How do you know this is true: "Engineers who become photographers generally spend an outsized amount of time making their images sharp, have true color, be adequately lit, etc."
Not all engineers are robots. It doesn't take an artist to realize art has both technical and human/emotional components.
When you respond to a sentence using the words "generally", "tend to", or "usually" with one using the words "not all" or relatives, you are effectively conceding the point. Correlation cannot be denied with a mere counterexample.
Can correlation be assumed without sources and facts as was done in the article?
"Not all engineers are [figurative] robots" is certainly a fact and was meant as an upper bound on the number of engineers who believe that photography is merely technical in nature. I'm questioning whether the lower bound is statable as "generally engineers believe this", and claiming that I don't believe it is.
To further clarify my opinion: the line drawn by the author is too black and white. Its inhuman and unemotional itself to assume that another large group of humans can't see the emotional and human side of art.
Not all engineers are robots. It doesn't take an artist to realize art has both technical and human/emotional components.