Parts of this post came out wrong. One more time my English failed me. Hope you are able to read between the lines, and get what I'm really trying to say. A clairvoyant might be able to figure out the meaning of my ravings ;-)
Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 25. august 2005 03:15 > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: PESO: Out door "Piercing Studio" > > Hi Frank! > > > I stated: > > > 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. > > You said: > > 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? > > > Did I say you were wrong? Don't think I did. > I just said I followed your logic. I just tried to point out that your > argumentation could be used about anything. That they actually invited me > didn't make it ethical to do so. With respect, it's not a valid argument. > Therefore, I am looking for other arguments. > > > But, you're not either of those participants here, you're merely > > recording an event that would have happened anyway. > Thats valid. > > > You took the photo, you now own the image. > Yep, I do. They where not high on anything. So, no problem there. > > I don't have any problem with showing it to others; in fact I'm a bit > proud > of it, despite the technical weaknesses. > > I really don't have problems with piercings in general either. Its just > not > my style. > > What I did have problems with was a voice inside my head asking, "are you > being voyeuristic now Tim", does it turn you on in any way? In retrospect > I > know the answer on both is a simple no. > > To sum it up: There is no problem. It once was, now it isn't. > But thank you very much for going into this. Yours and others arguments > has > helped clearing my twisted mind ;-) > > One tiny issue: Opening the b&w version: Clicking the thumb simply loads > the > alternative version replacing the original one. > > (And you are right about result of the conversion. It stinks ;-) There is > no > sting in the eyes. It was mainly a rehearsal. Perhaps I would have done > better, if the raw material was better?) > > > Tim > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds > (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 25. august 2005 02:07 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: PESO: Out door "Piercing Studio" > > > > 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 > > > > > >
