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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.