With film, one was limited to 24-36 shots per roll. This limitation caused us to be fairly deliberate before pressing the shutter. Now we have essentially an unlimited number of shots we can take. On the surface that's a tremendous advantage. But the downside (and of course I'm speaking of art photography, vs. snapshots and so forth) is how it tends to reduce our ability to previsualize and determine whether or not a shot is going to work before actually taking it. Some would say: "So what? What's the harm in taking 41 shots of a flower and picking the best one?" I can't really argue against that type of method other than to say: "Wouldn't it be nice if you could arrive at that 'best' shot in 3 instead of 41 because you already had a pretty good idea how they were going to turn out?" Of course there are exceptions, like with novel subjects or situations where you need to experiment. To me, one of the hallmarks of a "great" photographer is a person who travels to a beautiful location, surveys the scene, notices for one reason or another that the conditions just aren't right, and leaves with at most a few token or experimental photographs. S/he doesn't try to force what just isn't there.