«

"Bowser" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 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
>>>>>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 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>

--
Peter

"C. Werner" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:20:47 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
>

>>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.
>

Brucie knows. He has many accepted images there. Just ask him. Of course, he
will never point you to which images, or tell us under what name the images
appear. We do not deserve that knowledge.


--
Peter

"C. Werner" <> wrote in message
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/...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.

--
Peter

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:35:04 -0400, Bowser <> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:52:37 +0100, Bruce <>
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>The truth is I don't give a **** what you think.


That's also a lie, otherwise you would not have replied.

You're a serial liar, Bowser.

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 05:13:43 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
<> wrote:
>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.


You have a point. With newsworthy shots, the agencies may accept poor
quality images because of the value of the content, and they will make
a lot of money selling it. But that's mostly the preserve of news
agencies such as Reuters, AP (Associated Press) and AFP (Agence France
Presse).

Getty, Alamy, Corbis etc. usually tend to stick to their image quality
standards. However, those standards *do not* exclude some types of
camera, whatever impression their "lists" might give.

>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:04:39 -0400, "Peter"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> "C. Werner" <> wrote in message
>>> 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/...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
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>On 2010-08-09 04:52:16 -0700, "Bowser" <> said:
>>> "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......
>>
>>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 Aug 9, 7:46*pm, C. Werner <n...@noaddress.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:01:07 -0500, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >C. Werner <n...@noaddress.com> wrote in
> >news: :
>
> >> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 13:54:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
> >> 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...
>
> 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.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:15:49 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
wrote:

>On Aug 9, 7:46*pm, C. Werner <n...@noaddress.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:01:07 -0500, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >C. Werner <n...@noaddress.com> wrote in
>> >news: :
>>
>> >> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 13:54:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
>> >> 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...
>>
>> 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
><bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> 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.