Re: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

Lynn Allen wrote:


 > As a former Art Director, I don't think that "Stock" is an appropriate
 > medium--it never was for my uses. "Almost" is not good enough in today's
 > competition to stake one's career on. You
 > need a photographer you know, who can get the results you need. While 
stock
 > *might* be a source of income for starting shooters, I think it's 
overrated
 > and overstated. But that's my opinion, and it doesn't cost you more 
than the
 > time it took you to read it.
 >
 > Best regards and good luck--LRA
 >
 >

This is a twist in the discussion which could lead to a lot of potential
disagreement.

I'll just make a few simple comments.

Some photographers do very, very well in creating stock images. (seven
figures a year), most do considerably poorer than that.  The top end
people spend a lot of time, energy materials and marketing on getting
"hot" images that can sell well in multiples, while still providing a
very unique look.  There has to be big money in some aspect of stock
image distribution, or you wouldn't see the incredible amounts of stock
and cash transfers as smaller agencies ar being swallowed up by the
likes of Bill Gates (Corbis) and Getty Industries.

Then again, I've got a few  great leads on some hot dot.com companies. ;-)

Art