David - I respectfully disagree with what you said:
I'd prefer a some in there. Like this:
It is quite amazing how parents seem to not...
Though we're all entitled to our opinions.
It is quite amazing how [some
]parents seem to not...
Without a some your words hurt...
Re-read post #25...
zsas: your relatively minor qualification is taken as correct by me.
redrockcoulee: Also I experienced much of the same as you did in that tainted era of the 50s and 60s. But, you know, there was not the 'forced innocence' that we see today. Today, innocence seems to be a cottage industry and is greatly facilitated by anonymous technology. Parents ARE different today as they are quicker to 'defend' their progeny. There ARE noteworthy exceptions by those parents sufficiently prescient, honest and considerate but I have seen far more examples of parents defending clearly wrong children today than in the past.
To me, at least, the extent of damage experienced by the OP is clearly known to both parent and child. It would be obvious to anyone, even to those not connected to photography. Endless excuses for the matter encourages endless fabrications. - David Lyga
Last edited by David Lyga; 07-31-2013 at 07:24 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I believe that I'd buy a replacement camera.
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming– “Wow! What a Ride!”
— Hunter S. Thompson
...."and wisely learn from my unfortunate experiences".
I decided many years ago to make only rarely loans of any gear I cared about, and then only to folk I knew I could trust to respect the gear.
Case in point: I loaned a mitre box which had been my father's to a "friend." The mitre box, for those who aren't familiar with them, isn't one of the wooden U-channels with pre-cut slots, but a glued up L-channel with a metal adjustable and calibrated guide to accomodate a back saw. My father and I in my turn had always put a wood scrap in it so that the saw wouldn't cut into the base. My "friend" returned it with the base badly scarred from the back saw, which was also severely dulled. No apologies. Perhaps he was ignorant; that is the most charitable interpretation I can make.
While this damage was small compared to ruining a functional camera (I don't know the SRT Super, but the SRT 101 was/is a delight) it speaks to the same basic unconcern for the property of others; and this incident occured perhaps 25 years ago, so the problem is not a new thing, sad to say.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
No GRHazelton, it was not due to 'ignorance'. That person knew what he/she had done but sought to cover-up the deed with a type of innocence that would hopefully (and naively) be accepted as such by you.
That, 'ignorance', is a term used by some to mitigate the truth by inferring that there was no malfeasance present, much like how we, collectively, do not ever, ever wish to allow CEOs who steal money to be called thieves. They are known as persons who 'misappropriate' money. We must always speak kindly of people who are 'important', especially the Wall Street speculators (who love capitalism when there are profits and love socialism when there are losses to spread around.)
Am I 'off-topic' moderator? (Pehaps relevancy and necessity excuse such sinfulness of mine.) - David Lyga
Last edited by David Lyga; 08-02-2013 at 04:44 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Things always work out in the end or it is not the end, or something like that, right?
Out of the blue, the father emailed and said he planned to buy a camera for the daughter to use in her second year photography class and he wanted my assistance in locating one. By then, I had purchased a lovely replacement for my daughter, but felt that faced with this question I should say something. So I simply (with my wife's editing) explained that the camera they had returned was damaged and I described the extent of the damage. The father said he was unaware of any of this, felt terrible and said he would pay to get it fixed. I checked with a repair person and was told it wouldn't be easy to fix cheaply (cheaply being the operative) and I reported that back. The father offered to reimburse me for the cost of the replacement. I think that is fine and I have accepted. I may list the broken one for sale here soon listing all the warts and allowing someone handy to give what once was a very nice camera a new home.
Leica M2, Olympus 35RC, Olympus 35EC, Olympus Trip 35
Glad to hear that the situation was resolved to your satisfaction. My wife and I do the same, as much as possible, when responding to 'difficult" discussions. It is amazing how that takes a potentially confrontational situation and transforms it into a reasonable discussion.
Originally Posted by danfogel
I may have been tempted to sell him the damaged camera, though. If it was good enough for first year, it should be good enough for second.
Nice to hear that the situation has been solved. Hopefully the parents will have a word with their daughter before handing her another camera.
Dan, I have a few spare SRT-101s laying around if you'd like me to send you one. Just pay shipping.
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.