? If you crop your pictures and blow it up 100 times, you were to far away from your subject to begin with. Get closer and compose meticulously just like if you were paying $8.00 for every 36 frames.

I just wanted to share that with you. We are all spoiled brats.

dwinnert · 06-10-2007, 01:06 AM

Even though I own a K10D, I still mostly shoot film......In fact I shot three rolls today.

Too much Corralejo...must go to bed.

rhermans · 06-10-2007, 02:47 AM

Yep we are all spoiled brats, think that the wages in some places are not above few dollars a week.
Then I'm doing this as a hobby, can't even say I need it for work. Got a perfectly working pana FZ5 and then I buy this one ...

Yes we are all spoiled brats, and very very lucky that we can be.

SupremeMoFo · 06-10-2007, 03:00 AM

I didn't grow up in the film age - it was over by the time I was interested in photography (a few years ago - I'm 16).

But, yes, I'm damn lucky to have the camera equipment I've got (total value, RRP: ~AU$2900).

J.Scott · 06-10-2007, 03:07 AM

Compare modern digital photography to almost any thing we do these days. My grandfather used to plow neighbors gardens for 50 cents with a team of horses because that was the only way they could have vegetables for the year. Now we spend less than a minute breezing through the produce department at our local grocery superstore scooping up green things from around the globe. Is this spoiled?

I used to sit at a table with pen and paper and write letters to friends and family. Part of the process was folding the letter, stuffing it into an envelope, trudging to the post office and sending it off. Getting a reply a few weeks later seemed like a speedy process. Now I sit at a computer connected to the entire world and tap off instant messages to my sister who lives thousands of miles away. Is this being spoiled?

It's just modern technology.

So you think you are saving money by having a digital camera? How are you processing those pictures? I'll just bet it is done on a computer that probably cost several hundred or more likely a few thousand dollars. It's all relative.

Ah, what the heck, go buy a few rolls of film and snap away! If you are like most of us our right thumb feels neglected in this digital age, simply relegated to pushing tiny buttons on the back of the camera. It is a nostalgic and yet very satisfying feeling to wind to the next frame.

Digital photography is fun because it offers instant gratification to both the photographer and the subject. We don't just 'want' this, as you suggest; our psyche needs to be stroked and most often demands attention right now!

It's human nature; jump on the bandwagon or fight it and go down swinging. You can still plow your garden with a team of horses if you so desire.

carpents · 06-10-2007, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by k10dbook

...What do we do now? We find ways to complain again. Now we are pixels counting, we want faster consecutive shooting, we want better colors, we want, we want, we want…….

If we keep wanting cameras to be easier and easier to use, where does the art of photography goes?

...

I just wanted to share that with you. We are all spoiled brats.

I must disagree here. Things are just moving much faster than in previous generations. Think about the fact that many on this forum will personally experience *two* 'Golden Ages' of photography - first 35mm film, then DSLR.

I do think that there will be a peak with DSLRs, and it is because of all the clamoring for a better-implemented and bug-free feature set that we'll be blessed to see it. Wouldn't it be great if a manufacturer came out with a real manual focus DSLR? Or a real black & white one? I think at some point there will be a ridiculous 27fps, live view, all-wireless, 20 megapixel, integrated cell phone/mp3 player/personal computer - at which point the Golden Age of DSLRs will have passed.

Until then we should realize that the peak of DSLRs will only be as good as what we clamor for - and no better.

Stratman · 06-10-2007, 08:22 AM

I still have my Ricoh KR-5 that I bought in 1980. I paid $120.00 for it and the "feaux leather" case. In 2002 I bought a Minolta DiMage S404 4 MP digital, I paid $500.00 for it. This February I bought a K110D with Kit lens for $452.00. When I was first considering a DSLR about a year ago, I went to a local shop that takes trade ins, and wanted to see how much I could get for the Minolta, I was thinking maybe $150 -$200, Nope. $75.00 was the max they would give me. Talk about depreciation !! thats worse than a car, lol I do like technology, but usually I have a fully manual lens attached to my K110D. Feels better to me than letting the camera do all the work

davemdsn · 06-10-2007, 09:46 AM

I think that many will count us as spoiled, but we will do the same to a future generation saying that we had it much harder. It is all a matter of perspective. In some ways I think that shooting digital is more work than shooting film. I used to shoot a wedding, hand the film off to a lab, deliver the photos to the client and I was done. Now I spend hours in front of the computer. I got a little trigger happy at the last wedding and shot almost 900 images, of which I edited and delivered a little over 600. Much more work than film for me.

There is also a trade off to this technology thing. We are loosing touch with each other as people. We are nothing but codenames. This is a great camera club, but we don't have big group meetings where we can shake hands, meet the spouses (or other significant others), and so forth. Knowledge is growing leaps and bounds, but social interaction is fading. We are a long way from serious loss of souls, but I do miss the personal touch of face to face meetings. I have friends right here in town that I rarely see because we can e-mail so easily.

little laker · 06-10-2007, 03:32 PM

I agree with you k10dbook, although I'm happy with my K100D and the 7 usable lenses that I have.

Wethphotography · 06-10-2007, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by davemdsn

I think that many will count us as spoiled, but we will do the same to a future generation saying that we had it much harder. It is all a matter of perspective. In some ways I think that shooting digital is more work than shooting film. I used to shoot a wedding, hand the film off to a lab, deliver the photos to the client and I was done. Now I spend hours in front of the computer. I got a little trigger happy at the last wedding and shot almost 900 images, of which I edited and delivered a little over 600. Much more work than film for me.

There is also a trade off to this technology thing. We are loosing touch with each other as people. We are nothing but codenames. This is a great camera club, but we don't have big group meetings where we can shake hands, meet the spouses (or other significant others), and so forth. Knowledge is growing leaps and bounds, but social interaction is fading. We are a long way from serious loss of souls, but I do miss the personal touch of face to face meetings. I have friends right here in town that I rarely see because we can e-mail so easily.

Could not agree more with all you wrote and could not have written it as well.

Stratman · 06-10-2007, 07:41 PM

I socialized with 46,000 today at Busch Stadium, and we all went insane on this pitch, Albert Pujols hit a missile over the wall for a 3 run homer to put our beloved Cardinals up 6-4. Ah, and the photo was taken with my space aged digital thingamabob

**Eaglerapids** · 06-10-2007, 10:33 PM

Now Stratman, you know you can't take a shot like that with the shutter lag we're plagued with!
Awesome pic:-)!

stewart_photo · 06-10-2007, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by k10dbook

I was just thinking today of how much money I spent on my Pentax DSLR equipment. The K10D alone cost me $1,050.00 with the kit lens and the battery grip. We are so used to complain on how much everything cost, that we sometimes forget that technology has reduced costs for many items, DSLRs being one. It also has made our lives (as photographers) much easier.

The last 35mm I owned cost about the same price as my K10D. I was shooting an average of 3 rolls of 36 per week. That's 156 rolls per year. The cost of one 35mm cartridge with 36 exposure, developed into negatives conservatively cost $8.00. I am not counting the prints. That is roughly $1,248.00 per year.

So basically, I am saving at least $1,248.00 per year. (snip)

You calculations are a little off. First, my current K10D body was nearly twice as expensive as my last film SLR body (Maxxum 7, $487 from B&H). Next, you have to subtract from your perceived savings the cost of labor (the longer time in front of a computer compared to short trips to a film lab), computer hardware costs, software costs, ink costs, photo paper costs, and so on. And some accommodation has to be made for shorter product lifespans, and ongoing costs of maintaining and upgrading computers, software, printers, and so on.

In the end, there really isn't that much of a savings. Instead, the main advantage rests in the level of control gained from editing the photos yourself.

stewart

**ebooks4pentax** · 06-10-2007, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by stewart_photo

You calculations are a little off. First, my current K10D body was nearly twice as expensive as my last film SLR body (Maxxum 7, $487 from B&H). Next, you have to subtract from your perceived savings the cost of labor (the longer time in front of a computer compared to short trips to a film lab), computer hardware costs, software costs, ink costs, photo paper costs, and so on. And some accommodation has to be made for shorter product lifespans, and ongoing costs of maintaining and upgrading computers, software, printers, and so on.

In the end, there really isn't that much of a savings. Instead, the main advantage rests in the level of control gained from editing the photos yourself.

stewart

Stewart:

I did point out in my write up that the printing was not included. Spending time in front of a computer is like spending time in a dark room. Nevertheless, I would have a computer regardless of my photography or not.

The point of my thread is not really the costs, but the way we find a way to complain about everything, even if we have it 100 times better. By the way, my last 35mm camera was a Nikon F5 and it actually was nearly $2000.00 but worthless in today's digital world. It was however, like all 35mm cameras, a great marvel of engineering. Just think of the 35mm Leicas, they are still a marvel of engineering, but computer chips have replaced most of the mechanical stuff.

**ebooks4pentax** · 06-10-2007, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by davemdsn

There is also a trade off to this technology thing. We are loosing touch with each other as people. We are nothing but codenames. This is a great camera club, but we don't have big group meetings where we can shake hands, meet the spouses (or other significant others), and so forth. Knowledge is growing leaps and bounds, but social interaction is fading. We are a long way from serious loss of souls, but I do miss the personal touch of face to face meetings. I have friends right here in town that I rarely see because we can e-mail so easily.

I couldn't agree more about that statement.

As for the 900 shots at the wedding with 600 shown to the happy couple...........Rule of thumb has always been take lots of pictures, but only show a small amount of them and only the very bests. That way, you always are perceived as the professional as all the pictures you show your client are above average and above amateurs like uncle Bob that was also at the wedding, always in your way, shooting with his DSLR . There was an uncle Bob at every weddings I ever shot.

06-10-2007, 12:38 AM	#1
ebooks4pentax Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: California, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 464	Aren't we all spoiled brats? I was just thinking today of how much money I spent on my Pentax DSLR equipment. The K10D alone cost me $1,050.00 with the kit lens and the battery grip. We are so used to complain on how much everything cost, that we sometimes forget that technology has reduced costs for many items, DSLRs being one. It also has made our lives (as photographers) much easier. The last 35mm I owned cost about the same price as my K10D. I was shooting an average of 3 rolls of 36 per week. That's 156 rolls per year. The cost of one 35mm cartridge with 36 exposure, developed into negatives conservatively cost $8.00. I am not counting the prints. That is roughly $1,248.00 per year. So basically, I am saving at least $1,248.00 per year. A 1Gig SD card cost about $50.00 and is reusable indefinitely. Instead of buying fast films (ISO 400 - ISO 1000) for low lighting subjects, I rotate a dial, change the ISO, all while keeping the same SD card. In the film days, one was never 100% sure how the shot would come out. I used to compose my pictures meticulously and bracket one stop over and one under just-in-case. Then I would either develop the slides at home or bring the film to a store for developing into prints. It sometimes took one week before I knew what my shots looked like. Now, I look at my camera LCD monitor seconds after I pushed the shutter release button. If I don’t like the shot, I take it again until I get it right. Mind you, I cannot recreate a moment such as unique portraits, action shots, etc. I can however still use a bracket mode with up to 5 shots in less than 1.2 seconds. I could go on and on, but you get the idea. What do we do now? We find ways to complain again. Now we are pixels counting, we want faster consecutive shooting, we want better colors, we want, we want, we want……. If we keep wanting cameras to be easier and easier to use, where does the art of photography goes? Isn’t composing the pictures, catching that perfect moment after staying at one location for hours waiting for the right lighting, getting up at 5:00 A.M. so that we could catch the sunrise, using that tripod with a 200mm + lens to avoid camera shake, etc,. the reason we love photography? Most of us make prints no larger than 8 ½” x 11” except for special pictures where we want to frame and hang on the wall, and of course for the paying customers. Does how the color looks with a 10MP camera, using ISO 800 and enlarged 100 times really matters? If you crop your pictures and blow it up 100 times, you were to far away from your subject to begin with. Get closer and compose meticulously just like if you were paying $8.00 for every 36 frames. I just wanted to share that with you. We are all spoiled brats.

06-10-2007, 03:07 AM	#5
J.Scott Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,675	Compare modern digital photography to almost any thing we do these days. My grandfather used to plow neighbors gardens for 50 cents with a team of horses because that was the only way they could have vegetables for the year. Now we spend less than a minute breezing through the produce department at our local grocery superstore scooping up green things from around the globe. Is this spoiled? I used to sit at a table with pen and paper and write letters to friends and family. Part of the process was folding the letter, stuffing it into an envelope, trudging to the post office and sending it off. Getting a reply a few weeks later seemed like a speedy process. Now I sit at a computer connected to the entire world and tap off instant messages to my sister who lives thousands of miles away. Is this being spoiled? It's just modern technology. So you think you are saving money by having a digital camera? How are you processing those pictures? I'll just bet it is done on a computer that probably cost several hundred or more likely a few thousand dollars. It's all relative. Ah, what the heck, go buy a few rolls of film and snap away! If you are like most of us our right thumb feels neglected in this digital age, simply relegated to pushing tiny buttons on the back of the camera. It is a nostalgic and yet very satisfying feeling to wind to the next frame. Digital photography is fun because it offers instant gratification to both the photographer and the subject. We don't just 'want' this, as you suggest; our psyche needs to be stroked and most often demands attention right now! It's human nature; jump on the bandwagon or fight it and go down swinging. You can still plow your garden with a team of horses if you so desire. Last edited by J.Scott; 06-10-2007 at 03:13 AM.

06-10-2007, 05:25 AM	#6
carpents Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: West Chester, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,420	No, we are just lucky Originally posted by k10dbook ...What do we do now? We find ways to complain again. Now we are pixels counting, we want faster consecutive shooting, we want better colors, we want, we want, we want……. If we keep wanting cameras to be easier and easier to use, where does the art of photography goes? ... I just wanted to share that with you. We are all spoiled brats. I must disagree here. Things are just moving much faster than in previous generations. Think about the fact that many on this forum will personally experience two 'Golden Ages' of photography - first 35mm film, then DSLR. I do think that there will be a peak with DSLRs, and it is because of all the clamoring for a better-implemented and bug-free feature set that we'll be blessed to see it. Wouldn't it be great if a manufacturer came out with a real manual focus DSLR? Or a real black & white one? I think at some point there will be a ridiculous 27fps, live view, all-wireless, 20 megapixel, integrated cell phone/mp3 player/personal computer - at which point the Golden Age of DSLRs will have passed. Until then we should realize that the peak of DSLRs will only be as good as what we clamor for - and no better.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
I've been spoiled by the FA 43mm Ltd....	doppio	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	107	03-20-2011 06:16 PM
Freakin Fungus Spoiled My Party!	magkelly	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	05-30-2010 06:54 AM
Spoiled by old SMC glass! Unhappy with new zoom.	JasonS	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	28	10-01-2007 12:24 AM

06-10-2007, 01:06 AM	#2
dwinnert Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 107	Even though I own a K10D, I still mostly shoot film......In fact I shot three rolls today. Too much Corralejo...must go to bed.

06-10-2007, 02:47 AM	#3
rhermans Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Europe - Belgium - Antwerp Photos: Albums Posts: 213	Yep we are all spoiled brats, think that the wages in some places are not above few dollars a week. Then I'm doing this as a hobby, can't even say I need it for work. Got a perfectly working pana FZ5 and then I buy this one ... Yes we are all spoiled brats, and very very lucky that we can be.

06-10-2007, 03:00 AM	#4
SupremeMoFo Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Queensland, Australia Posts: 668	I didn't grow up in the film age - it was over by the time I was interested in photography (a few years ago - I'm 16). But, yes, I'm damn lucky to have the camera equipment I've got (total value, RRP: ~AU$2900).

06-10-2007, 08:22 AM	#7
Stratman Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: St Louis, Missouri U S A Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,464	I still have my Ricoh KR-5 that I bought in 1980. I paid $120.00 for it and the "feaux leather" case. In 2002 I bought a Minolta DiMage S404 4 MP digital, I paid $500.00 for it. This February I bought a K110D with Kit lens for $452.00. When I was first considering a DSLR about a year ago, I went to a local shop that takes trade ins, and wanted to see how much I could get for the Minolta, I was thinking maybe $150 -$200, Nope. $75.00 was the max they would give me. Talk about depreciation !! thats worse than a car, lol I do like technology, but usually I have a fully manual lens attached to my K110D. Feels better to me than letting the camera do all the work

06-10-2007, 09:46 AM	#8
davemdsn Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Boise, Idaho Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,413	I think that many will count us as spoiled, but we will do the same to a future generation saying that we had it much harder. It is all a matter of perspective. In some ways I think that shooting digital is more work than shooting film. I used to shoot a wedding, hand the film off to a lab, deliver the photos to the client and I was done. Now I spend hours in front of the computer. I got a little trigger happy at the last wedding and shot almost 900 images, of which I edited and delivered a little over 600. Much more work than film for me. There is also a trade off to this technology thing. We are loosing touch with each other as people. We are nothing but codenames. This is a great camera club, but we don't have big group meetings where we can shake hands, meet the spouses (or other significant others), and so forth. Knowledge is growing leaps and bounds, but social interaction is fading. We are a long way from serious loss of souls, but I do miss the personal touch of face to face meetings. I have friends right here in town that I rarely see because we can e-mail so easily.

06-10-2007, 03:32 PM	#9
little laker Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,697	I agree with you k10dbook, although I'm happy with my K100D and the 7 usable lenses that I have.

06-10-2007, 07:28 PM	#10
Wethphotography Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Washington, D.C., USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 417	Originally posted by davemdsn I think that many will count us as spoiled, but we will do the same to a future generation saying that we had it much harder. It is all a matter of perspective. In some ways I think that shooting digital is more work than shooting film. I used to shoot a wedding, hand the film off to a lab, deliver the photos to the client and I was done. Now I spend hours in front of the computer. I got a little trigger happy at the last wedding and shot almost 900 images, of which I edited and delivered a little over 600. Much more work than film for me. There is also a trade off to this technology thing. We are loosing touch with each other as people. We are nothing but codenames. This is a great camera club, but we don't have big group meetings where we can shake hands, meet the spouses (or other significant others), and so forth. Knowledge is growing leaps and bounds, but social interaction is fading. We are a long way from serious loss of souls, but I do miss the personal touch of face to face meetings. I have friends right here in town that I rarely see because we can e-mail so easily. Could not agree more with all you wrote and could not have written it as well.

06-10-2007, 10:33 PM	#12
Eaglerapids Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Idaho,USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,619	Now Stratman, you know you can't take a shot like that with the shutter lag we're plagued with! Awesome pic:-)!

06-10-2007, 10:43 PM	#13
stewart_photo Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Heidelberg, Germany Posts: 1,864	Originally posted by k10dbook I was just thinking today of how much money I spent on my Pentax DSLR equipment. The K10D alone cost me $1,050.00 with the kit lens and the battery grip. We are so used to complain on how much everything cost, that we sometimes forget that technology has reduced costs for many items, DSLRs being one. It also has made our lives (as photographers) much easier. The last 35mm I owned cost about the same price as my K10D. I was shooting an average of 3 rolls of 36 per week. That's 156 rolls per year. The cost of one 35mm cartridge with 36 exposure, developed into negatives conservatively cost $8.00. I am not counting the prints. That is roughly $1,248.00 per year. So basically, I am saving at least $1,248.00 per year. (snip) You calculations are a little off. First, my current K10D body was nearly twice as expensive as my last film SLR body (Maxxum 7, $487 from B&H). Next, you have to subtract from your perceived savings the cost of labor (the longer time in front of a computer compared to short trips to a film lab), computer hardware costs, software costs, ink costs, photo paper costs, and so on. And some accommodation has to be made for shorter product lifespans, and ongoing costs of maintaining and upgrading computers, software, printers, and so on. In the end, there really isn't that much of a savings. Instead, the main advantage rests in the level of control gained from editing the photos yourself. stewart

06-10-2007, 11:26 PM	#14
ebooks4pentax Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: California, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 464 Original Poster	Originally posted by stewart_photo You calculations are a little off. First, my current K10D body was nearly twice as expensive as my last film SLR body (Maxxum 7, $487 from B&H). Next, you have to subtract from your perceived savings the cost of labor (the longer time in front of a computer compared to short trips to a film lab), computer hardware costs, software costs, ink costs, photo paper costs, and so on. And some accommodation has to be made for shorter product lifespans, and ongoing costs of maintaining and upgrading computers, software, printers, and so on. In the end, there really isn't that much of a savings. Instead, the main advantage rests in the level of control gained from editing the photos yourself. stewart Stewart: I did point out in my write up that the printing was not included. Spending time in front of a computer is like spending time in a dark room. Nevertheless, I would have a computer regardless of my photography or not. *The point of my thread is not really the costs, but the way we find a way to complain about everything, even if we have it 100 times better*. By the way, my last 35mm camera was a Nikon F5 and it actually was nearly $2000.00 but worthless in today's digital world. It was however, like all 35mm cameras, a great marvel of engineering. Just think of the 35mm Leicas, they are still a marvel of engineering, but computer chips have replaced most of the mechanical stuff.

06-10-2007, 11:37 PM	#15
ebooks4pentax Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: California, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 464 Original Poster	Originally posted by davemdsn There is also a trade off to this technology thing. We are loosing touch with each other as people. We are nothing but codenames. This is a great camera club, but we don't have big group meetings where we can shake hands, meet the spouses (or other significant others), and so forth. Knowledge is growing leaps and bounds, but social interaction is fading. We are a long way from serious loss of souls, but I do miss the personal touch of face to face meetings. I have friends right here in town that I rarely see because we can e-mail so easily. I couldn't agree more about that statement. As for the 900 shots at the wedding with 600 shown to the happy couple...........Rule of thumb has always been take lots of pictures, but only show a small amount of them and only the very bests. That way, you always are perceived as the professional as all the pictures you show your client are above average and above amateurs like uncle Bob that was also at the wedding, always in your way, shooting with his DSLR . There was an uncle Bob at every weddings I ever shot.