They're collectors items now that the Elvis(TM) Presley has cracked down
on selling them.
A.) Keep um under wraps until the storm blows over
B.) Sell them for a bundle as originals.
Bob Sullivan wrote:
Vincent Van Gogh didn't sell to many paintings during his lifetime.
There is an old Latin phrase which translates,
There is no accounting for taste.
Personally, my house is full of those velvet paintings of Elvis...
Regards, Bob S.
On 7/2/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Read ALL of Herb's comments. He's evaluating the worth of a photo by its
marketability.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Tom Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Date: 7/2/2005 7:03:22 AM
Subject: Re: Don't need no stinkin' filters!
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Herb's comment was simple: if it will sell it's a good photo. While
your
point has some validity, it is a softening of Herb's initial comment
and
contention that only a photograph that will sell is a good photograph.
I
stand by my statement that Herb is full of shit.
Herb didn't say "if it will sell then it's a good photo" nor did he
imply it. Herb replied to someones heavy editing of someelse's image
with the comment: "the first one won't sell and the second one will". He
didn't say that was the only way to evaluate an image. He didn't say the
second one was a better image. All he said was that the second picture
would sell better than the first one. That can be important to someone
who needs to put food on the table and is a valid comment. I too think
the second image would sell better. I sure as hell don't think it's a
better image.
Tom Reese
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
