Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images

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.

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.

BTW: I find it quite hilarious that they proudly put the Leica M8 on their
list. When that camera has proved to provide images no better than that of
any toy-store's $29 bubble-pack camera.
http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html I guess
even they are just as easily swayed and fooled by the old adage of "you get
what you pay for".

Even the Canon EOS 1D and 30D and Nikon D200 on their list is easily
surpassed by nearly all non-DSLR cameras for the last 5-7 years.

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.

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.

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...

Bruce wrote in
:

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/...le.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 .



Well, Getty doesn't owe Leica anything, why not just deny the claim?

On 10/08/2010 01:01, Rich wrote:
C. wrote in
:

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 13:54:54 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Aug 9, 4:35 pm, C. wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:20:47 +0100,
wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:00:04 -0500, C.
wrote:

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:44:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Aug 9, 1:08 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:37:14 -0700, Savageduck

wrote:
On 2010-08-09 04:52:16 -0700, said:

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...

Pulitzer prize material. You read it here first!

--
Bertrand

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.

On 8/9/10 4:15 PM, in article ,
"C. Werner" wrote:

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.

Here is one that describes you best...

http://tinypic.com/r/2edtumw/4

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:15:29 +0100, 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.

Then when the only image in existence of the assassination of some famed
world-leader is captured on cell-phone only, they'll be **** outta luck.
See how that works? It's NEVER the quality, it will ALWAYS be the content.
Morons just can't comprehend this. Their loss.

I could send them my high-resolution macrophotography and photomicrography
images taken of a live insect that hasn't been seen since 1908, and no
preserved specimens survive today in any collection anywhere on earth (the
last known two specimens disappeared in a NY museum in the1940's, lost to
poor storage conditions), but ... nah. Why bother. The images I have of
live specimens wouldn't be up to their head-up-their-asses "standards".

Think of how much money (and publicity) they've just lost.

LOL!