In an article in the May 99 issue of Photo Life the writer claims that on a recent trip to Churchill, he shot 60 rolls of film and only got 40 good pictures. Furthermore, only five of the pictures did not require digital 'massaging' to be great pictures according to the author. Shooting white polar bears on snow is probably a lot harder than it looks, but only 40 good images from 60 rolls! Is it really that hard? After reading that comment it left me wondering if this fellow's advice was worth taking. By the way, most of the pictures that went with the article were digitally massaged in some way. So maybe he isn't that good of a photographer, or maybe he just likes digital stuff, or maybe Churchill bears really are that tough. P.S. The same issue has a very nice primer on using flash for wildlife photography written, I think, by a French Canadian. Viva La Free Quebec!