Does taking fewer photos actually make you a better photographer? The case for shooting less

[RoughDaemon]

A thread against the spray and pray era. In the film days every frame cost money so people shot deliberately, and the theory goes that infinite free digital frames made us lazier, shooting a hundred hopefuls instead of composing one keeper, so the question is whether deliberately shooting LESS actually makes you better

The case for shooting less is that scarcity forces attention, when you allow yourself only a few frames you slow down, you actually look, you compose before you press instead of fixing it in the edit or hoping one of forty works, and that discipline builds an eye that machine gunning never will

The counter deserves a real hearing though, because the spray also catches the fleeting moment the deliberate shooter misses, sports and wildlife and children do not wait for you to compose, and there is a romanticism about film era discipline that conveniently forgets how many precious moments were lost to a wound on frame

So where do you sit, has deliberately limiting your frames improved your work or just made you miss shots, and the practical bonus, the self imposed constraints people actually use, the daily frame limit, the one lens, the no chimping rule, because the discipline that helps is worth stealing