Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 17:21:26 +0200 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steve@sohara.org> Cc: Ralf Mardorf <ralf-mardorf@riseup.net>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: (very OT) Ideal partition schemes (history of partitioning) Message-ID: <20200830172126.5332f0eb.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <20200830083908.c7cc67a23306c90d51f5e446@sohara.org> References: <CAGBxaXkf53K4EHtq9cDaRm3MOZZixyBq-aQfZ7upHo-wUwrmCg@mail.gmail.com> <20200829154417.8dd5f83d.freebsd@edvax.de> <20200830085848.68ab4832@archlinux> <20200830083908.c7cc67a23306c90d51f5e446@sohara.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 08:39:08 +0100, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: > On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 08:58:48 +0200 > Ralf Mardorf <ralf-mardorf@riseup.net> wrote: > > > There's no need to take 10 shots/second of a still life and to repeat > > it 20 times, to end up with 200 photos. > > No there isn't, taking many shots and selecting the best has of > course long been standard practice for professional photographers digital > cameras and modern memory sizes just make it possible to carry this to > extremes. Rule: "Better have 100 photos and select 10 good ones, instead of having only 10 photos which are all crap." ;-) In digital photography, this is much more simple and convenient than in the "developing times", especially as you can delete the 90 photos not needed anymore - yes, they _can_ be deleted. But with cheap storage options available for few $, it seems to have become more common to just move the unneeded photos to a "secondary location", "Just in case!", which sometimes will never happen... -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200830172126.5332f0eb.freebsd>