Leica X1, only compact approved by Getty Images
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Tiptoe...Thru the Water...
Next: Web Gallery Software
From: Ryan McGinnis on 10 Aug 2010 10:32 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 8/10/2010 7:48 AM, Peter wrote: >> The article states "However, Getty Images remains tight-lipped over >> the news. It has so far declined to comment on the report, despite >> repeated requests lodged by AP over the past few weeks." >> >> The probable reason for declining to comment is that Getty Images >> *does not* restrict its interest only to images that have been shot on >> the cameras on its recommended list. >> > > > More inside information Brucie? It's pretty common knowledge. Have you seen the Flickr / Getty requirements? There are some cameraphones that meet the specs. - -- - -Ryan McGinnis The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan+McGinnis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMYWLuAAoJEIzODkDZ7B1bZroIALS/9a26itN42kchQ2per8dk NWg3Qze28G6fR5MAzBSofjMnVlf/70dDw3nH+aZ1HGmSzCWGAdKhgJgHzxwhYKKI Dfws9o3p6dLZN3h+L9NNByGqLHS1qzPuu3uxWHOHF+i87p7fuvzvUeOAPEroi1T2 KyWGXPsf8PTSEY/UiAc0JKuN3kHSbgPap1gxrg0u2vtUKjQhkUVq4BonSrRkYzPU /OkuPJ47VgjMNvYcjudTs3ChQZ1lin/mo5fOPW4c65hW3p75RaKvQZArBVKEY8ru 8uqN9vuXS3lEJWPzN0SO1sXnHjkZZTYxaUyJY2lNGyvXp+vetuhH3PZf+VxuzE0= =liR7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Chris Malcolm on 11 Aug 2010 04:10 In rec.photo.digital Bowser <Canon(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" <badda(a)bing.com> said: >>> "Rich" <none(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=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
From: Bowser on 11 Aug 2010 19:32 On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:17:37 +0100, bugbear <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: >Bruce wrote: >> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 13:53:50 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> >> 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.
From: Bowser on 11 Aug 2010 19:32 On 11 Aug 2010 08:10:47 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >In rec.photo.digital Bowser <Canon(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" <badda(a)bing.com> said: >>>> "Rich" <none(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=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. totally agree. Getty is wasting their time even publishing a list.
From: Superzooms Still Win on 11 Aug 2010 21:38
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:32:03 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote: >On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:17:37 +0100, bugbear ><bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote: > >>Bruce wrote: >>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 13:53:50 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> >>> 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. |