«

On Aug 9, 4:35*pm, C. Werner <n...@noaddress.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:20:47 +0100, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:00:04 -0500, C. Werner <n...@noaddress.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:44:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>On Aug 9, 1:08*pm, Bowser <Ca...@Nikon.Panny> wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:37:14 -0700, Savageduck
>
> >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >>>> >On 2010-08-09 04:52:16 -0700, "Bowser" <ba...@bing.com> said:
>
> >>>> >> "Rich" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >>>> >>newsb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-...
> >>>> >>> 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?

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 <Ca...@Nikon.Panny> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:37:14 -0700, Savageduck
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>> >On 2010-08-09 04:52:16 -0700, "Bowser" <ba...@bing.com> said:
>>>>
>>>> >> "Rich" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>> >>newsb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-...
>>>> >>> 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 10/08/2010 01:01, Rich wrote:
> C. Werner<> wrote in
> news::
>
>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 13:54:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA<>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 9, 4:35 pm, C. Werner<n...@noaddress.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:20:47 +0100, Bruce<docnews2...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:00:04 -0500, C. Werner<n...@noaddress.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:44:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA
>>>>>> <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 9, 1:08 pm, Bowser<Ca...@Nikon.Panny> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 08:37:14 -0700, Savageduck
>>>>
>>>>>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2010-08-09 04:52:16 -0700, "Bowser"<ba...@bing.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Rich"<n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> newsb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-...
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 17:48:14 -0400, Bowser <> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:51:16 +0100, Bruce <>
>wrote:
>>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:06:52 -0400, Bowser <> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>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.


The truth is, you have never used one. You're a liar.

You read a review somewhere, that's all.

On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:02:28 -0500, Rich <> wrote:

>Bruce <> wrote in
>news: :
>>
>> 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?


Because the claim - that the Leica X1 is on some list or other - is
probably true. What I questioned was its relevance. I know of
multiple occurrences of agencies accepting images (including my own)
that were made with equipment that wasn't on their "select list", so
whether a particular camera is on that list, or not, is irrelevant.

The image quality is what matters, not the brand of the camera. For
that reason, the agencies hold images that were shot on super-zooms,
small sensor compact cameras and mirrorless "Micro" cameras as well as
the expected DSLRs.

Someone asked why the Leica M9 isn't on the list, when the X1 is.
That's because the M9 has no need of inclusion on anyone's list. The
X1 is a different animal, one that needs careful marketing.

As a new, very expensive compact digicam with a non-interchangeable
fixed focal length lens, the X1 needs some credibility to establish
itself in the market. Gaining inclusion of the X1 on the Getty list
is just good marketing, no more and no less.

The X1 is never going to be a mass market camera, but there is some
demand for a compact digicam that can produce excellent results. This
is the same market that formerly used high quality compact 35mm film
cameras like the Leica Minilux and the Contax T3 whose lenses (by
Leica and Carl Zeiss respectively) were of a very high standard.

The X1 has a superlative lens and an excellent sensor. It is no
surprise that the camera produces outstanding results. It is hand
made to the highest standards, so is never going to be cheap - it is a
Leica after all. But those people who want a digital camera whose
results compare well with those from their previous Leica Miniluxes
and Contax T3s, the X1 fits the bill. I find it quite tempting.

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.

On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:35:15 -0500, C. Werner <>
wrote:
>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.


Don't be silly. Why cut off your nose to spite your face?

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!

"Bowser" <> wrote in message
news:QZR7o.338$...

> 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 can have a lot of fun with that kind of girl, if you have the money.

--
Peter

"Bruce" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 07:52:16 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
>>"Rich" <> wrote in message
>>newsb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-...
>>> 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 do admit you are an expert on making strong comments, without actual
knowledge.
I think I missed your response to my Olympus inquiry. Would you please
repeat it so that I can take it off of my checklist.


--
Peter