not this time. More of a test if I would want to do this again. I used to do this for more than 15 weekends a year, 3 days, plus travel days. Didn't leave much time for anything else on top of a full time job.
I asked because if for work, that is the compelling reason for shooting massive amounts of images. For personal time, one can make the case that this is not necessary. Let me explain. I shot digital full time for over 10 years. Invariably, I would always come home with 200-300 shots for every day out shooting, sometimes a lot more if in a real special location. Upon review, I would always find that I had so many shots of the same thing, that they lost all meaning to me. Dozens upon dozens of shots, with 2% or so difference from the last one. I could and did, easily cull 90% of my shots as they were useless noise. Upon reflection, I found that digital photography was making me lazy. Lazy beyond belief. My SD card had grown to 16 gigs and could hold thousands upon thousands of images. I filled it up as best I could.
For me personally, I am distinctly unhappy with photography unless I push myself and gain personal growth. It is a practice, a meditative practice as the recent author stated. For me, for some unknown reason, every advantage to digital photography seemingly works against my personal growth. I get lazier and lazier. I find that the thrill of getting the shot is severely mitigated by the fact that it takes dozens upon dozens, if not hundreds, of shots to get it.
Now shooting film, when I nail a shot, it is profoundly more satisfying because I'm doing so purely on technical skill (and luck, there's always that). I have no feedback in the field at all, no reshoots if I get it wrong, no chimping to check exposure.
Folks in this thread must understand this a bit since a lot of the reasons above also apply to the use of manual focus lenses over autofocus. I'm just taking it all the way to a logical conclusion. (Notice that I did not say THE logical conclusion, implying that there was only one).