If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:04:39 -0400, "Peter"
wrote: "C. Werner" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 13:54:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: On Aug 9, 4:35 pm, C. Werner wrote: On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:20:47 +0100, Bruce wrote: On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:00:04 -0500, C. Werner wrote: On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:44:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: On Aug 9, 1:08 pm, Bowser wrote: On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:37:14 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2010-08-09 04:52:16 -0700, "Bowser" said: "Rich" wrote in message news What, no 1/2.3"sensored superzooms? I'm shocked. http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_X1 _The_first_compact_approved_by_Getty_news_300782.h tml Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: http://contributors.gettyimages.com/...asp?article_id... No canon 5D II? No Nikon D3s? No Canon 7D? No Leica M9? Hmmm...... Even sillier, they list the D300 and not the D700? ...and if the D300, why not the D90? Yes, it's a stupid and lame attempt to try and control the quality of the images they collect based on camera make and model. Alamy has some kind of test based on noise. However, I had no trouble with a Panasonic G1 (or Nikon D300) images submitted. All that it shows is to not deal with Getty in any way shape or form. Any people running a company that are that amazingly ignorant and stupid are not worth the bother and are not to be encouraged. Neither Getty nor Alamy use lists of cameras whose results are accepted, while results from other cameras are automatically rejected. The criteria for acceptance are based on the quality of the image being submitted, not the brand and model of the camera that was used to capture it. Both agencies will accept results from a variety of cameras, including some of the better compact P&S cameras, and from super-zooms, provided that they are of a sufficiently high standard. The camera lists are therefore meaningless - and that's why Getty Images have refused to make any comment about theirs. The addition of the Leica X-1 to a list that isn't actually used might be of some peripheral marketing value to Leica, but it has no relevance at all in the real world . Then it would behoove them to remove their lists altogether and encourage others to never make any mention of any "approved cameras list". Like stepping in and slapping trolls like RichA publicly. Even stating it loudly and boldly on their main pages. Or they remain looking like fools. That they do not do this only proves my point all the more, they shouldn't be dealt with nor encouraged/rewarded financially in any way. When were your images rejected? Why do you ignorantly presume I would even bother to submit my images to a group of people that stupid? Oh that's right, because you're even more stupid than they are. I publish my own photos, selling to a select hand-picked market. I decide whether or not I want to sell to them, based on their personalities and values in life, few get the right to purchase. I have no need to peddle my images online like some cheap hooker standing under a street-lamp of the world. Customers seek me out, not the other way around, the majority being rejected, knowing this before they even ask. This year I gave away 8 prints to someone that deserved to have them. Conversely I was recently offered $7,500 for a print by someone that didn't deserve to have any of my photography, the sale was not made. I so enjoyed saying "NO" to them. It was worth every penny they had offered. I make my own rules. I am not sure who the biggest BS artist in this group is. Clearly you are near the top. Let us all know when you actually buy a camera one day. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:04:39 -0400, "Peter"
wrote: "C. Werner" wrote in message ... On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 13:54:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: On Aug 9, 4:35 pm, C. Werner wrote: On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:20:47 +0100, Bruce wrote: On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:00:04 -0500, C. Werner wrote: On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:44:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: On Aug 9, 1:08 pm, Bowser wrote: On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:37:14 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2010-08-09 04:52:16 -0700, "Bowser" said: "Rich" wrote in message news What, no 1/2.3"sensored superzooms? I'm shocked. http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_X1 _The_first_compact_approved_by_Getty_news_300782.h tml Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: http://contributors.gettyimages.com/...asp?article_id... No canon 5D II? No Nikon D3s? No Canon 7D? No Leica M9? Hmmm...... Even sillier, they list the D300 and not the D700? ...and if the D300, why not the D90? Yes, it's a stupid and lame attempt to try and control the quality of the images they collect based on camera make and model. Alamy has some kind of test based on noise. However, I had no trouble with a Panasonic G1 (or Nikon D300) images submitted. All that it shows is to not deal with Getty in any way shape or form. Any people running a company that are that amazingly ignorant and stupid are not worth the bother and are not to be encouraged. Neither Getty nor Alamy use lists of cameras whose results are accepted, while results from other cameras are automatically rejected. The criteria for acceptance are based on the quality of the image being submitted, not the brand and model of the camera that was used to capture it. Both agencies will accept results from a variety of cameras, including some of the better compact P&S cameras, and from super-zooms, provided that they are of a sufficiently high standard. The camera lists are therefore meaningless - and that's why Getty Images have refused to make any comment about theirs. The addition of the Leica X-1 to a list that isn't actually used might be of some peripheral marketing value to Leica, but it has no relevance at all in the real world . Then it would behoove them to remove their lists altogether and encourage others to never make any mention of any "approved cameras list". Like stepping in and slapping trolls like RichA publicly. Even stating it loudly and boldly on their main pages. Or they remain looking like fools. That they do not do this only proves my point all the more, they shouldn't be dealt with nor encouraged/rewarded financially in any way. When were your images rejected? Why do you ignorantly presume I would even bother to submit my images to a group of people that stupid? Oh that's right, because you're even more stupid than they are. I publish my own photos, selling to a select hand-picked market. I decide whether or not I want to sell to them, based on their personalities and values in life, few get the right to purchase. I have no need to peddle my images online like some cheap hooker standing under a street-lamp of the world. Customers seek me out, not the other way around, the majority being rejected, knowing this before they even ask. This year I gave away 8 prints to someone that deserved to have them. Conversely I was recently offered $7,500 for a print by someone that didn't deserve to have any of my photography, the sale was not made. I so enjoyed saying "NO" to them. It was worth every penny they had offered. I make my own rules. I am not sure who the biggest BS artist in this group is. Clearly you are near the top. Let us all know when you actually buy a camera one day. Great original response. Did you think of that all by yourself? |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
In rec.photo.digital Bowser wrote:
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:37:14 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2010-08-09 04:52:16 -0700, "Bowser" said: "Rich" wrote in message news What, no 1/2.3"sensored superzooms? I'm shocked. http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_X1 _The_first_compact_approved_by_Getty_news_300782.h tml Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: http://contributors.gettyimages.com/...rticle_id=1346 No canon 5D II? No Nikon D3s? No Canon 7D? No Leica M9? Hmmm...... Even sillier, they list the D300 and not the D700? ...and if the D300, why not the D90? Yes, it's a stupid and lame attempt to try and control the quality of the images they collect based on camera make and model. No Sonys? Is thee no other SLR on the market besides the two sacred cows capable of producing a quality image? According to Getty, no. Very, very stupid list. It's a silly list designed to put off silly photographers. Intelligent photographers know that the list doesn't matter. -- Chris Malcolm |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:57:12 -0400, "Peter"
wrote: "Bowser" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:51:16 +0100, Bruce wrote: On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:06:52 -0400, Bowser wrote: On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:38:25 +0100, Bruce wrote: On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 07:52:16 -0400, "Bowser" wrote: "Rich" wrote in message news What, no 1/2.3"sensored superzooms? I'm shocked. http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_X1 _The_first_compact_approved_by_Getty_news_300782.h tml Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: http://contributors.gettyimages.com/...rticle_id=1346 No canon 5D II? No Nikon D3s? No Canon 7D? No Leica M9? Hmmm...... One other thing: Since the Leica X1 is amazingly slow, you'd best press that button now for images of things that happen next week. It may be slow, but is is expensive. You have obviously given the Leica X1 a detailed, extended trial, so perhaps you could tell us what you believe are its good points? What I mean is, you couldn't possibly have made comments such as those you made above without having given the Leica X1 a detailed, extended trial, could you? Because that would make those comments pure BS, and we all know you have *such* a strong aversion to that. ;-) I did try one, and gave up after a few hours. Then let's see some samples. Go on, post them, and make sure the EFIF information is left intact. I told you I gave up on it. Go find your own images, or post anything you've ever shot from any camera. Trolls don't deserve any effort. I can't understand why you call Brucie a troll. He is so educated and helpful. His information is always accurate and based upon first hand knowledge. Think of the hours of reading and experimenting he saves us. \end sarcastic tag Yeah, I know, any reply to him is a waste of time. No worries, he's not something I give a rats ass about and won't indulge him any more. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:17:37 +0100, bugbear
wrote: Bruce wrote: On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 13:53:50 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: They probably just want to lessen the amount of work that would be entailed, screening out junk that would get submitted if they opened the flood-gates to every camera, some of which (P&S's) can't produce acceptable. That's precisely it. They have no desire to be flooded with cell phone images. Guess they wouldn't want images of Saddam Hussein's execution then, which is a little odd for a news organisation. Remember that cover shot on Time of the Concord going up in flames during takeoff? It was taken by a tourist using a disposable film camera. Technically, it was rubbish. But it was the ONLY shot of its kind! Content trumps technical perfection nearly every time. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
On 11 Aug 2010 08:10:47 GMT, Chris Malcolm
wrote: In rec.photo.digital Bowser wrote: On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:37:14 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2010-08-09 04:52:16 -0700, "Bowser" said: "Rich" wrote in message news What, no 1/2.3"sensored superzooms? I'm shocked. http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_X1 _The_first_compact_approved_by_Getty_news_300782.h tml Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: http://contributors.gettyimages.com/...rticle_id=1346 No canon 5D II? No Nikon D3s? No Canon 7D? No Leica M9? Hmmm...... Even sillier, they list the D300 and not the D700? ...and if the D300, why not the D90? Yes, it's a stupid and lame attempt to try and control the quality of the images they collect based on camera make and model. No Sonys? Is thee no other SLR on the market besides the two sacred cows capable of producing a quality image? According to Getty, no. Very, very stupid list. It's a silly list designed to put off silly photographers. Intelligent photographers know that the list doesn't matter. totally agree. Getty is wasting their time even publishing a list. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:15:49 -0700 (PDT), Rich
wrote: On Aug 9, 7:46*pm, C. Werner wrote: On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:01:07 -0500, Rich wrote: C. Werner wrote in : On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 13:54:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: On Aug 9, 4:35*pm, C. Werner wrote: On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:20:47 +0100, Bruce wrote: On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:00:04 -0500, C. Werner wrote: On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:44:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: On Aug 9, 1:08*pm, Bowser wrote: On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:37:14 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2010-08-09 04:52:16 -0700, "Bowser" said: "Rich" wrote in message news What, no 1/2.3"sensored superzooms? *I'm shocked. http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_X1 _The_first_compact_approved_by_Getty_news_300782.h tml Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: http://contributors.gettyimages.com/...rticle.asp?art icle_id... No canon 5D II? No Nikon D3s? No Canon 7D? No Leica M9? Hmmm...... Even sillier, they list the D300 and not the D700? ...and if the D300, why not the D90? Yes, it's a stupid and lame attempt to try and control the quality of the images they collect based on camera make and model. Alamy has some kind of test based on noise. *However, I had no trouble with a Panasonic G1 (or Nikon D300) images submitted. All that it shows is to not deal with Getty in any way shape or form. Any people running a company that are that amazingly ignorant and stupid are not worth the bother and are not to be encouraged. Neither Getty nor Alamy use lists of cameras whose results are accepted, while results from other cameras are automatically rejected. The criteria for acceptance are based on the quality of the image being submitted, not the brand and model of the camera that was used to capture it. Both agencies will accept results from a variety of cameras, including some of the better compact P&S cameras, and from super-zooms, provided that they are of a sufficiently high standard. *The camera lists are therefore meaningless - and that's why Getty Images have refused to make any comment about theirs. The addition of the Leica X-1 to a list that isn't actually used might be of some peripheral marketing value to Leica, but it has no relevance at all in the real world . Then it would behoove them to remove their lists altogether and encourage others to never make any mention of any "approved cameras list". Like stepping in and slapping trolls like RichA publicly. Even stating it loudly and boldly on their main pages. Or they remain looking like fools. That they do not do this only proves my point all the more, they shouldn't be dealt with nor encouraged/rewarded financially in any way. When were your images rejected? * Why do you ignorantly presume I would even bother to submit my images to a group of people that stupid? Oh that's right, because you're even more stupid than they are. I publish my own photos, selling to a select hand-picked market. I decide whether or not I want to sell to them, based on their personalities and values in life, few get the right to purchase. I have no need to peddle my images online like some cheap hooker standing under a street-lamp of the world. Customers seek me out, not the other way around, the majority being rejected, knowing this before they even ask. This year I gave away 8 prints to someone that deserved to have them. Conversely I was recently offered $7,500 for a print by someone that didn't deserve to have any of my photography, the sale was not made. I so enjoyed saying "NO" to them. It was worth every penny they had offered. I make my own rules. Oh brother... Oh, I forgot. I apologize. I forgot you were nothing but a newsgroup troll who has never sold any images. Have never had your photography in demand. That something like this sounds so preposterous to you that it instills a great sense of incredulity in your basement-living life of a troll. I'll try to not make that error in the future and dumb-down reality to your level of insecurity and doubts about the real world that you shun minute by minute. Your post was unsupported, self-aggrandizing rubbish. Your posts are self-evident, blatantly insecure, screaming for further attention, troll's currency. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:32:03 -0400, Bowser wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:17:37 +0100, bugbear wrote: Bruce wrote: On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 13:53:50 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: They probably just want to lessen the amount of work that would be entailed, screening out junk that would get submitted if they opened the flood-gates to every camera, some of which (P&S's) can't produce acceptable. That's precisely it. They have no desire to be flooded with cell phone images. Guess they wouldn't want images of Saddam Hussein's execution then, which is a little odd for a news organisation. Remember that cover shot on Time of the Concord going up in flames during takeoff? It was taken by a tourist using a disposable film camera. Technically, it was rubbish. But it was the ONLY shot of its kind! Content trumps technical perfection nearly every time. No. Not nearly every time. Always. You could have a technically perfect three-terabyte pixel image of some immature flash-in-the-pan pop-star gracing a wall of some famous landmark. And alongside it a cell-phone image blown up to the same size, of the very first verified contact with visiting alien life from another world. Guess which image people will look at and value the most. Images will always be awarded attention based on the value of their content, never their technical perfection. Do you think that if Ansel took an image of some roadside stop-sign and then applied his darkroom techniques on it, that anyone would give a damn about wanting to see his "technical perfection" of an image that everyone has seen everyday their whole lives? Without worthy content technical perfection has zero value. I wholly understand that the denizens of these photography groups are either: role-playing trolls who have never held a camera, with their only value being what stats they can spout from fellow trolls or specs posted online; or failed snapshooters, who believe that if they only got a more expensive technically-superior camera, then they too will become a famous (or at least valued) photographer one day. With that being the vast majority, if not the all of the participants (minus one), they have no choice but to tout the benefits of "technical superiority". (Even doing that full of errors.) It's all they know. All they understand. And precisely why they'll always fail. They know nothing of what entails "valuable content". How can they? In order to do so they'd have to understand humanity first. That is far beyond the scope of their sheltered and/or self-serving lives. Technical aspects they can sometimes grasp, so they run with it, full tilt. Tripping, falling and failing--all the way. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:40:44 +0100, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:45:26 -0500, C. Werner wrote: On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:15:49 -0700 (PDT), Rich wrote: Your post was unsupported, self-aggrandizing rubbish. Your posts are self-evident, blatantly insecure, screaming for further attention, troll's currency. Isn't it great when the trolls start hurling personal abuse at each other? That's entertainment, folks! ;-) Like you just did? LOL! |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:38:23 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote: On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:32:03 -0400, Bowser wrote: Remember that cover shot on Time of the Concord going up in flames during takeoff? It was taken by a tourist using a disposable film camera. Technically, it was rubbish. But it was the ONLY shot of its kind! Content trumps technical perfection nearly every time. No. Not nearly every time. Always. You could have a technically perfect three-terabyte pixel image of some immature flash-in-the-pan pop-star gracing a wall of some famous landmark. And alongside it a cell-phone image blown up to the same size, of the very first verified contact with visiting alien life from another world. Guess which image people will look at and value the most. In the US, probably the GD pop star. Images will always be awarded attention based on the value of their content, never their technical perfection. Do you think that if Ansel took an image of some roadside stop-sign and then applied his darkroom techniques on it, that anyone would give a damn about wanting to see his "technical perfection" of an image that everyone has seen everyday their whole lives? Without worthy content technical perfection has zero value. One exception may be a series of Ansel Adams shots that aren't really great compositions, but are so impressive technically, they awe people. Can't think of any others. I wholly understand that the denizens of these photography groups are either: role-playing trolls who have never held a camera, with their only value being what stats they can spout from fellow trolls or specs posted online; or failed snapshooters, who believe that if they only got a more expensive technically-superior camera, then they too will become a famous (or at least valued) photographer one day. With that being the vast majority, if not the all of the participants (minus one), they have no choice but to tout the benefits of "technical superiority". (Even doing that full of errors.) It's all they know. All they understand. And precisely why they'll always fail. Except me, or course. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Getty Images soliciting amateur photos | NotMe | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | November 10th 09 01:48 AM |
LEICA R4 (Compact SLR)---Vintage Brass Keychain | BEWARE | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | July 19th 05 01:16 AM |
LEICA R4 (Compact SLR)---Vintage Brass Keychain | BEWARE | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | July 19th 05 01:16 AM |
Leica Minilux Zoom Titanium compact 35mm | Steve | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | January 11th 04 12:59 AM |