'gear heads are empty heads'

Status
Not open for further replies.
hhmmm, for someone who is branded as being so terribly wrong, almost evil...it seems i have stirred a hornet's nest.
perhaps my nerve wasn't the only one struck?

ok, perhaps, before coffee and suffering with a miserable migraine, i have misread the honourable words of poor roger and started a misguided thread...for that i apologize.
it is however, good to see that those who still have no use for me are as quick as ever to dump all over me in the guise of defending roger.

joe
 
I can not see anything insulting when reading Roger's whole sentence. To see it like that is a misunderstanding.

"....and they object to other people telling them what they are permitted to be."

Now this is a thought that kept torturing me as I could never put into words. Thanks Bill

"Your camera/gear does not matter" has been repeated so often in a pseudo Zen statement that will loose its meaning completely if it continues to be used further.
The first cameras given to me were cheap duds that ate up a lot of valuable moments without any results. Being given the Zenith of my brother I had a chance to lern to take photos.
Another cup of tea are people who have an attitude of feeling superior to those who cannot afford to buy exclusively Leica glass for their Leicas.
There is also a difference between a collector and an accumulator. The one having a certain system and putting emphasis on certain models. The other one simply enjoying to see interesting things and possesing them in the carefree way some kid have their toys.
 
Last edited:
back alley said:
it is however, good to see that those who still have no use for me are as quick as ever to dump all over me in the guise of defending roger.
Click to expand...

I guess you simply get more exposure, being one of the most prominent posters around here (apart from the whole M-word thing). I don't think people have a vendetta against you, and seeing that again you read stuff into the discussion that isn't really there ("almost evil" etc.) I don't think that's a particularly healthy way to view this discussion.
 
There will always be emotional debate about the difference between "art for art's sake" and the pretenders, who trade on those who advance the arts.
Both have their own place.
Neither is likely immoral, indecent, or "bad" on the surface.
I have enormous respect for Roger; nothing someone says or implies will change that. There's too much there to feel otherwise. I happen to have a good deal of respect for Joe as well. Anyone can over-summarize or over-simplify a statement, as I am sure back alley will agree.
Let's move on, without any more of the cheers and goading of Madame Defarge...they outlawed the guillotine years ago...
 
rxmd said:
I guess you simply get more exposure, being one of the most prominent posters around here (apart from the whole M-word thing). I don't think people have a vendetta against you, and seeing that again you read stuff into the discussion that isn't really there ("almost evil" etc.) I don't think that's a particularly healthy way to view this discussion.
Click to expand...

to be clear, i respect your opinion. you do seem to have no tolerance for me but somehow you manage to address me as an equal and i rarely feel attacked.

compare it to memphis's posting, he cannot wait to scold me.
 
Hector Negron said:
Well, you make your living as a paid information provider. So do I.

As you found out with your website, the web lowers the value of information to near zero.

Every post you make on online forums reduces the value of your future income as a paid provider of either opinions or technical knowledge.

Digging your own grave and crowing over it, I'd say.
Fortunately, on the subjects on which I get paid, I keep entirely mum online.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've considered that. The other model is that people do read the magazines, etc., and that most of what I do here is not the same as I get paid for writing, so it's basically a way of keeping my name in front of people.

Which model is correct, yours or mine? Dunno. But -- here's the important point -- I quite enjoy the forum and I get ideas and feedback. I wouldn't do it if I didn't enjoy it.

Oh: and there was quite a fuss when AP proposed cutting my column from one a week to one a month, and some people did cancel their subscriptions.

Cheers,

R.
 
Joe, I cannot figure out what happened here. I think everyone is one edge, and cannot figure out why.

If this were my thread, I'd delete it.

On a humorous note, I get paid a good salary for writing embedded code. I use FORTRAN and assembly. Good think I'm my own boss, and no one cares how it gets done as long as it does get done. Otherwise they would make me use some modern language and screw up the project.
 
Last edited:
Dave Wilkinson said:
mmm....when you've been around here a little longer - you will realize that there are more self-professed 'artists' who are obviously gear heads too - than you can shake the proverbial stick at! :D
Dave.
Click to expand...

hector has been around here a long time, under various names.
his particular mental illness is coming back to a place that does not want him.

and if continues i plan on outing him...
 
back alley said:
hhmmm, for someone who is branded as being so terribly wrong, almost evil...it seems i have stirred a hornet's nest.
perhaps my nerve wasn't the only one struck?

ok, perhaps, before coffee and suffering with a miserable migraine, i have misread the honourable words of poor roger and started a misguided thread...for that i apologize.
it is however, good to see that those who still have no use for me are as quick as ever to dump all over me in the guise of defending roger.

joe
Click to expand...

Hi Joe just wanted to let you know from my transatlantic viewpoint that I don't think anyone dumped "it" on you.
You risked a quick shot and some had the opinion that it was the wrong target. There are people who do the thing you accused Roger of and in my opinion they deserve an article like yours. But in my opinion Roger did not do what you though he did.
Please continue as a moderator and keep things running for us:
 
I wonder when RFF post-count will be one of the criteria in the DSM. This thread, omong others, seems to indicate a certain validity to that notion. Pathetic.

Good day, folks.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Yeah, I've considered that. The other model is that people do read the magazines, etc., and that most of what I do here is not the same as I get paid for writing, so it's basically a way of keeping my name in front of people.
Click to expand...

I always thought that for a writer, what you do online is a great way to keep in touch with what people in your genre are interested in, and new subjects to talk about.

I read AP and was a subscriber until the cost of an international subscription became prohibitive for me. I still read it online. I miss your columns, and Ivor's.
 
Gumby said:
Whoa, Hector... be careful there. I said that once and got a firm rap on the knuckles from Roger. It is "expat", as in expatriot -- no hyphen.
Click to expand...

Dear Ed,

Sorry, another rap. It's expatriate, 'one who lives in another country', not ex-patriot or expatriot, or 'one who was a patriot and is no longer'.

Seeing you brought it up...

Cheers,

R.
 
memphis said:
No joe, I'm really indifferent to most of the people here - i have no axe to grind with you - don't like or dislike you -- don't know enough about you to form a judgement such as like or dislike - I just was shocked that a mod would be starting an inflammatory posting directed towards a forum member...

I'd have stood up for the forum members I dislike, the ones I like as well as the ones I'm indifferent about -=


but if you want to think I've got it out for you, maybe you should hand the moderator responsibilities over to someone else for a while -- you might be a little burnt out - making something out of nothing

and if y'all want to hate me for standing up for a friend, so be it... just remember, I'd have stood up for you as well
Click to expand...

i hate no one, it requires way too much of an emotional investment.
and i was speaking of how you said what you said, therein lies the scolding.
 
This is all really silly. The silly part is - and sorry, Roger - ANY one person trying to decide who's "a photographer" and who isn't without looking at the pictures.

There are too many examples of both ways of thinking - talented photographers who use the gamut of equipment and those who use the cheapest, found/inherited, chosen without thought cameras.

And, how does one define "pride of ownership?" I've used a LOT of different gear. I become infatuated with the item before i acquire it, and then for a short period while i own it. Then, more often than not, i change my mind and sometimes sell/trade. But, everything i own, i take care of. Everything i use i treat with respect. But, there's no "loyalty" there. There's nothing that i have EVER owned that i have any sort of emotional attachment to. And, i'm never 'proud' of owning any piece of gear. It might actually be the opposite. I'm often embarrassed by having some of the high-end gear, because my pictures are not commensurately high-end.
 
Nothing's really happenned here... Both Roger and Joe are real photographers, they respect all of us, and they constantly give lots of their time to keep the great level of this forum... Must be hard some days more than others to read some of us (myself the first...) Those who want to make this small and already resolved moment bigger and lasting, are the ones that shouldn't be here. Joe's the mod, and he does it very well. He's the one to check who needs to be out. Words are like this: problematic and just a so so representation of our feelings... That's why literature exists, and even writers get tired of words and don't believe in them... I'm glad Joe's here. I've been here for less than a year, but he's always done a great job. He's the only one to decide what he does. All of us would miss him and his humor and constant attention. Please forget this, Joe.

Cheers,

Juan
 
CK Dexter Haven said:
This is all really silly. The silly part is - and sorry, Roger - ANY one person trying to decide who's "a photographer" and who isn't without looking at the pictures.

There are too many examples of both ways of thinking - talented photographers who use the gamut of equipment and those who use the cheapest, found/inherited, chosen without thought cameras.

And, how does one define "pride of ownership?" I've used a LOT of different gear. I become infatuated with the item before i acquire it, and then for a short period while i own it. Then, more often than not, i change my mind and sometimes sell/trade. But, everything i own, i take care of. Everything i use i treat with respect. But, there's no "loyalty" there. There's nothing that i have EVER owned that i have any sort of emotional attachment to. And, i'm never 'proud' of owning any piece of gear. It might actually be the opposite. I'm often embarrassed by having some of the high-end gear, because my pictures are not commensurately high-end.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. That was my point, really. People who take pictures tend to care about the gear they use. People who genuinely don't care about the gear -- who buy it and sell it without ever shooting anything except the cat and the fence-posts, always looking for the next Magic Bullet -- are those whom I meant to refer to as gear-heads and empty-heads.

I was also quite careful to say 'the vast majority', not 'all'. I don't entirely understand your approach, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for you or that you personally are empty-headed. But if you didn't care about your gear, even though it's in a way I don't quite understand, I would prima facie suspect that you fell into the category I described.

Cheers,

R.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom