tony_tittle

<p>John - Ethics can be summed up by looking at the 'rightness' and 'wrongness' of actions and to the 'goodness' and 'badness' of the motives and ends of those actions. In this case it would depend upon the individual considering those actions and motives. I like Aimee's analogy.<br>

Tony</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong...I love digital, but I also think it has given us the chance to replicate the monkey typing Shakespeare. I read on forums about people having 40,000 files taken in one year! How can you not get a few keepers from that output? As an old film shooter perhaps I tend to give a little more thought to each frame and less to just snapping the shutter. <br>

I suppose it all depends on what you want from photography: a record, a 'work', or a sale. And, yes, I delete.</p>

<p>We can argue about fair use, and creativity, and time, and the rest of it. The fact that digital cameras with attendant post processing software has changed the game forever.<br>

Remember when you'd shoot roll after roll hoping that you nailed everything, only to find out -too late- how many of those exposures didn't measure up. No longer need worry. Even marginal shots can end up a 'silk purse' instead of a 'sow's ear'<br>

Millions of cameras, millions of editable photos equal low price.</p>

<p>Thanks to Mac.<br>

We read all the time about micro, traditional stock portals from the photographers' point of view. I would like to hear more about these outlets from the BUYERS' point of view. After, that's the only one which really counts.<br>

As an aside, unless you have a 'name' in photography, I'm not convinced that a single website exposure can pay dividends. Stock needs a nexus for buyers. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't imagine a busy photo buyer searching individual sites for purchases.<br>

Again, thanks for starting this thread, Peter, and adding to it Mac.<br>

Tony</p>