In a message dated 14/2/03 3:43:28 PM, stephen writes: << Much modern stock is pretty loosely shot and is not intended to be 100%
technically perfect but occasionally there will be shoots were detail capture is also important. Thanks for any help in advance, Stephen Johnson >> Dear Stephen I now sell stock direct and am selling more than my agents so I have a little experience of market requests. Whether to go digital rather than scan medium format transparencies has puzzled me for some time. I think it depends on what sort of work you do and the type of markets you aim at. As an example of the confusion there is at least one very successful celebrity pix agency who are flying colour prints to NY on Concord every day. News and sport have made some very good stock sales from small digital files; well over �1,000 per Mb. Looking at my own sales figures I can see that if I had been using a digital camera of the same weight and portability of my 645 camera I would have lost 25% of the sales I made last year. However, if I was still supplying stock agents with widely varied images I would have been shooting digital for at least 12 months. I now shoot landscapes almost exclusively. (Please lets not argue that a 645 back plus laptop plus assistant is as easy as shooting dawn landscapes on film without a laptop and assistant. I can barely carry my equipment now.) The reasons which have made me hesitate until now seem to have been answered by the Kodak 14n. Whether I buy one will depend on many factors. Quality is not the only one. Profit is high on the list. Bob Croxford =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
