So this all opens another debate really... why are you all taking so many? if it was on film years ago, you just couldn't afford it... 35mm film would usually be 24 or 36, then d and p... no way could you take maybe 3 or 4 rolls at a show unless you were getting paid, and films of old only had 12 exposures or thereabouts...

I guess everyone is snapping away 'because you can' prety much for free, or somewhere amongst the batch there may be one that looks right?

Since I shoot primarily available light I may be on continuous shooting mode and hand holding at slow shutter speeds. By shooting 3,4,5 frames of the same photograph I increase the odds that at least one is sharp & clear. At the same time in portraiture shooting multiple frames allows a selection of expressions especially in candid portraiture.

In landscape photography changes in light, fog, rain or general movement are more easily captured in a burst of frames. In the recent airshow I attended high speed aircraft blazed by in a second. I was firing 6-7 shots while panning. Only one was composed the best and froze the motion. The rest of the frames were discarded. The same can be said for photographing moving water as in waterfalls or streams.

Shooting multiple frames while automatically bracketing 3-5 frames at different exposures wouldn't have been possible in film days. Our present technology allows for much more creative shooting. All this chews up frames, which now cost us nothing to process. We're not limited to 12, 24 or 36 frames. We can shoot 260 frames in RAW then pop another 4 gig card in the camera in a few seconds and start over. Camera battery life is such that we don't have to worry about exhausting the battery in all but the most extreme shooting conditions. I carry a spare fully charged battery in my bag as well.

I suppose it is just the world moving forward. We can so we do.

You can even watch one programme and record the other side now to watch it later.....