Stealing

I think most of us here at apug already own more camera gear than they are gonna need for a lifetime (I am one).
Do we really need to take advantage of the ignorance of others to fill our cupboards?
Wouldn't it be better to explain what they have and pay a decent price if it is something that we really need?

I'm with Mike1234, and just as broke.
Be honest, and let people know what they have. It might pay off. I never haggle, I'm honest when the price is wrong, and on many occasions sellers have contacted me with additional stuff that they found after the sale (spare parts and extras) that they considered part of the sale just because I was honest.

Consider that you're taking a poor little puppy to a better home.
One who even considers selling his photographic gear is not worth of them any longer.
Even if they are needed to pay for his mother's tripple bypass.

Consider that you are taking the food from the mouths of babies and the roofs from over their heads simply because "you know more than they do"...

For Christ's sake... whatever became of common decency?

Mike1234 said:

For (bleep) sake... whatever became of common decency?

Click to expand...

Ummm... you must know that many consider that kind of expression as offensive, if not blasphemous. Where is your common decency? :rolleyes:

p.s. Thank you very much for spelling and punctuating His name correctly!

BrianShaw said:

Ummm... you must know that many consider that kind of expression as offensive, if not blasphemous. Where is your common decency? :rolleyes:

Click to expand...

Jesper said:

I think most of us here at apug already own more camera gear than they are gonna need for a lifetime (I am one).
Do we really need to take advantage of the ignorance of others to fill our cupboards?
Wouldn't it be better to explain what they have and pay a decent price if it is something that we really need?

I'm with Mike1234, and just as broke.
Be honest, and let people know what they have. It might pay off. I never haggle, I'm honest when the price is wrong, and on many occasions sellers have contacted me with additional stuff that they found after the sale (spare parts and extras) that they considered part of the sale just because I was honest.

Click to expand...

Gordon Gekko woudl like to take a moment of your time to make his plea..

Watch it now on Youtube

BrianShaw said:

Ummm... you must know that many consider that kind of expression as offensive, if not blasphemous. Where is your common decency? :rolleyes:

Click to expand...

Some of the things people do I just don't agree with. My post was definitely not blasphemous.


EDITED: Original wording was a bit harsh.

If I already have an item like the one they are selling then yes i would tell them there price is too low. : )) just kidding, actually it depends on that persons circumstances, if they are just getting rid of "junk" and dont care to check the value then like the above said, why bother, but if a person is up against it and is trying to sell things to pay the bills or buy groceries then i would definitly tell them, or just pay them more than what they are asking, ive done it before. what goes around comes around.

It really depends on the seller demeanor and my mood.
I recently picked up an extensive and minty 5x7 outfit, conservatively worth upwards of $2,000.00 for $25.00.

Last year I bought a few Sinar drop-in filters from a Craigslist seller in San Francisco at a fair price. He told me he also had a set of Hasselblad extension tubes listed for $50.00 (8 through 32 "E")and asked me if I would be interested. I told him what I thought they were worth and suggested that he re-list them.

He sent me a very appreciative e-mail a few days later.

Seriously now, since most people in here are active photographers that make use of photo equipment that could be a 100 years old, when the rest of the world has turned digital and throws away perfectly good cameras, I don't see what is indecent about rescuing them from the slow rot in the back of the closet.
To me, indecent is to keep working cameras for sentimental value, because they belonged to dad or grandpa and it breaks my heart to see them sitting like other decorations on a shelf. Or even worse, on the front window of a photo shop that once used to use them, has turned completely digital and now refuses to part with them while they slowly fade to oblivion.
Cameras are for taking photographs, creating art, not for looking interestingly retro to people with faint memories of a relative that used them but themselves could never even fathom the value of the treasure they hold.
Sometimes I will happen upon someone with a Leica or a Hasselblad and they will knowingly and smugly proclaim their coveted status of the cameras which they don't use but wouldn't sell either and it makes me want to punch them in the throat and grab the poor little camera and run.
A camera is a tool of art and every tool of art, from a charcoal block and string of wire to a Mamiya or Ebony is almost like a living organism, because in the hands of an artist it produces art, it produces life.
A camera sitting unused is a crime.
A camera being liberated and put to use by an artist is the only decent thing to do.
What would be truly decent of the owners of said unused cameras is them to given away, like I mentioned, unloved pets. Asking for money is either profiteering on their part or genuine need of the funds, since they have no value to anyone nowadays, but to the hands of a rare film artist, who may or may not be able to afford the expenses.

If I wanted to really do a decent thing, I would become
a) a millionaire philanthropist, collecting photographic equipment and giving them away to needy artists
b) a Robin Hood, leader of the Camera Liberation Front, breaking into houses and stealing unused cameras to distribute among the needy artists

EASmithV said:

Is going to a different gas station to get cheaper gas stealing?

Click to expand...

It's all cheap in your country. Take a look at how much we pay for it!


Steve.

arigram said:

Seriously now, since most people in here are active photographers that make use of photo equipment that could be a 100 years old, when the rest of the world has turned digital and throws away perfectly good cameras, I don't see what is indecent about rescuing them from the slow rot in the back of the closet.
To me, indecent is to keep working cameras for sentimental value, because they belonged to dad or grandpa and it breaks my heart to see them sitting like other decorations on a shelf. Or even worse, on the front window of a photo shop that once used to use them, has turned completely digital and now refuses to part with them while they slowly fade to oblivion.
Cameras are for taking photographs, creating art, not for looking interestingly retro to people with faint memories of a relative that used them but themselves could never even fathom the value of the treasure they hold.
Sometimes I will happen upon someone with a Leica or a Hasselblad and they will knowingly and smugly proclaim their coveted status of the cameras which they don't use but wouldn't sell either and it makes me want to punch them in the throat and grab the poor little camera and run.
A camera is a tool of art and every tool of art, from a charcoal block and string of wire to a Mamiya or Ebony is almost like a living organism, because in the hands of an artist it produces art, it produces life.
A camera sitting unused is a crime.
A camera being liberated and put to use by an artist is the only decent thing to do.
What would be truly decent of the owners of said unused cameras is them to given away, like I mentioned, unloved pets. Asking for money is either profiteering on their part or genuine need of the funds, since they have no value to anyone nowadays, but to the hands of a rare film artist, who may or may not be able to afford the expenses.

If I wanted to really do a decent thing, I would become
a) a millionaire philanthropist, collecting photographic equipment and giving them away to needy artists
b) a Robin Hood, leader of the Camera Liberation Front, breaking into houses and stealing unused cameras to distribute among the needy artists

Click to expand...

Dude, two thumbs up on the treatise. I was right with you the whole way until you got to the philanthropist comment. My two cents about that.. In my opinion, philanthropy is borderline evil. Oh, at first we tend to think of giving things away to make a better world as something of value or "noble" a trite definition but one that sort of fits here. The problem with giving things away is that it ruins the whole process of other people accomplishing things themselves. It sort of cheats them out being able to achieve greatness. By making things easier for others who have demonstrated no values themselves, it also paves the way for their untimely ruin for when the money or gifts stop flowing then the people who were in receivership tend to wither away. Anyway, that's kind of an idealogical essay on the value of the school of hard knocks. The way I see it, if there is a God apart from the essence that is the physical universe itself, then God would like to see each of us become stronger, as that would return greater value to him or her or it which made us, ultimately because it keeps the momentum of life and existence ongoing perpetually forever. I tend to see these things along the same lines as a biologist labels survival of the fittest. It is not wrong to extract values (old cameras) from people who don't use them, for a bargain price so long as they agree to the price, and then to run away with the prized possession in order to achieve greatness. It is not wrong to let others experience the same sort of thing in their own way. It is wrong though to just pave the world for someone and let them relax in it.

1SharpMonkey said:

Dude, two thumbs up on the treatise. I was right with you the whole way until you got to the philanthropist comment. My two cents about that.. In my opinion, philanthropy is borderline evil. Oh, at first we tend to think of giving things away to make a better world as something of value or "noble" a trite definition but one that sort of fits here. The problem with giving things away is that it ruins the whole process of other people accomplishing things themselves. It sort of cheats them out being able to achieve greatness. By making things easier for others who have demonstrated no values themselves, it also paves the way for their untimely ruin for when the money or gifts stop flowing then the people who were in receivership tend to wither away. Anyway, that's kind of an idealogical essay on the value of the school of hard knocks. The way I see it, if there is a God apart from the essence that is the physical universe itself, then God would like to see each of us become stronger, as that would return greater value to him or her or it which made us, ultimately because it keeps the momentum of life and existence ongoing perpetually forever. I tend to see these things along the same lines as a biologist labels survival of the fittest. It is not wrong to extract values (old cameras) from people who don't use them, for a bargain price so long as they agree to the price, and then to run away with the prized possession in order to achieve greatness. It is not wrong to let others experience the same sort of thing in their own way. It is wrong though to just pave the world for someone and let them relax in it.

Click to expand...

You mean, instead of giving away a camera to someone, to train them to make their own? In this particular respect, it doesn't make sense. A new camera at the hands of an artist is the beginning of a journey, not the goal of it and it matters not how that said tool reached the hands of a creator. Would have it been different than the cameras people get as inheritance from a parent, or as a gift from a spouse, or found in someone's closet or yard sale?
Don't just philosophise in general ideological terms as rejecting something because of absolute unbreakable theoretical rules is fanaticism.
If you are going to stop to the term "philanthropist", you should question the practicality of this very particular application, because as a greek speaker, the word just means "lover of humanity" to me.

If you are going to use the fishing parable (don't give a man a fish,so he can eat one day, teach him fishing instead, so he can feed himself), in our terms it would be "don't give a man a photograph, so he can enjoy it as an audience, teach him photography, so he can create his own".
Giving one the tool of creation, a pencil, a violin, or a camera, is just the beginning of the "teaching".

The monetary value of a tool is simply irrelevant. An tool reaching the hands of an artist is what matters, whether one obtained it for free, for a small sum, or an obscene amount of moolah.

Its just that you Americans are the products of many generations of brain washing and genetic experiments by a secret society to form one day your Kwisatz Haderach, or Mega-Capitalist, thus you can't think outside of that particular economic system that places a numbered credit system to all things.

arigram said:

You mean, instead of giving away a camera to someone, to train them to make their own?

Click to expand...

That's not what I was getting at. I'm just simply talking about the values. A value should be exchanged for another value. That is what makes values increase. And, by the way I wasn't reserving the rest of my comments as directed to you personally. The rest of the comments were made so you knew from what measuring point I was coming from. Hey, if it makes you happy to gift things to strangers, then have at it. I'm not going to interfere with that bud. If it were me, I would probably do something like.. okay here's a decent idea I just plucked from the sky to illustrate the exchange of values. I might say offer tools on loan, for free, to poor artists to see if they can create some art of value. If after a period of time they demonstrated ability, I would offer to make the exchange of the cameras or whatever the objects were on loan with the items the artists made out of them. So, you would get the art piece and they would get the tools to make more of them. The artist walks away with a sense of accomplishment that he or she would not have gotten had you simply gifted it to them. And with that accomplishment they think higher about their self and tend to strive even higher.. further.. greater.... Does that make a little more sense now?

1SharpMonkey said:

A value should be exchanged for another value.

Click to expand...

I have given a few cameras away to total strangers (other than their APUG presence) and have always asked that whenever they are in a position to help someone else out, to pass on the favour rather than giving anything back to me.


Steve.

1SharpMonkey said:

That's not what I was getting at. I'm just simply talking about the values. A value should be exchanged for another value ... Does that make a little more sense now?

Click to expand...

See my last paragraph.
A camera has value only when it is used and has even greater value when it is used for art. The lowly pencil can make a a grocery note or an exquisite drawing. Its not the barter system that gives it value. And when you exchange something for something else, then it is a wholly completely different act. Its one thing to give away a photograph to someone just because they can appreciate it and another thing to demand a kiss for it.
It is your very own personal opinion, to ask something back, in exchange for something you give, a pretty common notion in your society because of its almost fanatical adherence to the capitalistic system. You see others as unknown strangers with whom you can only trade. One doesn't necessarily value something just because it has a price tag (where price is not just money), just because one has to give away something to appreciate what they are getting, either as a trade or a reward.

Artists need tools and materials to create. As creation is their prime concern, often they don't adhere or are successful in providing everything they need in a society that gives major emphasis on credit economy. Thus, they often are in need of assistance, just so they can go on creating, as they either wouldn't be able to afford the tools, the constant flow of consumable materials and their basic living. The "starving artist" is not just a romantic idea, it is based on that fact, as they would often forego basic needs that other people have as top priorities so they can continue creating.

If you take your system of barter and value, one step further, you will see that by giving a tool and/or materials or the means to obtain them to an artist, we all benefit, as it gives us back artistic work to enjoy and get inspired from. Which can be said for other professions as well. So, that may sound a bit too pinko commie to you.

I do not want to sidestep and take this thread to something else. I will also not start a conversation colored by capitalist/communist, left/right black and white ideologies, which I have no interest at all in.

For me is simple.
A tool has two purposes: one, as decoration, two as a tool.
Guns, knives, bags, masks, hammers, etc are examples.
A camera thus,
can either be used for taking photographs
or
be decoration, with its value relating to the beauty of construction, brand/model value and sentimental value.
A camera which is not used, is for me a camera in coma. I have very little respect for collectors, so it always feels that they are depriving the world of something needed.
GAS, the Gear Acquisition Syndrome, can either be seen as the understandable need for an artist to have many tools for different kinds of jobs (different cameras are not unlike different woodworking tools, if quite a bit more general purpose), or the controversial affliction of a collector for the above mentioned characteristics of decorative objects and a hint that they may have a lot more disposable income than most people.
Hmm, now it feels like Christ's "those who have two robes should give one" or however it goes, so maybe it can be seen as pinko christianism.

So, who's with me in the Camera Liberation Front?

I have given quite a lot of stuff away to people who need it more than I do. A lot of it to perfect strangers here on apug, and just like Steve I have asked them in turn to help others instead of paying me for the stuff.
Perhaps I am stupid not to charge, and perhaps I am evil for not making a profit whenever possible, but if I have a spare of just the part someone needs to make pictures should I refuse him because he cannot pay the correct market price?
Cameras should be used, and not collected for their value in currency.

This thread started out as a discussion about what to do if somone was selling stuff too cheap without knowing what they had.
Do we take advantage of their ignorance or not?

A cheap price may not always be due to ignorance.
A while back I saw an add for bikes for sale. The seller (no name and only an untraceble phone number) was selling about 30 bikes to which he unfortunately had lost all keys. They where all for sale at very low prices (locked).
Am I the only one who doubts that he is the rightful owner?

Asking questions about equipment and checking if the seller knows what he is selling is not a failsafe way of not buying stolen goods, but it helps a lot.
Is the price in cash all that matters?

This is an interestingly timed thread since I was thinking about this very topic this morning. I've taken advantage of my share of ridiculously good deals yet somehow my good (but not outlandish) luck this weekend has me feeling slightly guilty - maybe it has to do with the time of year or maybe it's just that I was willing to spend twice what it turns out to have cost simply because this was something I actually wanted (and not just GAS).

Last week, I paid $90 BIN for a Medalist II - very clean in the photos but the seller said the shutter was stuck (and since he sells a fair bit of camera gear, I took his word for it). I bought it, figuring $75 to Carol Miller (who I immediately e-mailed to get on her waiting list) still made it a good price for a camera I really wanted to use. Anyway, it arrived Friday and I found the shutter wasn't stuck (if you cocked it) and worked quite nicely on B & 1 second ( the rest sounded good). Last night, I wound some expired XP2 onto a 620 spool, loaded it up and found that everything works as it should (we'll see how the negs come out).

There, now that I've come clean I feel much better...

Dan

arigram said:

or the controversial affliction of a collector for the above mentioned characteristics of decorative objects and a hint that they may have a lot more disposable income than most people.

Click to expand...

I have quite a large collection of cameras by most people's standards (30+) but I buy them to use, not to look at. As for disposeable income... most of mine has been disposed of before I see any of it!


Steve.

I think the economic term for this is "making a killing"

Mike1234 said:

EDITED: Original wording was a bit harsh.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I'm sure that I appreciate that. I never saw the harsh version, but fully understand and accept your edited version.

Jesper said:

I have given quite a lot of stuff away to people who need it more than I do. A lot of it to perfect strangers here on apug, and just like Steve I have asked them in turn to help others instead of paying me for the stuff.
Perhaps I am stupid not to charge, and perhaps I am evil for not making a profit whenever possible, but if I have a spare of just the part someone needs to make pictures should I refuse him because he cannot pay the correct market price?
Cameras should be used, and not collected for their value in currency.

This thread started out as a discussion about what to do if somone was selling stuff too cheap without knowing what they had.
Do we take advantage of their ignorance or not?

A cheap price may not always be due to ignorance.
A while back I saw an add for bikes for sale. The seller (no name and only an untraceble phone number) was selling about 30 bikes to which he unfortunately had lost all keys. They where all for sale at very low prices (locked).
Am I the only one who doubts that he is the rightful owner?

Asking questions about equipment and checking if the seller knows what he is selling is not a failsafe way of not buying stolen goods, but it helps a lot.
Is the price in cash all that matters?

Click to expand...

That is Lund as I remember it!

Stolen bicycles or some nutter giving stuff away?
Maybe both.

Nice to know that there are other Swedes here.

Jesper said:

Stolen bicycles or some nutter giving stuff away?
Maybe both.

Nice to know that there are other Swedes here.

Click to expand...

I was thinking of the bikes. Maybe the situation has improved since the 90-ties. Maybe not.

There is a group for Scandinavians here on APUG.