On 8/23/05, Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <blushing> This made me proud, so childish as I am, I had to highlight it. > Thank you Frank! </blushing> > > Also thank you for your, from my point of view, liberal (read american) > thoughts on the ethics.
Well, I'm Canadian, but I do note that you spelled american with a small-case a, so perhaps you meant "North American", which we certainly are. I'm not sure that my ethics are representative of either my country or my continent. I always thought that Europeans were more liberal about these things <LOL>. > As I read you, you say: They invited you, therefore it's Ok. > Can't say I follow you in this kind of logic. What if bloke invited me to > run over him with my car? Would the fact that he invited me, make it the > right thing to do? According to my ethics, no. Well, with the greatest of respect, Tim, that's just a silly argument, isn't it. You can't take my position to an illogical extreme and then say, "so therefore you're wrong". I'm talking about taking photos, not of you doing harm to someone. I know one gets into a grey area when it comes to issues such as sado-masochism (which I know virtually nothing about, BTW), where a participant says to another, "you may cause physical pain and even scar me - I want you to". In fact, that's what the piercee is saying to the piercer here, right? But, you're not either of those participants here, you're merely recording an event that would have happened anyway. Yes, it may be that you influenced the ritual in some way by your presence, but again, that's not your doing, it's theirs. We know this: they invited you to observe the event, they knew you had a camera, and they knew you would take photos. It may even be that they asked you to take photos. They knew that you would process the results in a form that you and others could view. They didn't ask you to withold those results, when they had every opportunity to. They could have said, "take our photos, but don't show anyone", or "show me before you publish them", or "we only give you permission to give them to us and show them to no one", but they said nothing. You took the photo, you now own the image. I don't understand where the dilemma is, really. Do what you want with it. They gave you carte blanche. Now, that being said, you show it to whom and where you personally feel comfortable. If public viewing makes you feel uncomfortable, that's your decision, and no one can criticize you for that. That being said, I'm certainly glad you showed it to me, for (again) it's a tremendous photo. Really. > > Anyway, I tried to convert the picture to b&w as you sugested. Aren't good > at it. > The URL is the same: > http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=189705 > a thumb to the b&w version is below the picture. > > CAAA (Comments As Always Appreciated) > What do I do to do it better (referring to converting)? Well, I was thinking more of having taken it on B&W film in the first place (a moot point, to be sure, as it's now done in digi-colour). I agree that the conversion isn't great - no punch or feeling to it. I can't open the thumb though; is it supposed to open bigger? As for conversions, I can't help you, being an old-fashioned non-digitalian. <g> cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
