jarski
Veteran
Of all the M3 images online, the dude end up stealing KRs. A proof of Kens SEO skills 😀
Rockwell's image of M3 is 1K$ worth!
- Thread starter dmr
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 207
- Views 15K
Hi Helen,
Having many years ago had a not good experience with Adorama I found you were, and probably still are, the single best thing about the company—so this comment is certainly not directed at you in any way, but I do have to query the rationale behind publishing the piece that has caused so much fuss.
I should lay my cards on the table here and mention that other than a few digital images of various classic cameras or the occasional phone pic for my friends on social media I do *not* do digital imaging. My preference is for film, the reasons why are not really important to this discussion.
That said: I accept that the author of the article in question has moved on from film and is content with his digital workflow. Good for him. Not to beat around the bush but, given the image use issues that have arisen I’m personally glad he doesn’t use film.
But what I cannot fathom, here, is why the piece was put out in the first place? I don’t have any issue with the author’s preference for using digital even if I think some of his costings are dubious. It works for him, he’s happy—great.
But it’s so 2010. Or even 2005. What new perspective on a preference for either medium has he delivered? What aspect of reasons for using digital that we’ve not already read and heard ten thousand times before is he ventilating?
I stress that I’m in no way disputing the author’s right to his opinions or to express them. I simply cannot conceive how, in 2018, these would be considered interesting, useful or original enough to warrant Adorama associating itself with them. I think the outcome of the exercise speaks for itself.
Best,
Brett
aizan
Veteran
looks like a tempest in a teapot. resnick replaced the kr placeholder image with his own photo when the mistake was found. he didn’t lie about it the way that one jch screenshot implies. all he did was overlook a detail in editing a blog post. whoop-de-doo! no real bad behavior, just everyday mild sloppiness. nobody will care in several days.
i wonder what ken will buy with his $1k....
i wonder what ken will buy with his $1k....
x-ray
Veteran
I'm with you here. Everything is overblown now with so many people carrying a chip on their should looking to destroy someone for little to no reason. Honestly the attitudes of some folks from various forms make me sick. I certainly have made stupid blunders and I'd guess everyone he has too. Is trial and execution by form the way you'd like to be treated? No one died and no money was lost. The error was corrected and the sun will rise tomorrow. Let KR deal with his problem and you and I will deal with ours. Get the chip of your shoulder and show some compassion. Humans make mistakes and they also forgive.
And yes I've been dealing with Chinese theft of several of my images for the past seven or eight years so I know what its all about on a much larger scale where I've lost money.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
Stealing ..is stealing..pure and simple..there are no 2 ways around this..
If you have ever had your original stuff ripped off..to the tune of a lot of lost bux..then you probably wouldn't take such a nonchalant and cavalier attitude to it..
Esp if there wasn't a thing you could do about it w/o major time and legal expense..
And..if you are doing stuff for a major nyc business..you make damn sure to do it right..and not make feeble excuses afterwards...that aren't believable..
If you have ever had your original stuff ripped off..to the tune of a lot of lost bux..then you probably wouldn't take such a nonchalant and cavalier attitude to it..
Esp if there wasn't a thing you could do about it w/o major time and legal expense..
And..if you are doing stuff for a major nyc business..you make damn sure to do it right..and not make feeble excuses afterwards...that aren't believable..
Hogarth Ferguson
Well-known
hmmm, interesting
plummerl
Well-known
A placeholder image? An image with Ken's watermark mistakenly removed? This was a touch beyond a simple mistake. Clipping the image was one step, second step was removing the watermark. This was not a simple mistake. What he overlooked was that someone would recognize the image.
Bille
Well-known
What an overblown story. I guess "win win" for Adorama and Ken Rocksell...
Richard G
Veteran
I enjoyed that.
My two preferred digitals for photographing film cameras are a very old Nikon Coolpix 4500. Or my current iPhone 6S.
Chuffed Cheese
Established
people will always make excuses. it's an inevitability that they will ignore basic facts and rules of the trade.
css9450
Veteran
Fortuitous, I suppose, that he didn't just use a picture of his cat, or something, as a placeholder. Than we'd really think he'd gone nuts!
dmr
Registered Abuser
Thanks Helen!
It's good to see that the Adorama management takes this and their reputation seriously.
Yeah, it doesn't pass the smell test!
Almost sounds like the oh-too-common-lately back-pedaling of sleazy politicians when they get caught with their, uh, hand (LOL) in the cookie jar!
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
So stealing of intellectual property from one American by another one isn't big deal?
ptpdprinter
Veteran
What about the other images in the article? I don't think they were all taken by the author.
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
Rubbish. It was no place holder. He removed the watermark...one does not do that with a simple place holder. Then he lied and said the image was his. When it was making the rounds...including JCH bringing it to light, he then removed the image.
Do not for a second think we are so stupid that we are going to fall for this. The author of the article stole the image. He made the effort to remove the watermark. Then he lied about it stating it was his camera...and then finally removed it.
You are pretty naive if you can't see this.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
So Rockwell's image was "a placeholder"?
Well, in the interest of being... "helpful", I will offer this photo as a placeholder image for anyone who wants to use it as is.
If you need a different size, file type, resolution, or color scheme, please contact me and we can work out a deal.😀
Rob
PLACEHOLDER image by rbiemer, on Flickr
Well, in the interest of being... "helpful", I will offer this photo as a placeholder image for anyone who wants to use it as is.
If you need a different size, file type, resolution, or color scheme, please contact me and we can work out a deal.😀
Rob
PLACEHOLDER image by rbiemer, on Flickr
Sumarongi
Registered Vaudevillain
*My* trusty, beloved, old Leica M3, which I used for nearly 30 years.
*My* trusty, beloved, old Leica M3, which I used for nearly 30 years.
*My trusty, beloved, old Leica M3, which I used for nearly 30 years.*
It's easily to see: a bottom loader. 😀
*My* trusty, beloved, old Leica M3, which I used for nearly 30 years.
*My trusty, beloved, old Leica M3, which I used for nearly 30 years.*
It's easily to see: a bottom loader. 😀
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Or just as fresh digital convert as Chief Writer at Adorama Learning Center.
Only if you are fresh into digital world, you would make incompetent lies like he did and believe in it. While image like he used is searchable with 100% return by Google Image search engine.
Learning Chief in writings at Adorama. 😀
css9450
Veteran
I wonder what was the clue that gave away that the photo was not Resnick's? The lack of patina one might see on a 30-year-used Leica?
objectowcer
Newbie
I think someone noticed the strap lugs, which don't match up for the year he said his camera was. From there, the first google image search for leica M3.
I don't know if he could've picked a worse camera to steal a photo of, given how well people know the little differences.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
