Paul Stenquist wrote:
> 
> We need to enable you with an *istD. It's just fine for stock. Shoot in
> RAW and convert to 50 meg files in PhotoShop CS. They're sharp and
> virtually noise free when shot at iso 200 or 400.
> Paul

I'd love to enabled with an *isdD - however I
either need a rich
sugar daddy, a winning lotto ticket, or a good job
with more pay. :)

(if ebay really picks up in September I'll be fine
:)  )

Eventually...
ann - unabletobenabled



> On Aug 21, 2004, at 11:40 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
> 
> > Well...
> >
> > after a long talk with my stock agency gal on the
> > phone a couple of days ago I've
> > found out a lot about what I can't do when
> > submitting stuff - so thought I'd share.
> >
> > Bottom line, unless I spent thousands of dollars
> > to upgrade my equipment, the
> > digital stuff I could produce to show them is
> > useless.
> >
> > The stock company will accept my slides, as they
> > always have done, but they
> > then scan them and send them out.
> >
> > The Epson 1640SUP doesn't scan slides and negs
> > well enough to make
> > files that are up to spec for industry standards.
> > And even if I shoot digital
> > and get something done professionally because I
> > think the stock agency would
> > love it, I don't have enough digital power to do
> > it.
> >
> > (Herb once said I didn't know enough to ask the
> > right questions, and I have
> > to confess I bristled at that but he was
> > undoubtedly right.)
> >
> > The agency gave me the correct info, they just
> > didn't know that my equipment
> > was not strong enough to handle the requirements -
> > and I really can't afford to
> > get into it full blast.
> >
> > The rejection rate has gone way up for those
> > photogs in the agency who have tried
> > to do the scanning and clean-up themselves.
> >
> > Black and white photography for them is dead.  (at
> > least my prints are in a safe place :) )
> > Clients who want black and white just change it
> > from color.
> >
> > And then there are my eyes, which have a very hard
> > time recognizing "razor sharp" and
> > noticing the noise.
> >
> > The one thing I did do that she found
> > "interesting" was using the flatbed as a camera -
> > for tight close-ups of natural objects - but there
> > was too much noise in what I sent her,
> > and I'm really not into spending a lot of time
> > working on stuff like that.
> >
> > I was very grateful for the time she took to
> > explain a lot to me, but a bit discouraged
> > about my nature stock at this point.
> >
> > annsan
> >

Reply via email to