My first SLR was a Minolta XG-A. It was nice to have a "real" camera, yet it was only a hint at what was available at such a time. (Circa 1984-85). Ran out and took many shots like many new enthusiasts tend to do, before understanding the power of the camera. Reflecting back on those years only makes me wonder why the sudden urge to get back into using SLR's. Probably due to the shortcomings of the point & shoot Kodak EasyShare digital camera. While it's possible to take (literally) thousands of pictures and then pick the good ones; it kind of defeated the art involved in "setting it up". An artist decides what colours to use when they paint. The photographer isn't much different, since they can frame on the ones they want in a photograph if they aren't focused on a subject. They can decide how much light to let in, which shadows to catch, which depth to blur and what perspective to shoot it. So when an actor/actress talks about her "good side", it naturally refers to the one that makes them look best on camera. Much of the art still eludes me. Out of three rolls of film so far, there are not quite a dozen shots (out of 72) that are distinctively good. Some are still postcard quality if judged by those printed in the 1970's or 80's. The ones that stand out help me to realize that the forethought is what is paying the dividends. Going back and looking through the prints or the scans, am able to see what is most liked about them. Not to mention the fact that the defects stand out quite readily. People who have looked at shots from a local city or state park ask where they were taken when they have BEEN there! It means that they didn't "look" at it when they passed through. So it is kind of like showing people things they hadn't seen before, just as if they were strangers to the area. Photography can set a mood, tell a story and capture the essence of what it is the "artist" behind the camera is able to see.