stanikon
Loc: Deep in the Heart of Texas
CHG_CANON wrote:
Success has a lot to do with luck, but it also involves using the best equipment.
So every time a manufacturer comes out with something that is "new and improved" we need to redefine success?
jlg1000 wrote:
Well... I believe that we, Engineers, are cured against GAS.
That's because we are used to spend millions - of other people's money - in fancy stuff. And we get to play with it!
So, when it gets to spend our own money in gear, the itch has already worn off...
Not the engineers I know. Real engineers have stuff...lots of stuff.
Delderby wrote:
GAS is a sign of Immaturity, Lack of Confidence, Indecision, Failure, Boredom, Label Worship and Desperation.
It certainly doesn't stand for Get And Shoot.
There are still plenty of self-styled photographers who slobber over the likes of AA - who did Get And Shoot, without GAS.
That's not a description of GAS, it's a description of Anti-GAS posts.
Just to be clear; if you don't get the gear, you can't shoot.
jcboy3 wrote:
Not the engineers I know. Real engineers have stuff...lots of stuff.
Yep, Jig1000, the engineers I know around the world have tons of stuff and are always getting new, better stuff, and love doing it.
Cheers
jlg1000
Loc: Uruguay / South America
gwilliams6 wrote:
Yep, Jig1000, the engineers I know around the world have tons of stuff and are always getting new, better stuff, and love doing it.
Cheers
Yes, 100% true... But are smart enough to make other people foot the bill.
I've got akso tons of stuff... But that is for work. (Ando yes, also for fun
)
jlg1000 wrote:
Yes, 100% true... But are smart enough to make other people foot the bill.
I've got akso tons of stuff... But that is for work. (Ando yes, also for fun
)
One of my best friends, a top engineer based in Netherlands who works for industrial, scientific , and photo companies around the world including DJI (based in China), has both stuff from companies that they give him to redesign, and improve on, but also he buys a lot of stuff himself for himself with his own money. Just a fact. And he has a youtube channel and loves buying the latest, greatest, Hi-def wide screen monitors, audio, and cameras for his own home studio, and he loves buying all the best and latest Sony and other brands photo gear for his use.
So the reality is engineers dont just have others foot the bill for their stuff, LOL
Cheers
stanikon wrote:
So every time a manufacturer comes out with something that is "new and improved" we need to redefine success?
Have you seen the slightly older model refered to as old and junky?
Some has to pay for R AND D.
stanikon
Loc: Deep in the Heart of Texas
Sidwalkastronomy wrote:
Have you seen the slightly older model refered to as old and junky?
Yes and that helps to prove my point. That "old and junky" model at one time was state of the art. If success was achieved with that model, then when a newer model (new and improved) came out, did that relegate those previous successes to a lesser status? I think everyone here would agree that Ansel Adams achieved success in his photography. And yet when we look at his equipment it was all dinosaur stuff compared to what we use today. Does that mean that he only achieved momentary success because newer and more modern equipment is available today and his work should no longer be considered successful?
Success is a relative term that means different things to different people at different times under different circumstances. I don't think success for me can be defined by you, nor vice versa. Neither do I think success is defined by how technologically advanced a camera might be.
He was also a master in the darkroom.
stanikon
Loc: Deep in the Heart of Texas
Sidwalkastronomy wrote:
He was also a master in the darkroom.
Agree. But how many photographers have a darkroom now? Some, of course, but not very many. Darkrooms are just more dinosaur stuff. They are now part of the antiquated, outdated equipment that litters the landscape of history. They do not, and never have, defined success, any more than a glass defines a good or bad wine.
With post processing and raw who needs a darkroom
stanikon
Loc: Deep in the Heart of Texas
Sidwalkastronomy wrote:
With post processing and raw who needs a darkroom
People who still dabble in film photography, that's who. And I do not criticize them one bit. In fact I admire them for several reasons. But this is beside the point: what defines success? If it is the latest and greatest equipment then those who pursue film photography will never, ever be successful. They are on a fool's errand. They might as well retire to the rocking chair because their pursuit of success is futile.
Ansel Adams did very little color because he was not satisfied with the "state of the art" in color developing and printing.
After he tried an early version of photoshop, he declared that that would be how color photography came into its own.
stanikon wrote:
Yes and that helps to prove my point. That "old and junky" model at one time was state of the art. If success was achieved with that model, then when a newer model (new and improved) came out, did that relegate those previous successes to a lesser status? I think everyone here would agree that Ansel Adams achieved success in his photography. And yet when we look at his equipment it was all dinosaur stuff compared to what we use today. Does that mean that he only achieved momentary success because newer and more modern equipment is available today and his work should no longer be considered successful?
Success is a relative term that means different things to different people at different times under different circumstances. I don't think success for me can be defined by you, nor vice versa. Neither do I think success is defined by how technologically advanced a camera might be.
Yes and that helps to prove my point. That "... (
show quote)
But his equipment was in no way "dinosaur stuff" when he was using it. And I doubt that it was even particularly old. If you check out how he t***sported, carried, and used his equipment, I'd imagine that the lifespan was not particularly long, and that he had to renew or replace it relatively often. And I've never seen or read anything which led me to believe that he used beginner or enthusiast level equipment. He used the best lenses and the most accurate and reliable shutters available.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.