Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Tiptoe...Thru the Water...
Next: Web Gallery Software
From: C. Werner on 9 Aug 2010 16:00 On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:44:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Aug 9, 1:08�pm, Bowser <Ca...(a)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...(a)bing.com> said: >> >> >> "Rich" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >> >>news:pb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >>> 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.html >> >> >> Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: >> >> >>http://contributors.gettyimages.com/workwithus/article.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.
From: Bruce on 9 Aug 2010 16:20 On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:00:04 -0500, C. Werner <none(a)noaddress.com> wrote: >On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:44:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> >wrote: > >>On Aug 9, 1:08�pm, Bowser <Ca...(a)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...(a)bing.com> said: >>> >>> >> "Rich" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >>> >>news:pb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >>> 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.html >>> >>> >> Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: >>> >>> >>http://contributors.gettyimages.com/workwithus/article.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 .
From: C. Werner on 9 Aug 2010 16:35 On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:20:47 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:00:04 -0500, C. Werner <none(a)noaddress.com> >wrote: > >>On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:44:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> >>wrote: >> >>>On Aug 9, 1:08�pm, Bowser <Ca...(a)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...(a)bing.com> said: >>>> >>>> >> "Rich" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >>>> >>news:pb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>> >>> 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.html >>>> >>>> >> Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: >>>> >>>> >>http://contributors.gettyimages.com/workwithus/article.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.
From: RichA on 9 Aug 2010 16:53 On Aug 9, 4:00 pm, C. Werner <n...(a)noaddress.com> wrote: > On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:44:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >On Aug 9, 1:08 pm, Bowser <Ca...(a)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...(a)bing.com> said: > > >> >> "Rich" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message > >> >>news:pb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > >> >>> 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.html > > >> >> Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: > > >> >>http://contributors.gettyimages.com/workwithus/article.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. 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.
From: RichA on 9 Aug 2010 16:54
On Aug 9, 4:35 pm, C. Werner <n...(a)noaddress.com> wrote: > On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:20:47 +0100, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:00:04 -0500, C. Werner <n...(a)noaddress.com> > >wrote: > > >>On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:44:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> > >>wrote: > > >>>On Aug 9, 1:08 pm, Bowser <Ca...(a)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...(a)bing.com> said: > > >>>> >> "Rich" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message > >>>> >>news:pb6dnVRDlvcm_8LRnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > >>>> >>> 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.html > > >>>> >> Getty's list has been a joke for a long time: > > >>>> >>http://contributors.gettyimages.com/workwithus/article.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? :) |