cloaking tape (was: Re: istD in style)
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:22:19 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've spent quite a bit of time on PhotoNets Leica forum, and I still go
there occasionally. There's a certain breed of Leica owner that is
frequently seen at that site
Funny. Before reading this thread, I made an upgrade to the Leica with
a progressive-design sticker... from some Japanese design expo.
See here. Next version will have the sticker better placed to replace
the red dot...
http://members.chello.cz/fotof/temp/leica.jpg
As a sidenote, black labeling
ft guitars as it's great publicity for them. But, since they don't pay
ft me to use their product, I refuse to give them free publicity.
Well said. Applies to brand-logoed T-shirts wearers as well.
Good light!
fra
3) The owner is mad as a March hare.
Surely that's the option that's the most becoming to me ;-)
Good light!
fra
The discussion had turned to black taping cameras in general. I didn't
even recall that it had originated with Juan. To the amusing little
list of reasons why one might tape up a camera, the pretensions of the
Leica fondlers are certainly relevant.
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:18:18 -0700, Shel
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 06:14:21 -0400, Paul Stenquist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The discussion had turned to black taping cameras in general. I didn't
even recall that it had originated with Juan. To the amusing little
list of reasons why one might tape up a camera, the pretensions of the
Leica
/13/2004 6:54:22 AM
Subject: Re: black cloaking tape (was: Re: istD in style)
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 06:14:21 -0400, Paul Stenquist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The discussion had turned to black taping cameras in general. I didn't
even recall that it had originated with Juan. To the amusing little
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 07:07:05 -0700, Shel Belinkoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well said, Frank and it should be pointed out that many photogs other
than Leica users tape their cameras. Check out Nachtwey's Canon gear the
next time you watch War Photographer. Anyway, why should it be an
I've spent quite a bit of time on PhotoNets Leica forum, and I still go there
occasionally. There's a certain breed of Leica owner that is frequently seen at that
site that tends to raise my hackles. Fondler is perhaps the wrong term because it
does imply that I'm talking about serious
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:22:19 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've spent quite a bit of time on PhotoNets Leica forum, and I still go there
occasionally. There's a certain breed of Leica owner that is frequently seen at that
site that tends to raise my hackles. Fondler is
I have but one comment: Many, if not most, maybe even all (doubtful about
all) Leica Special Editions are commissioned by private parties to
celebrate an event, or just for some marketing. Some companies will ask
Leica to make X number of cameras to a certain specification for
distribution to
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:09:10 -0400, you wrote:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:35:37 -0700, Shel Belinkoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snipThere are fondlers of all camera brands ...snip
I generally agree with your post, Shel.
Yeah, especially if some of the cameras are covered with snakeskin.
Of course,
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:30:23 -0700, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, especially if some of the cameras are covered with snakeskin.
Of course, the less said about the people who fondle *those* the
better...
I fondled on of Cesar's Snaken LXen.
It kinda made me feel all tingly
-Original Message-
From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:30:23 -0700, Mark Roberts
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, especially if some of the cameras are covered with snakeskin.
Of course, the less said about the people who fondle *those* the
On 13/9/04, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
While Paul's original fondler comment irked me, I also understood what
was being referenced. There are fondlers of all camera brands ... as
well as other objects. What irked me the most were comments by Cotty,
greywolf (sorry, your names
On 13/9/04, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
Juan rejoined the list, and shared with us that he'd gotten an istd in an
open and friendly way, only to have his decision to tape the logo
criticized by Cotty, whether tongue in cheek or not. The result of that
post got others, like
I agree with Cotty on this one. As an ad guy I have to point out that
advertising that's free for the company is free to the consumer as
well. Advertising that the manufacturer pays for adds to the cost of a
product. And since you can't sell anything without advertising it, free
advertising is
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:31:13 +0100, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry guys but to me this is just being bitter and twisted. Life's
too short to worry about things like this
Hi, Cotty,
I have the advantage, of course, of having met Bill on a number of
occasions. He's anything but
On 13/9/04, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:
I don't have a problem with anyone who wants to send a message out to
the corporate elite that we don't have to advertise for them for free.
Where's the harm?
None at all, you're right.
Peace bro.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O)
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:21:23 +0100, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Peace bro.
All we are saying,
Is give peace a chance.
I think someone already said that one...
vbg
cheers,
frank
--
It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it
as a hobby. -Eliott Erwitt
frank said:
I don't have a problem with anyone who wants to send a message out to
the corporate elite that we don't have to advertise for them for free.
Where's the harm?
It's a fair opinion, I think!
I myself don't tape over the name on my cameras, but there's no WAY I'm buying
an Old Navy
A wise man once said, Whenever people draw up a list, they leave something
out.
4. To make a black camera even less conspicuous.
5. By creating an all-black camera, to impress chicks.
Cotty wrote: When I see a camera that has the name blanked off, there can only
be one of the following
I´ve got a reason why I never would use such tape.
By showing that I use Pentax those who are interested can see that I am
independent. I don´t follow trends or advertising campaigns, just my
own instinct. :-)
Another thing is that everybody knows that there should have been a
trade mark on
6. To emulate the Leica fondlers.
On Sep 12, 2004, at 12:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A wise man once said, Whenever people draw up a list, they leave
something
out.
4. To make a black camera even less conspicuous.
5. By creating an all-black camera, to impress chicks.
Cotty wrote: When I see
received in numerous venues. Anyway, Leica fondlers don't use
black tape. They are proud of their PRISTINE cameras.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9/12/2004 11:08:22 AM
Subject: Re: black cloaking tape (was: Re: istD in style)
6
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:18:18 -0700, Shel Belinkoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know Juan. We've spent many hours together photographing in San
Francisco. To suggest, even obliquely, that he's a Leica fondler is
way off the mark.
So, who'd this Leica girl you guys are talking about?
:-)
26 matches
Mail list logo
