wrote in message
oups.com...
I've taken a lot of pictures over the years and find that I
seldom refer to them. They don't capture the "spirit" of the moment, as
C.S. Lewis put it.

IMHO, that's missing the point. Please, bear with me.

I've taken thousands of pictures. Maybe even over ten thousand at this
point (but probably not twenty thousand...I'm not a professional, nor even
an avid hobbyist), now that digital photography came along (got my first
digital camera ten years ago).

Do I refer to most of those pictures after taking them? Nope. The vast
majority, I could delete forever and never notice. For the few that I do
refer to, do I do so to "capture the 'spirit' of the moment"? Nope...as you
and Lewis note, the picture rarely can perfectly put you back in the frame
of mind of the moment.

Though that said, the picture *can* at least remind you of a precious
moment. Your own memory is what recaptures the spirit, and the photo may be
meaningless to anyone else. But it's still a pleasurable experience to view
again for yourself.

More importantly (at least to me) is that the photo has artistic value in
and of itself. Most of the photos you take probably won't fall into this
category (unless you're an excellent and experienced photographer), but
that's not the point. All it takes is one photo every now and then for it
to be all worthwhile. And this is especially true with digital photography,
where a relatively small camera is capable of taking remarkably high-quality
photos, with no incremental cost associated with each photo, and with very
little inconvenience in having the camera with you.

This is why the "bring a camera" rule is such a good one. Today, it
requires very little trouble, and can produce great rewards. Most of the
time it won't, but it's easy insurance to cover those few moments when it
will.


And (just 'cause this post isn't long enough already ), here's my
thoughts on the digital-versus-film aspect of this issue:

Even when I was only shooting film, I did try to follow the philosophy that
"film is cheap". And relatively speaking it was. But it still cost
*something*, as did the processing. In addition, not doing my own
processing I was subject to the vagaries of the person who was doing it. I
tried nearly a dozen local processors before settling on one that could
consistently turn out photos that were of high quality, and even with them I
still occasionally got a print with a bit of lint on the negative. They'll
reprint the photo for free when that happens, but it's still a hassle to
have to go back and have them do it.

With a small digital camera, I get instant results, good-quality pictures,
no processing hassles or costs, and best of all it's easy to have the camera
with me at all times. I would never think of dragging my film camera around
with me all the time. It's more capable than the digital camera I use, but
it also is quite a bit larger, and I don't like carrying it without the
accessories (extra lens, flash, extra batteries, film, filters, etc) which
results in a pretty big load. With my digital camera, I put a fresh
rechargeable battery in it, drop it in my pocket or flight bag, and I don't
even notice it unless I need it.

So, even more so than used to be the case, digital photography has made it
even easier and convenient to always have a camera along.

(And yes, even before digital you could get 35mm "point-and-shoot" cameras,
but I never got the kind of results from those that I get with similar-sized
digital cameras today)

The few times I wished I had my camera was when I
encountered an airplane like the one I was buiolding, as a few shots of
airframe details that don't get properly covered in the pans are a big
help.

That's yet another great reason to have a camera along! If it's not a lot
of trouble to bring one, why not keep one with you at all times, just in
case?

Pete