From: Peter on
"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7hdlv59u6c08q1n98h2s3gimjui6bj6kv1(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 15:32:30 +0100, "whisky-dave"
> <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote:
>>
>>the only Photographer I remember endorsing cameras was
>>David Bailey and I think the block from minder plugging
>>the Olympus Trip, never brought one myself but they seemed quite
>>successful.
>>I wonder what camera reviews of the time though about this endorsement.
>
>
> Ironically, while David Bailey endorsed the Olympus Trip, the Olympus
> OM Series, The Olympus E-10 and E-20 and eventually the E-System DSLRs
> over a period of 35 years, he has never, I repeat *never* used Olympus
> cameras in his work.
>
> Bailey has always used medium format film SLRs and I believe that he
> still does.
>

Still curious about who you know at Olympus. As I said earlier, we may have
some mutual friends.

--
Peter

From: Peter on
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3celv5pb8dpcoq3o4aq2q2nfneldkobu6p(a)4ax.com...
> whisky-dave writes:
>
>> They help sell most products, why not cameras ?
>
> But do they? It's extremely hard to measure the effect of advertising, and
> while companies and advertisers often take for granted that celebrity
> endorsements work, I'm not at all convinced that they actually do.

The effectivness is measured through an archaic art called statistical
sampling.

>
> In fact, this is true for many forms of advertising.
>
> Can you remember the last Web page you looked at? Can you remember any of
> the
> _advertising_ on the last Web page you looked at?

Can you spell subliminal

--
Peter

From: D.J. on
On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:28:46 -0700, John Navas <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:17:21 -0500, D.J. <nocontact(a)noaddress.com> wrote
>in <ru4ov510kq8si0bdl10e8grlc9sr9036gj(a)4ax.com>:
>
>>On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:14:18 -0700, John Navas <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 25 May 2010 19:46:15 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote
>>>in <853ov5hug762iqgghg4dlfs08m2r7c3997(a)4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>>D.J. writes:
>>>>
>>>>> That's why there's a whole section at the CHDK forum of DSLR owners who are
>>>>> desperately trying to find ways to get just a minor subset of CHDK's
>>>>> functionality ported into their own cameras. But then, these functions are
>>>>> only of interest to very advanced and highly creative photographers. I
>>>>> doubt they'd interest you very much.
>>>>
>>>>Highly advanced and creative photographers don't spend their time playing with
>>>>hardware. Photographers without talent concentrate on the science they
>>>>understand, rather than on the art that they don't.
>>>
>>>Well put.
>>
>>Leonardo da Vinci disproves you both.
>
>And Jackson Pollack? ;)

Just because modern art is promoted by greedy fools who will exploit the
unknowing masses to make a dollar does not make that person into an actual
artist. I don't consider Pollack to be any kind of an artist, just as I
don't consider Picasso an artist either. One was a talentless and
frustrated idiot exploited by art dealers to make a fast buck and the other
was only an artist at self-promotion in order to make a fast buck. You will
find just as many people agreeing with this position on these two "artists"
as those who have a blinding conflict of interest (money) that loudly
proclaim otherwise.

Putting Pollack on the same platform as Da Vinci is about as disrespectful
as anyone can be to true art and artists everywhere all throughout history.
It also reveals how easily you are manipulated by con-artists. Does that
make them genuine artists? It does in your eyes.




From: John Navas on
On Tue, 25 May 2010 19:58:24 -0500, D.J. <nocontact(a)noaddress.com> wrote
in <bnrov51tkiai5b1aub4nv8evbogu935adq(a)4ax.com>:

>On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:28:46 -0700, John Navas <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:17:21 -0500, D.J. <nocontact(a)noaddress.com> wrote
>>in <ru4ov510kq8si0bdl10e8grlc9sr9036gj(a)4ax.com>:

>>>Leonardo da Vinci disproves you both.
>>
>>And Jackson Pollack? ;)
>
>Just because modern art is promoted by greedy fools who will exploit the
>unknowing masses to make a dollar does not make that person into an actual
>artist. I don't consider Pollack to be any kind of an artist, just as I
>don't consider Picasso an artist either. ...

Then there's no point in further discussion.
--
Best regards,
John

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
From: whisky-dave on

"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ghnv514mn15snub0pajiralvrkdu7cvnv(a)4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:27:07 +0100, "whisky-dave"
> <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote:
>>"John McWilliams" <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:hte5kr$6jf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> the only Photographer I remember endorsing cameras was
>>> David Bailey and I think the block from minder plugging
>>> the Olympus Trip, never brought one myself but they seemed quite
>>> successful.
>>> I wonder what camera reviews of the time though about this endorsement.
>>
>>}Just to be clear, a top photographer is only infrequently a "celebrity",
>>}and then only in recherch´┐Ż circles.
>>
>>That's why celebs are chosen over top photographers when selling[1] to the
>>public.
>
>
> David Bailey only became a celebrity through his marriage to the
> supermodel Marie Helvin.

A celebrate to who ?
This is when I first saw him as a 'celebrity'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_Yo3FRPeQw
Nothing to do with his misses otherwise she'd had appeared in the ads
I didnlt even know he was married.

> That increased his fame far more than photography ever could.
>