«

On May 14, 2:47*pm, "Bruce." <no...@example.net> wrote:
> "Alfred Molon" <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news: ...
>
> > $330 is just 214 Euro.
>
> > Anyway, this is not an easy shot to take. Tripods are not allowed and
> > all photography is strictly forbidden in the Sistine chapel. The chapel
> > is constantly monitored by guards who control people and enforce this
> > photography ban.
>
> > So hats off to those photographers who managed to smuggle in
> > professional photography equipment with a long lens and managed to get a
> > sharp handheld shot despite the poor lighting conditions.
>
> I think that site said their file was "licensed" so I assumed at some point
> they had legal access. *Perhaps that's why it's so expensive. *I can
> understand charging that much for commerical use, but geese, one framed
> picture over a fireplace? *That's a rediculous price for that use.
>
> Bruce.

Bruce - you may be able to get permission to use the picture for free,
by sending
a request to the church itself ?

Alfred Molon wrote:

> In article <PsGWj.2067$>, Bruce. says...
>
>> I think that site said their file was "licensed" so I assumed at some point
>> they had legal access.
>
> Not necessarily. I doubt the Vatican grants photography permits for the
> Sistine chapel.
>
>> Perhaps that's why it's so expensive. I can
>> understand charging that much for commerical use, but geese, one framed
>> picture over a fireplace? That's a rediculous price for that use.
>
> Perhaps it is possible to order a print from the Vatican print shop
> (assuming there is one).

Or the Vatican Gift Shoppe. Over by the Pope-themed Hello Kitty and
Hannah Montana stuff.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
NEW --> Now evaluating a GG-free news feed: http://usenet4all.se

Bruce. wrote:
> "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
> news: ...
>
>>$330 is just 214 Euro.
>>
>>Anyway, this is not an easy shot to take. Tripods are not allowed and
>>all photography is strictly forbidden in the Sistine chapel. The chapel
>>is constantly monitored by guards who control people and enforce this
>>photography ban.
>>
>>So hats off to those photographers who managed to smuggle in
>>professional photography equipment with a long lens and managed to get a
>>sharp handheld shot despite the poor lighting conditions.
>
>
> I think that site said their file was "licensed" so I assumed at some point
> they had legal access. Perhaps that's why it's so expensive.

So, essentially what you're writing Burce is that you don't wish to pay
for a small fraction of what it would cost for you to go and take the
photo yourself?
You'd have to go to the Vatican, organise a licenced photo shoot, return
home and pay for the whole expedition.
Easily costing in the thousands, even if it's possible in the first place.

> I can
> understand charging that much for commerical use, but geese, one framed
> picture over a fireplace? That's a rediculous price for that use.

There is nothing besides your word that you're only going to print a
single copy for a specific usage.

BTW: What have geese ever done to you, are their feathers not warm
enough in your doona?

"dwight" <> wrote in message
news:. ..
> http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Sistin..._i1336323_.htm
>
> Someone's already done the work for you, Bruce. Prices range from $17 to
> $75. Pick one, any one.

Thanks. Unfortunately the request came from someone that already has the
frame they want to use and it's a very non-standard panorama frame. So the
plan was to do my own cropping and getting an online panorama printing site
to make a photo to fit this frame, which is why I need the file.

But it's looking like that plan is a wash now.

Bruce.

"dj_nme" <> wrote in message
news:482b839b$0$22160$...
> So, essentially what you're writing Burce is that you don't wish to pay
> for a small fraction of what it would cost for you to go and take the
> photo yourself?
> You'd have to go to the Vatican, organise a licenced photo shoot, return
> home and pay for the whole expedition.
> Easily costing in the thousands, even if it's possible in the first place.

The same argument says a slinky should cost several thousand dollars because
it would cost me at least that to make myself. Children of the world would
be very disappointed.

> There is nothing besides your word that you're only going to print a
> single copy for a specific usage.

The photo sites ask for usage, number of copies, how it will be displayed,
and several other details, and they take your word for it, but none that
I've seen have "personal 1 time use" as a menu pick. They all assume
commerical use, and price accordingly.

> BTW: What have geese ever done to you, are their feathers not warm enough
> in your doona?

I think I meant jeeze. Pick your spelling.

Bruce.

Allen wrote:

> dj_nme wrote:
>> Bruce. wrote:
>>> "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
>>> news: ...
>>>
>>>> $330 is just 214 Euro.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, this is not an easy shot to take. Tripods are not allowed and
>>>> all photography is strictly forbidden in the Sistine chapel. The chapel
>>>> is constantly monitored by guards who control people and enforce this
>>>> photography ban.
>>>>
>>>> So hats off to those photographers who managed to smuggle in
>>>> professional photography equipment with a long lens and managed to get a
>>>> sharp handheld shot despite the poor lighting conditions.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that site said their file was "licensed" so I assumed at some
>>> point they had legal access. Perhaps that's why it's so expensive.
>>
>> So, essentially what you're writing Burce is that you don't wish to pay
>> for a small fraction of what it would cost for you to go and take the
>> photo yourself?
>> You'd have to go to the Vatican, organise a licenced photo shoot, return
>> home and pay for the whole expedition.
>> Easily costing in the thousands, even if it's possible in the first place.
>>
>>> I can understand charging that much for commerical use, but geese, one
>>> framed picture over a fireplace? That's a rediculous price for that use.
>>
>> There is nothing besides your word that you're only going to print a
>> single copy for a specific usage.
>>
>> BTW: What have geese ever done to you, are their feathers not warm
>> enough in your doona?
> He's planning to find an iculous and paint it red to go with his geese
> before they migrate. Or is that too ridiculous?

As for me, I'm still trying to figure out what one's doona might be; it
might be a pretty uncomfortable place to stick goose feathers...


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
NEW --> Now evaluating a GG-free news feed: http://usenet4all.se

In message <>, Alfred Molon
<> writes
>In article <PsGWj.2067$>, Bruce. says...
>
>> I think that site said their file was "licensed" so I assumed at some point
>> they had legal access.
>
>Not necessarily. I doubt the Vatican grants photography permits for the
>Sistine chapel.
>
>> Perhaps that's why it's so expensive. I can
>> understand charging that much for commerical use, but geese, one framed
>> picture over a fireplace? That's a rediculous price for that use.
>
>Perhaps it is possible to order a print from the Vatican print shop
>(assuming there is one).

There is a Vatican tourist shop (last time I was there)
A Vatican publishing shop
In fact the Vatican is quite commercial.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message < .net>,
Blinky the Shark <> writes
>Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>> In article <PsGWj.2067$>, Bruce. says...
>>
>>> I think that site said their file was "licensed" so I assumed at some point
>>> they had legal access.
>>
>> Not necessarily. I doubt the Vatican grants photography permits for the
>> Sistine chapel.
>>
>>> Perhaps that's why it's so expensive. I can
>>> understand charging that much for commerical use, but geese, one framed
>>> picture over a fireplace? That's a rediculous price for that use.
>>
>> Perhaps it is possible to order a print from the Vatican print shop
>> (assuming there is one).
>
>Or the Vatican Gift Shoppe. Over by the Pope-themed Hello Kitty and
>Hannah Montana stuff.

Last time I was there it was staffed by Nuns...

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message <>, Alfred Molon
<> writes
>In article <482b839b$0$22160$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
>01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme says...
>
>> So, essentially what you're writing Burce is that you don't wish to pay
>> for a small fraction of what it would cost for you to go and take the
>> photo yourself?
>> You'd have to go to the Vatican, organise a licenced photo shoot, return
>> home and pay for the whole expedition.
>> Easily costing in the thousands, even if it's possible in the first place.
>
>Had once a request from a US company for photos of Delhi (India). They
>complained about my prices and said they would send somebody to Delhi to
>take the photos.

Who were they? I'll work for them

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Allen wrote:
>
>
>>dj_nme wrote:
<big snip>
>>>BTW: What have geese ever done to you, are their feathers not warm
>>>enough in your doona?
>>
>>He's planning to find an iculous and paint it red to go with his geese
>>before they migrate. Or is that too ridiculous?
>
>
> As for me, I'm still trying to figure out what one's doona might be; it
> might be a pretty uncomfortable place to stick goose feathers...

A doona is a heavy winter blanket that's basically a cloth bag filled
with feathers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doona