Re: Moral dilemma

[Cotty]

On 24/1/07, Charles Robinson, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I guess when I said "around my house/apartment" I was referring to  
>the landscape OUTSIDE of the residence, not IN it.

Charles, if you've got a busy life inside your apartment, that's fine by
me buddy ;-)

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Charles Robinson]

On Jan 23, 2007, at 17:12, Cotty wrote:

> On 23/1/07, Charles Robinson, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>> While I'm not sure I'd take pictures of the BODY, I would document
>> "the scene" around my house/apartment if such a thing occurred.
>> Simply because that is what I do with a camera - record events.  And
>> that, while a bummer, is definitely "an event".
>
> Charles, am I given to understand that you keep a supply of body  
> bags in
> your apartment ? Sounds like their's a few piling up in there  
> buddy ;-)
>

I guess when I said "around my house/apartment" I was referring to  
the landscape OUTSIDE of the residence, not IN it.

Smart-aleck!

  -Charles

--
Charles Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 1/23/2007 12:56:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You are a person of good taste and manners.  Which is why you will never make 
a journalist.
===
Mark!

Marnie aka Doe ;-)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[mike wilson]

> 
> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2007/01/24 Wed AM 12:42:09 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
> Subject: Re: Moral dilemma
> 
> Seems to me that the BBC can't decide if it's organized. (or 
> disorganized), crime.

Salvage (saving something from total loss) very much depends on cicumstances.  
For example, if someone found one of the deck containers on the beach, secured 
it and claimed salage, that is perfectly legal.  They have to store it securely 
for a period of time, after which it is theirs if not claimed.  If they force 
open the container and take some of the contents, it gets very blurred.  On one 
hand, they have damaged the property (the container) but they could argue that 
they have salvaged the stuff they removed.  It's rather easy to guess the 
intentions of the wallys who have (allegedly) already offered stuff on ebay - 
which should be removing these auctions as fast as they are placed, as 
otherwise it is an accomplice.  If people have filled in the requisite 
paperwork and not caused further damage, there has been no crime.  It would 
have been nice if some of the rubbish could have been taken away at the same 
time.

These circumstances only apply at sea and on shorelines, where the possibility 
of an owner losing their proeprty entirely is high.  In previous times, when 
shipwreck was more common, it was a form of insurance.  Used corrctly, it still 
provides a useful service to owners.  It's an owner's legal obligation to 
accept salvage in some circumstances.


> 
> Cotty wrote:
> > On 23/1/07, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
> >
> >   
> >>> Define distasteful !
> >>>   
> >> I meant it as a generic statement.  Distasteful varies from person to
> >> person, as well as having a cultural side.  As a personal guide, I would
> >> have it mean "to take advantage of the subject".  You could add
> >> disclaimers such as "for no valid reason" but then you are into defining
> >> validity.  Everyone knows what their personal beliefs and customs are. 
> >> Sometimes it is good to move outside them, even by accident, but one
> >> needs to know why.
> >> 
> >
> > Granted. Everyone has limits, but I think setting them generically is
> > implausible. Mercifully we have the rule of law in the civilised world
> > because obviously we do not want anarchy. It's a tricky area. I'm a
> > hardass newsguy but I tell you what - if I found a tenner lying in the
> > road, I'd take it to the police station. And in fact I have.
> >
> > I have no bones about filming/photographing a corpse, but trudging along
> > a beach with bits of motorcycle I find abhorrent !
> >
> > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6291191.stm>
> >
> > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6290887.stm>
> >
> >   
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> 
> The more I know of men, the more I like my dog.
>   -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> 


-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[David Savage]

On 1/24/07, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23/1/07, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >> Define distasteful !
> >
> >Filming/reporting a "best of" blue vein cheese tasting.
>
> LOL  thanks mate. Coffee->nostrils.

Whoops.

Cheers,

Dave :-)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

>> Consider, Cotty. I drove today at work and approaching a crossing I
>> heard an ambulance's siren. Instinctively I turned to look in the
>> mirror (I have slightly wider custom inside mirror) only to realize
>> that nothing was in there. Meanwhile the ambulance was entering the
>> crossing on the red so that I almost hit it as I was going on green in
>> the direction perpendicular to that of ambulance entry. It was in
>> front of me. Well, I did avoid a very unpleasant event and in a moment
>> the ambulance took off and I hope no harm came to the person that had
>> to be treated. I was rather uncomfortable after that. I still am.
>> Probably what happened is perfectly fine and should I be a taxi
>> driver, I wouldn't pay much attention to it. But I am not.
> 
> Makes sense to me. car crashes are not fun. When I hear an ambulance, I
> try and follow it ;-))

HAR! That's my point. Whatever is common usual standard for a 
professional (taxi driver) is rather different than to casual 
practitioner of the same discipline (me).

> However, just because *I* don't think morality is an issue (in cases
> like this), doesn't mean that it's *not*. I fully respect another's view
> that it can be an issue. I simply offer my point of view if for no other
> reason than to show how bad things can get ;-)

Indeed.

Boris


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[P. J. Alling]

Seems to me that the BBC can't decide if it's organized. (or 
disorganized), crime.

Cotty wrote:
> On 23/1/07, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>   
>>> Define distasteful !
>>>   
>> I meant it as a generic statement.  Distasteful varies from person to
>> person, as well as having a cultural side.  As a personal guide, I would
>> have it mean "to take advantage of the subject".  You could add
>> disclaimers such as "for no valid reason" but then you are into defining
>> validity.  Everyone knows what their personal beliefs and customs are. 
>> Sometimes it is good to move outside them, even by accident, but one
>> needs to know why.
>> 
>
> Granted. Everyone has limits, but I think setting them generically is
> implausible. Mercifully we have the rule of law in the civilised world
> because obviously we do not want anarchy. It's a tricky area. I'm a
> hardass newsguy but I tell you what - if I found a tenner lying in the
> road, I'd take it to the police station. And in fact I have.
>
> I have no bones about filming/photographing a corpse, but trudging along
> a beach with bits of motorcycle I find abhorrent !
>
> 
>
> 
>
>   


-- 
--

The more I know of men, the more I like my dog.
-- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Cotty]

On 23/1/07, Charles Robinson, discombobulated, unleashed:

>While I'm not sure I'd take pictures of the BODY, I would document  
>"the scene" around my house/apartment if such a thing occurred.   
>Simply because that is what I do with a camera - record events.  And  
>that, while a bummer, is definitely "an event".

Charles, am I given to understand that you keep a supply of body bags in
your apartment ? Sounds like their's a few piling up in there buddy ;-)

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Charles Robinson]

On Jan 23, 2007, at 14:53, Kenneth Waller wrote:

> It appears the real question here is what would you do with the  
> pictures
> taken?
>

While I'm not sure I'd take pictures of the BODY, I would document  
"the scene" around my house/apartment if such a thing occurred.   
Simply because that is what I do with a camera - record events.  And  
that, while a bummer, is definitely "an event".  Even if I had no use  
or plans for the photos once captured.

That's just what I'd do, though.  To each their own.

  -Charles

--
Charles Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[mike wilson]

Cotty wrote:
> On 23/1/07, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
> 
>>>Define distasteful !
>>
>>I meant it as a generic statement.  Distasteful varies from person to
>>person, as well as having a cultural side.  As a personal guide, I would
>>have it mean "to take advantage of the subject".  You could add
>>disclaimers such as "for no valid reason" but then you are into defining
>>validity.  Everyone knows what their personal beliefs and customs are. 
>>Sometimes it is good to move outside them, even by accident, but one
>>needs to know why.
> 
> 
> Granted. Everyone has limits, but I think setting them generically is
> implausible. Mercifully we have the rule of law in the civilised world
> because obviously we do not want anarchy. It's a tricky area. I'm a
> hardass newsguy but I tell you what - if I found a tenner lying in the
> road, I'd take it to the police station. And in fact I have.
> 
> I have no bones about filming/photographing a corpse, but trudging along
> a beach with bits of motorcycle I find abhorrent !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Good job they are captured on film. 8-)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Kenneth Waller]

It appears the real question here is what would you do with the pictures 
taken?

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Moral dilemma


> On 23/1/07, John Coyle, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>>Yesterday, a young man died in the small park opposite where I live.  The
>>street was full of police and their vehicles, for about 5 hours all told.
>>Despite the fact that I could see all this action, and from our roof could
>>see the body and the various examinations taking place, I did not shoot a
>>single photograph.
>
>>What would you have done?
>
> Personally I don't think morality is an issue. I think it's about
> personal comfort and the law.
>
> On a daily basis I film ongoing 'news' scenes such as this and one gets
> used to it. Knowing what is within the law in terms of not disturbing a
> crime scene etc is useful, but to be honest there is little to upset by
> shooting. It's the publishing that needs careful consideration, and
> editors decide accordingly. I regularly film people going into court
> buildings, many of whom are jurors - I don't know that of course - and
> am sometimes only given the skimpiest of descriptions (white male about
> 30!) but the point is that shots of jurors can never be broadcast. So
> just because an image is acquired does not mean it will be published.
>
> If shooting (stills or video) in circumstances such as these is
> uncomfortable then the outcome is obvious - one will not do it, and
> probably think very little of those that would. That's okay by me, as I
> have a mortgage to pay and a place in hell guaranteed :-)
>
> The point about shooting a scene like that isn't necessarily immediately
> obvious. The young man in the park is likely a druggie or a victim of
> gang action or an innocent bystander or whatever. But if later it
> transpires that he is the son of a Osama Bin Bombadier then the nature
> of the scene takes on a new importance, and to have no historical
> account (as newspaper and television news images do become a part) would
> be a loss. The point of recording a scene like this - whether it be by
> image, voice, or even crayon - is that it fulfils a very small part of
> history and gives others access to information that a free press commands.
>
> Now I'll read the other replies and assume my position at the bottom of
> the food chain ;-)
>
>
>
> -- 
>
>
> Cheers,
>  Cotty
>
>
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
>
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: Moral dilemma

[Bob W]

Cotty, 

that is a most excellent reply.

Here's another consideration. Suppose each of the following:

1. your friend asks you what the corpse was like, and you describe it
to them in spoken words
2. a local journalist asks what the corpse was like, and you describe
it
3. you write to a friend and describe the corpse
4. you write a description of the corpse in your private diary, which
is not intended for other people's eyes
5. you send the description to your local paper 
6. you photograph the corpse but don't show anyone the picture
7. you send a print to your friend who has asked about it
8. you send the photo to your local paper

Are the spoken and written descriptions morally or ethically different
from the photographs? 

Are there any moral or ethical differences between telling/showing
other people, and keeping it to yourself?

If so, why?

--
 Bob
 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
> Behalf Of Cotty
> Sent: 23 January 2007 09:26
> To: pentax list
> Subject: Re: Moral dilemma
> 
> On 23/1/07, John Coyle, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
> >Yesterday, a young man died in the small park opposite where 
> I live.  The 
> >street was full of police and their vehicles, for about 5 
> hours all told. 
> >Despite the fact that I could see all this action, and from 
> our roof could 
> >see the body and the various examinations taking place, I 
> did not shoot a 
> >single photograph.
> 
> >What would you have done?
> 
> Personally I don't think morality is an issue. I think it's about
> personal comfort and the law.
> 
> On a daily basis I film ongoing 'news' scenes such as this 
> and one gets
> used to it. Knowing what is within the law in terms of not 
> disturbing a
> crime scene etc is useful, but to be honest there is little 
> to upset by
> shooting. It's the publishing that needs careful consideration, and
> editors decide accordingly. I regularly film people going into court
> buildings, many of whom are jurors - I don't know that of course -
and
> am sometimes only given the skimpiest of descriptions (white 
> male about
> 30!) but the point is that shots of jurors can never be broadcast.
So
> just because an image is acquired does not mean it will be
published.
> 
> If shooting (stills or video) in circumstances such as these is
> uncomfortable then the outcome is obvious - one will not do it, and
> probably think very little of those that would. That's okay 
> by me, as I
> have a mortgage to pay and a place in hell guaranteed :-)
> 
> The point about shooting a scene like that isn't necessarily 
> immediately
> obvious. The young man in the park is likely a druggie or a victim
of
> gang action or an innocent bystander or whatever. But if later it
> transpires that he is the son of a Osama Bin Bombadier then the
nature
> of the scene takes on a new importance, and to have no historical
> account (as newspaper and television news images do become a 
> part) would
> be a loss. The point of recording a scene like this - whether it be
by
> image, voice, or even crayon - is that it fulfils a very small part
of
> history and gives others access to information that a free 
> press commands.
> 
> Now I'll read the other replies and assume my position at the 
> bottom of
> the food chain ;-)
> 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Cotty]

On 23/1/07, graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:

>All those things some a'hole sergeant tells you to do when you are in 
>the military? Of course some f'ing orificer told him to make you do 
>that. Some perverted polly told the officer to do that. And the 
>politician got the idea from something some tall bald-headed Limey News 
>  Cameraman shot. Hence, distasteful = Cotty. 
>
>-graywolf
>
>PS: 2 of my 3 electronic dictionaries recognized "limey" as a proper 
>word, but one of them did mention it was considered derogatory.

LOL. What a hoot.

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[graywolf]

All those things some a'hole sergeant tells you to do when you are in 
the military? Of course some f'ing orificer told him to make you do 
that. Some perverted polly told the officer to do that. And the 
politician got the idea from something some tall bald-headed Limey News 
  Cameraman shot. Hence, distasteful = Cotty. 

-graywolf

PS: 2 of my 3 electronic dictionaries recognized "limey" as a proper 
word, but one of them did mention it was considered derogatory.


Cotty wrote:
> On 23/1/07, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
>> My pleasure. 8-) As you so elegantly stated, journos often have to do
>> things that are distasteful and would not be something one would want to
>> do as an individual.  
> 
> Define distasteful !
> 

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Russell Kerstetter]

i think this would be me too! :)

russ

On 1/23/07, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What would I have done?
>
> I probably would have had no idea what was going on. But would be
> bitching and moaning about all the cop cars blocking the street.
>
> I would eventually find out what had happened and then felt like a selfish 
> twit.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
> On 1/23/07, John Coyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What would you have done?
> > Yesterday, a young man died in the small park opposite where I live.  The
> > street was full of police and their vehicles, for about 5 hours all told.
> > Despite the fact that I could see all this action, and from our roof could
> > see the body and the various examinations taking place, I did not shoot a
> > single photograph.
> >
> > I'll leave any further comment at this stage...
> >
> > John Coyle
> > Brisbane, Australia
> >
> > --
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > PDML@pdml.net
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> >
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Jan 23, 2007, at 5:47 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:

> Cotty wrote:
>
>> Define distasteful !
>
> http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/mods/eoskmount.html
> ;-)

LOL !!!

G


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Cotty]

On 23/1/07, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:

>> Define distasteful !
>
>Filming/reporting a "best of" blue vein cheese tasting.

LOL  thanks mate. Coffee->nostrils.

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Cotty]

On 23/1/07, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed:

>
>Consider, Cotty. I drove today at work and approaching a crossing I
>heard an ambulance's siren. Instinctively I turned to look in the
>mirror (I have slightly wider custom inside mirror) only to realize
>that nothing was in there. Meanwhile the ambulance was entering the
>crossing on the red so that I almost hit it as I was going on green in
>the direction perpendicular to that of ambulance entry. It was in
>front of me. Well, I did avoid a very unpleasant event and in a moment
>the ambulance took off and I hope no harm came to the person that had
>to be treated. I was rather uncomfortable after that. I still am.
>Probably what happened is perfectly fine and should I be a taxi
>driver, I wouldn't pay much attention to it. But I am not.

Makes sense to me. car crashes are not fun. When I hear an ambulance, I
try and follow it ;-))

>
>When I received my 31 limited the terror attack happened in the view
>distance from my office. I took few shots but they were very bad. I
>did not dare to come closer for obvious reasons, but if I had a long
>lens, I might have taken better shots. But then again, this was
>different eventuality.

I think acts of terrorism / war are slightly different,  although
probably not by much. I personally draw the line there - I do not wish
to work in such circumstances, mainly because my family object, and I
would not want to put them through high anxiety etc. I'm not mad keen on
body parts - I saw a severed human head on a web site once (suicide
bomber) and I felt pretty sick - the image stayed with me a long time.
However I enjoy working in operating theatres and the insides of human
beings fascinates me. As the Americans say: 'go figure!'.

>
>What I am trying to say is that I consider your point of view
>perfectly valid although I wouldn't dare take this kind of shot
>myself.

And that echoes my original statement of:

>> Personally I don't think morality is an issue. I think it's about
>> personal comfort and the law.

However, just because *I* don't think morality is an issue (in cases
like this), doesn't mean that it's *not*. I fully respect another's view
that it can be an issue. I simply offer my point of view if for no other
reason than to show how bad things can get ;-)

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Cotty]

On 23/1/07, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:

>> Define distasteful !
>
>I meant it as a generic statement.  Distasteful varies from person to
>person, as well as having a cultural side.  As a personal guide, I would
>have it mean "to take advantage of the subject".  You could add
>disclaimers such as "for no valid reason" but then you are into defining
>validity.  Everyone knows what their personal beliefs and customs are. 
>Sometimes it is good to move outside them, even by accident, but one
>needs to know why.

Granted. Everyone has limits, but I think setting them generically is
implausible. Mercifully we have the rule of law in the civilised world
because obviously we do not want anarchy. It's a tricky area. I'm a
hardass newsguy but I tell you what - if I found a tenner lying in the
road, I'd take it to the police station. And in fact I have.

I have no bones about filming/photographing a corpse, but trudging along
a beach with bits of motorcycle I find abhorrent !





-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Cotty]

On 23/1/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:

>>Define distasteful !
>
>http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/mods/eoskmount.html
>;-)


I asked for that.


-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty"
Subject: Re: Moral dilemma


>
> Sadly you would not make it as a news photographer sir. There may be no
> obvious reason to you why need to shoot the corpse, but if your editor
> later discovered you had not, you would not be working for him/her
> again. Of course, that could be a blessing ;-)
>

Perhaps it's not so much that he wouldn't make it as a news photographer as 
because he isn't a news photographer his sense of priorities differ.
One could equally say that the news photographer who ignores the pretty 
sunset to photograph a shark attack victim would never make it as a 
landscape photographer.

William Robb 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[P. J. Alling]

Ya just has to agree wit that...

Mark Roberts wrote:
> Cotty wrote:
>
>   
>> On 23/1/07, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
>>
>> 
>>> My pleasure. 8-) As you so elegantly stated, journos often have to do
>>> things that are distasteful and would not be something one would want to
>>> do as an individual.  
>>>   
>> Define distasteful !
>> 
>
> http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/mods/eoskmount.html
> ;-)
>
>
>   


-- 
--

The more I know of men, the more I like my dog.
-- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Boris Liberman]

Cotty,

> Personally I don't think morality is an issue. I think it's about
> personal comfort and the law.
>
> ...
>
> If shooting (stills or video) in circumstances such as these is
> uncomfortable then the outcome is obvious - one will not do it, and
> probably think very little of those that would. That's okay by me, as I
> have a mortgage to pay and a place in hell guaranteed :-)

You speak like a true professional journalist or video (stills)
operator which it turns out you are. <-- This is *not* insult, rather
opposite thereof.

It is only a matter of one's own personal perception.

Consider, Cotty. I drove today at work and approaching a crossing I
heard an ambulance's siren. Instinctively I turned to look in the
mirror (I have slightly wider custom inside mirror) only to realize
that nothing was in there. Meanwhile the ambulance was entering the
crossing on the red so that I almost hit it as I was going on green in
the direction perpendicular to that of ambulance entry. It was in
front of me. Well, I did avoid a very unpleasant event and in a moment
the ambulance took off and I hope no harm came to the person that had
to be treated. I was rather uncomfortable after that. I still am.
Probably what happened is perfectly fine and should I be a taxi
driver, I wouldn't pay much attention to it. But I am not.

Again, it is a matter of one's own perception.

When I received my 31 limited the terror attack happened in the view
distance from my office. I took few shots but they were very bad. I
did not dare to come closer for obvious reasons, but if I had a long
lens, I might have taken better shots. But then again, this was
different eventuality.

What I am trying to say is that I consider your point of view
perfectly valid although I wouldn't dare take this kind of shot
myself.

-- 
Boris

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Mark Roberts]

Cotty wrote:

>On 23/1/07, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>>My pleasure. 8-) As you so elegantly stated, journos often have to do
>>things that are distasteful and would not be something one would want to
>>do as an individual.  
>
>Define distasteful !

http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/mods/eoskmount.html
;-)


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[David Savage]

What would I have done?

I probably would have had no idea what was going on. But would be
bitching and moaning about all the cop cars blocking the street.

I would eventually find out what had happened and then felt like a selfish twit.

Cheers,

Dave

On 1/23/07, John Coyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What would you have done?
> Yesterday, a young man died in the small park opposite where I live.  The
> street was full of police and their vehicles, for about 5 hours all told.
> Despite the fact that I could see all this action, and from our roof could
> see the body and the various examinations taking place, I did not shoot a
> single photograph.
>
> I'll leave any further comment at this stage...
>
> John Coyle
> Brisbane, Australia
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[mike wilson]

> 
> From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2007/01/23 Tue PM 12:34:26 GMT
> To: "pentax list" 
> Subject: Re: Moral dilemma
> 
> On 23/1/07, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
> >My pleasure. 8-) As you so elegantly stated, journos often have to do
> >things that are distasteful and would not be something one would want to
> >do as an individual.  
> 
> Define distasteful !

I meant it as a generic statement.  Distasteful varies from person to person, 
as well as having a cultural side.  As a personal guide, I would have it mean 
"to take advantage of the subject".  You could add disclaimers such as "for no 
valid reason" but then you are into defining validity.  Everyone knows what 
their personal beliefs and customs are.  Sometimes it is good to move outside 
them, even by accident, but one needs to know why.


-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Brian Walters]

Yes I think that does it!


Cheers

Brian

++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia

Quoting David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> On 1/23/07, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >
> > Define distasteful !
> 
> Filming/reporting a "best of" blue vein cheese tasting.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave

--
Save On Your Health Insurance
Compare multiple quotes to save with NetQuote's free service
http://tags.bluebottle.com/fc/MhtYWUi3OrSwrAoYP1wekXdiUWQjt6WDOlqtf/


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[David Savage]

On 1/23/07, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23/1/07, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >My pleasure. 8-) As you so elegantly stated, journos often have to do
> >things that are distasteful and would not be something one would want to
> >do as an individual.
>
> Define distasteful !

Filming/reporting a "best of" blue vein cheese tasting.

Cheers,

Dave

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Cotty]

On 23/1/07, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:

>My pleasure. 8-) As you so elegantly stated, journos often have to do
>things that are distasteful and would not be something one would want to
>do as an individual.  

Define distasteful !

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[K.Takeshita]

On 1/23/07 4:27 AM, "Cotty", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> This tells me that you are very decent person and of commonsense.  I think
>> Police was wrong.  In the country where I came from, or many other
>> countries, they quickly erect a tent to conceal the scene out of respect for
>> the deceased, regardless of the cause.
> 
> This is usually the case in many places in the world Ken, but there are
> circumstances which sometimes prevent screening, or it is delayed.

Yes, but 5 hours?

Ken


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[mike wilson]

> 
> From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2007/01/23 Tue AM 09:36:59 GMT
> To: "pentax list" 
> Subject: Re: Moral dilemma
> 
> On 23/1/07, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
> >You are a person of good taste and manners.  Which is why you will never
> >make a journalist.
> 
> Thanks Mike !  ;-)

My pleasure. 8-) As you so elegantly stated, journos often have to do things 
that are distasteful and would not be something one would want to do as an 
individual.  


-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Cotty]

On 23/1/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:

>That's pretty much what I was going to say, except that I hadn't 
>gotten as far as thinking about what I'd do if I were employed as
>a news photographer.
>
>I'd shoot the overall scene, shots of police collecting evidence 
>other than right next to the body, etc., but while the thought
>most certainly would have occurred to me, I don't think I would
>have photographed the body of the victim himself.  That can be
>adequately recorded by some police photographer.

Sadly you would not make it as a news photographer sir. There may be no
obvious reason to you why need to shoot the corpse, but if your editor
later discovered you had not, you would not be working for him/her
again. Of course, that could be a blessing ;-)

Note that police photographers record for evidential purposes and not
historical - only the authorities will have access to those images. Fine
you say, but what if it later transpires that it was the son of a
relative who died in very mysterious circumstances, and (for whatever
reason) the police found no culprit, and the coroner recorded an open
verdict? If I was the parent seeking justice for what I believed to be
an unlawful killing, I would want access to any and all material
available in order to pursue my own investigations. that would include
news coverage, and if necessary, knocking door to door in the vicinity
in search of more evidence and the truth.

This happens more than you would think.

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Cotty]

On 23/1/07, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:

>You are a person of good taste and manners.  Which is why you will never
>make a journalist.

Thanks Mike !  ;-)

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Cotty]

On 23/1/07, John Coyle, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Yesterday, a young man died in the small park opposite where I live.  The 
>street was full of police and their vehicles, for about 5 hours all told. 
>Despite the fact that I could see all this action, and from our roof could 
>see the body and the various examinations taking place, I did not shoot a 
>single photograph.

>What would you have done?

Personally I don't think morality is an issue. I think it's about
personal comfort and the law.

On a daily basis I film ongoing 'news' scenes such as this and one gets
used to it. Knowing what is within the law in terms of not disturbing a
crime scene etc is useful, but to be honest there is little to upset by
shooting. It's the publishing that needs careful consideration, and
editors decide accordingly. I regularly film people going into court
buildings, many of whom are jurors - I don't know that of course - and
am sometimes only given the skimpiest of descriptions (white male about
30!) but the point is that shots of jurors can never be broadcast. So
just because an image is acquired does not mean it will be published.

If shooting (stills or video) in circumstances such as these is
uncomfortable then the outcome is obvious - one will not do it, and
probably think very little of those that would. That's okay by me, as I
have a mortgage to pay and a place in hell guaranteed :-)

The point about shooting a scene like that isn't necessarily immediately
obvious. The young man in the park is likely a druggie or a victim of
gang action or an innocent bystander or whatever. But if later it
transpires that he is the son of a Osama Bin Bombadier then the nature
of the scene takes on a new importance, and to have no historical
account (as newspaper and television news images do become a part) would
be a loss. The point of recording a scene like this - whether it be by
image, voice, or even crayon - is that it fulfils a very small part of
history and gives others access to information that a free press commands.

Now I'll read the other replies and assume my position at the bottom of
the food chain ;-)



-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Cotty]

On 22/1/07, K.Takeshita, discombobulated, unleashed:

>This tells me that you are very decent person and of commonsense.  I think
>Police was wrong.  In the country where I came from, or many other
>countries, they quickly erect a tent to conceal the scene out of respect for
>the deceased, regardless of the cause.

This is usually the case in many places in the world Ken, but there are
circumstances which sometimes prevent screening, or it is delayed.

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[mike wilson]

> From: "John Coyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2007/01/23 Tue AM 02:07:59 GMT
> To: "Pentax-Discuss" 
> Subject: Moral dilemma
> 
> What would you have done?
> Yesterday, a young man died in the small park opposite where I live.  The 
> street was full of police and their vehicles, for about 5 hours all told. 
> Despite the fact that I could see all this action, and from our roof could 
> see the body and the various examinations taking place, I did not shoot a 
> single photograph.
> 
> I'll leave any further comment at this stage...

You are a person of good taste and manners.  Which is why you will never make a 
journalist.


-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Boris Liberman]

John Coyle wrote:
> What would you have done?
> Yesterday, a young man died in the small park opposite where I live.  The 
> street was full of police and their vehicles, for about 5 hours all told. 
> Despite the fact that I could see all this action, and from our roof could 
> see the body and the various examinations taking place, I did not shoot a 
> single photograph.
> 
> I'll leave any further comment at this stage...
> 
> John Coyle
> Brisbane, Australia 
> 

The same, I think.

Boris


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Mike Dausin (PDML)]

John Coyle wrote:
>  I did not shoot a single photograph.
>
> I'll leave any further comment at this stage...
>
>   
What you did was fine.  But honestly, people die. They really do.  And 
taking photographs doesn't change the situation much. 

Now, would it have been crude, tactless, or even taboo?  Maybe.  
Personally, I've seen as many pictures of dead bodies as I care to, so 
I'm kind of glad you didn't add any more to the world.  But who knows.  
Maybe one of the photographs you /didn't/ take would have been so 
utterly inspirational that people around the world would be stricken 
with joy, lay down arms, and proclaim everlasting peace!

Haven't you seen Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure?  If you had, you 
would know that you should never /not/ do what you do, just because its 
taboo (dude, that rhymes.)  Otherwise you might cause a future, air 
guitar based, Utopian society to collapse.  And wouldn't that be bogus?

  Mike







-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[dglenn]

Tom Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Coyle wrote:
> > What would you have done?
> > Yesterday, a young man died in the small park opposite where I live.  The 
> > street was full of police and their vehicles, for about 5 hours all told. 
> > Despite the fact that I could see all this action, and from our roof could 
> > see the body and the various examinations taking place, I did not shoot a 
> > single photograph.
> As an individual, amateur photographer, I might have looked for 
> interesting shots relating to the response to the call, but would not 
> have shot the body itself. That is just more than a little morbid for 
> me,  and kinda' disrespectful of both the deceased and his/her family.
>
> If I were a news photographer, that would depend on the editorial policy 
> of who I was shooting for. [...]

That's pretty much what I was going to say, except that I hadn't 
gotten as far as thinking about what I'd do if I were employed as
a news photographer.

I'd shoot the overall scene, shots of police collecting evidence 
other than right next to the body, etc., but while the thought
most certainly would have occurred to me, I don't think I would
have photographed the body of the victim himself.  That can be
adequately recorded by some police photographer.

I can envision making a different decision depending on circumsttances,
if for some reason I thought it was Very Important to tell the story
that images of the body would be needed to tell, but I'm not really
sure what those circumstances would have to be -- I need to think about
it more.  I just know that I'd feel ... goulish ... photographing a
body in a situation that seemed sensationalist or exploitative or,
well I'm having trouble putting my finger on exactly what it is that
would seem to make it feel wrong.

I'm not sure I can suport this position logically; just that it would
feel like I was being creepy.


In my neighbourhood, I've had the chance to photograph a lot of fires,
a fair number of automobile crashes, a few arrests, and one person 
lying in the gutter for unknown reasons and whose fate I do not know.
(I called 911 _first_; my second act would have been to throw on 
clothes and go down to see if there were anything to do while waiting
for the ambulance, but others appeared on the sidewalk before I'd
finished talking to the emergency dispatcher and seemed to by trying
to provide assistance in the couple of minutes it took for an ambulance
to arrive.)  I've also photographed a burglary in progress (while
berating the 911 operator for the lack of police response -- the cops
did show up _twelve-[expletive]ing_HOURS_later_ despite there being
an "enhanced enforcement zone" (lots of cops positioned ready to go,
and surveillance cameras) a mere four or five blocks away!).

I've ordinarily got no compunction photographing wrecked cars being
hauled away -- including one cut in half by a tree and hauled away
on two different rollbacks -- but I also nearly never hear how the
occupants fared.  The time I spent a while photographing an SUV and
a police car smooshed together so firmly that it took two large
tow trucks pulling in opposite directions nad laying rubber to pry
them apart -- quite a dramatic image -- I felt terrible when I found
out later that an officer had still been in the (stopped) police car 
when the SUV had rammed it.  Rational or not, my feeling changed from
"what a dramatic tangle of metal", to feeling like I'd done something
wrong by starting to shoot before finding out how the officer was
doing, and I waited around to hear.  (He died at the hospital; the
driver of the stolen SUV survived.)  I don't recall whether I ever
got around to having that film developed; this happened years ago.
When I had started shooting, the idea that the driver of the SUV 
could have deliberately rammed an _occupied_ vehicle was so alien 
to me, that I could only imagine that the officer had bailed after
putting his car in position.  (The thought still _is_ that alien to
me even though I know better.)

The question of when it's "tsk, tsk, how awful, but I might as
well not let these sights go to waste," and when it's "I'll 
feel like a ghoul after I stop concentrating on the viewfinder,"
is sometimes an easy one and sometimes uneasy.  When I'm having
trouble figuring out the answer to that, it probably means that
I should back off and let the images go unrecorded.  If I were
shooting for news media, I'd probably have to wade deeper into
those less-certain cases.

-- Glenn

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[P. J. Alling]

or all three...

William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message - 
> From: "John Coyle" Subject: Moral dilemma
>
>
>   
>> What would you have done?
>> Yesterday, a young man died in the small park opposite where I live.  The
>> street was full of police and their vehicles, for about 5 hours all told.
>> Despite the fact that I could see all this action, and from our roof could
>> see the body and the various examinations taking place, I did not shoot a
>> single photograph.
>>
>> I'll leave any further comment at this stage...
>> 
>
> Seems to me that in that situation, if you are taking pictures, you are 
> either a reporter, a crime scene investigator or a ghoul.
>
> William Robb 
>
>
>   


-- 
--

The more I know of men, the more I like my dog.
-- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "John Coyle" Subject: Moral dilemma


> What would you have done?
> Yesterday, a young man died in the small park opposite where I live.  The
> street was full of police and their vehicles, for about 5 hours all told.
> Despite the fact that I could see all this action, and from our roof could
> see the body and the various examinations taking place, I did not shoot a
> single photograph.
>
> I'll leave any further comment at this stage...

Seems to me that in that situation, if you are taking pictures, you are 
either a reporter, a crime scene investigator or a ghoul.

William Robb 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: Moral dilemma

[J. C. O'Connell]

I think I might have shot the scene going on if
I could do it without being noticed by anyone and
any shots that contained any imagery of the 
unfortunate soul I would have just permanently blacked out
with a filled rectangular marquee in photoshop
(even on my originals, thats just too morbid),
but the investigation going on may have been
interesting to review.
jco

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tom Simpson
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 9:21 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Moral dilemma


As an individual, amateur photographer, I might have looked for 
interesting shots relating to the response to the call, but would not 
have shot the body itself. That is just more than a little morbid for 
me,  and kinda' disrespectful of both the deceased and his/her family.

If I were a news photographer, that would depend on the editorial policy

of who I was shooting for. I am not sure I would work for a publication 
that made a point of publishing a lot of corpse photos, though.

-Tom
in SC

John Coyle wrote:
> What would you have done?
> Yesterday, a young man died in the small park opposite where I live.  
> The
> street was full of police and their vehicles, for about 5 hours all
told. 
> Despite the fact that I could see all this action, and from our roof
could 
> see the body and the various examinations taking place, I did not
shoot a 
> single photograph.
>
> I'll leave any further comment at this stage...
>
> John Coyle
> Brisbane, Australia
>
>   


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Mike Hamilton]

On 1/22/07, John Coyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What would you have done?
> Yesterday, a young man died in the small park opposite where I live.  The
> street was full of police and their vehicles, for about 5 hours all told.
> Despite the fact that I could see all this action, and from our roof could
> see the body and the various examinations taking place, I did not shoot a
> single photograph.

You did the right thing...  There was little or nothing to gain by
photographing the body, and in my opinion, something to lose by doing
so.

-- 
--
Cheers,

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MichaelHamilton.ca

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Brian Walters]

Just what you did, I think.


Cheers

Brian

++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia


Quoting John Coyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> What would you have done?
> Yesterday, a young man died in the small park opposite where I
> live.  The 
> street was full of police and their vehicles, for about 5 hours all
> told. 
> Despite the fact that I could see all this action, and from our
> roof could 
> see the body and the various examinations taking place, I did not
> shoot a 
> single photograph.
> 
> I'll leave any further comment at this stage...
> 
> John Coyle
> Brisbane, Australia

--
Accredited Online Doctoral Degrees
Find online doctorates from accredited colleges. Browse subjects.
http://tags.bluebottle.com/fc/MhtYWUjj0fllheVb3PuWQtIxewPIEF1ElVARS/


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[K.Takeshita]

On 1/22/07 9:07 PM, "John Coyle", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What would you have done?
> Yesterday, a young man died in the small park opposite where I live.  The
> street was full of police and their vehicles, for about 5 hours all told.
> Despite the fact that I could see all this action, and from our roof could
> see the body and the various examinations taking place, I did not shoot a
> single photograph.
> 
> I'll leave any further comment at this stage...

This tells me that you are very decent person and of commonsense.  I think
Police was wrong.  In the country where I came from, or many other
countries, they quickly erect a tent to conceal the scene out of respect for
the deceased, regardless of the cause.

It would be hard to resist temptation to take photos in this sort of
situation, not because of perverse min, but because of some instinct to make
a record.
But in the actual scene like that, I would be in no mood to take photos.

Rest in peace, the young man,

Ken


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral dilemma

[Tom Simpson]

As an individual, amateur photographer, I might have looked for 
interesting shots relating to the response to the call, but would not 
have shot the body itself. That is just more than a little morbid for 
me,  and kinda' disrespectful of both the deceased and his/her family.

If I were a news photographer, that would depend on the editorial policy 
of who I was shooting for. I am not sure I would work for a publication 
that made a point of publishing a lot of corpse photos, though.

-Tom
in SC

John Coyle wrote:
> What would you have done?
> Yesterday, a young man died in the small park opposite where I live.  The 
> street was full of police and their vehicles, for about 5 hours all told. 
> Despite the fact that I could see all this action, and from our roof could 
> see the body and the various examinations taking place, I did not shoot a 
> single photograph.
>
> I'll leave any further comment at this stage...
>
> John Coyle
> Brisbane, Australia 
>
>   


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Moral Dilemma

[mike wilson]

Jostein wrote:
LOL!
Well, what can I do, with friends like Cotty and Mike...:-)
Beneath this charming, suave, urbane exterior lurks the heart of Ming 
the Merciless. 8-)

Cheers,
Jostein
Quoting Shaun Canning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

I don't know how she does it Jostein...but it looks like my wife has even
managed to cost you money! She's very good at it!
Cheers
Shaun
Dr. Shaun Canning
Cultural Heritage Services
11 Lawrence Way
Karratha, Western Australia, 
6714

0414-967644
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.heritageservices.com.au
-Original Message-
From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 9:54 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Moral Dilemma

- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

HAR. A crack into which a crowbar will take purchase..
Now don't make me peckish...

Drinks are on you!
Uh-oh.
Have mercy!
Imagine how much Pentax gear I would have to sell of to finance that!
Jostein




This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Re: Moral Dilemma

[David Zaninovic]

I usually solve this problem by giving my wife the camera and letting her 
take pictures.  I take over only when there is really
something interesting to shoot.  That way you don't even need to carry the 
camera, she will carry it for you.  You just need 2GB
memory card minimum for this.

> Shaun Canning wrote:
> > We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North Queensland 
> > with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me
to
> > take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:
> >
> > 1. Leave camera at home,
> > 2. Leave wife and son at home,
> > 3. Take son and leave wife,
> > 4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come close to 
> > replicating the results of the *istD, or
> > 5. Throw a tantrum.
> >
> > I am really confused
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Shaun
> >
> >
> > Dr. Shaun Canning
> > Cultural Heritage Services
> > 11 Lawrence Way
> > Karratha, Western Australia,
> > 6714
> >
> > 0414-967644
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > http://www.heritageservices.com.au

RE: Moral Dilemma

[Jostein]

LOL!

Well, what can I do, with friends like Cotty and Mike...:-)

Cheers,
Jostein

Quoting Shaun Canning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> I don't know how she does it Jostein...but it looks like my wife has even
> managed to cost you money! She's very good at it!
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Shaun
> 
> Dr. Shaun Canning
> Cultural Heritage Services
> 11 Lawrence Way
> Karratha, Western Australia, 
> 6714
> 
> 0414-967644
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> http://www.heritageservices.com.au
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 9:54 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Moral Dilemma
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 
> > HAR. A crack into which a crowbar will take purchase..
> 
> Now don't make me peckish...
> 
> > Drinks are on you!
> 
> Uh-oh.
> 
> Have mercy!
> Imagine how much Pentax gear I would have to sell of to finance that!
> 
> Jostein
> 
> 
> 





This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Re: Moral Dilemma

[Shaun Canning]

I like to let her think she does anyway...

:-)

Shaun

Cotty said:
> On 4/5/05, Shaun Canning, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>>We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North
>>Queensland with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to
>>take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:
>>
>>1. Leave camera at home,
>>2. Leave wife and son at home,
>>3. Take son and leave wife,
>>4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come close
>>to replicating the results of the *istD, or
>>5. Throw a tantrum.
>>
>>I am really confused
>
> So am I. You're Strine and *she* makes the decisions???
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
>
>
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
>
>
>

RE: Moral Dilemma

[Shaun Canning]

I don't know how she does it Jostein...but it looks like my wife has even 
managed to cost you money! She's very good at it!

Cheers

Shaun

Dr. Shaun Canning
Cultural Heritage Services
11 Lawrence Way
Karratha, Western Australia, 
6714

0414-967644
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.heritageservices.com.au

-Original Message-
From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 9:54 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Moral Dilemma


- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> HAR. A crack into which a crowbar will take purchase..

Now don't make me peckish...

> Drinks are on you!

Uh-oh.

Have mercy!
Imagine how much Pentax gear I would have to sell of to finance that!

Jostein

RE: Re: Moral Dilemma

[Shaun Canning]

Oh yeah, Jostein, it might just be your shout now

:-)

Cheers

Shaun

Dr. Shaun Canning
Cultural Heritage Services
11 Lawrence Way
Karratha, Western Australia, 
6714

0414-967644
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.heritageservices.com.au

-Original Message-
From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 6:01 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Re: Moral Dilemma


> 
> From: Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/05/04 Wed AM 09:58:46 GMT
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Moral Dilemma
> 
> Shaun,
> 
> If your wife is any bit like mine, the opposition against cameras is 
> basically a
> mild jealousy over the time you spend with it, instead of assisting her with 
> the
> kid. :-)
> 
> In the long term, this will pass as the kids grow out of their diapers.
> In the short term, bring the camera. You must never confirm her theory that 
> it's
> _either_ family _or_ camera. take ample of shots of the kid, enjoy outdoors
> photography while taking the lad for a stroll (especially when he sleeps in 
> the
> stroller), volunteer for some (not all...) extra diaper changes, feeding, etc.
> 
> To all London DPML'ers,
> Please don't mention this mail to Vera in the coming week-end. :-)

Yy!!!  Drinks are on Jostein!

> 
> Cheers,
> Jostein
> 
> Quoting Shaun Canning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North Queensland
> > with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to
> > take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:
> > 
> > 1. Leave camera at home, 
> > 2. Leave wife and son at home,
> > 3. Take son and leave wife, 
> > 4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come close to
> > replicating the results of the *istD, or
> > 5. Throw a tantrum.
> > 
> > I am really confused
> > 
> > :-) 
> > 
> > Shaun
> > 
> > 
> > Dr. Shaun Canning
> > Cultural Heritage Services
> > 11 Lawrence Way
> > Karratha, Western Australia, 
> > 6714
> > 
> > 0414-967644
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > http://www.heritageservices.com.au
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> 
> 

-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
 

Re: Moral Dilemma

[Graywolf]

From my experience, if you do not do what wife wants, she will get mad. If you do what she wants, she will eventually leave you because you are a whimp. It is called, "You can not win". So the best thing to do is what you wanted to do anyway
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Shaun Canning wrote:
We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North Queensland 
with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to
take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:
1. Leave camera at home, 
2. Leave wife and son at home,
3. Take son and leave wife, 
4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come close to replicating the results of the *istD, or
5. Throw a tantrum.

I am really confused
:-) 

Shaun
Dr. Shaun Canning
Cultural Heritage Services
11 Lawrence Way
Karratha, Western Australia, 
6714

0414-967644
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.heritageservices.com.au



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.4 - Release Date: 5/4/2005

Re: Moral Dilemma

[Bob Sullivan]

Jostein is right.
The wife wants your help and attention with an 8 month old.
Put a small, fixed focal length lens on the camera and
put it away in your bags.  After you reach your destination, 
and have shown your attentiveness, 'discover' the camera 
and take a limited amount of pictures of the trip.
Bottom line, this is a family vacation 1st, 2nd & 3rd.
Photography is incidental.
(Remember this the next time you plan a trip!
You will need her agreement 'up-front' on what you'll be doing!)
Regards,  Bob S.

On 5/4/05, Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shaun,
> 
> If your wife is any bit like mine, the opposition against cameras is 
> basically a
> mild jealousy over the time you spend with it, instead of assisting her with 
> the
> kid. :-)
> 
> In the long term, this will pass as the kids grow out of their diapers.
> In the short term, bring the camera. You must never confirm her theory that 
> it's
> _either_ family _or_ camera. take ample of shots of the kid, enjoy outdoors
> photography while taking the lad for a stroll (especially when he sleeps in 
> the
> stroller), volunteer for some (not all...) extra diaper changes, feeding, etc.
> 
> To all London DPML'ers,
> Please don't mention this mail to Vera in the coming week-end. :-)
> 
> Cheers,
> Jostein
> 
> Quoting Shaun Canning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North Queensland
> > with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to
> > take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:
> >
> > 1. Leave camera at home,
> > 2. Leave wife and son at home,
> > 3. Take son and leave wife,
> > 4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come close to
> > replicating the results of the *istD, or
> > 5. Throw a tantrum.
> >
> > I am really confused
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Shaun
> >
> >
> > Dr. Shaun Canning
> > Cultural Heritage Services
> > 11 Lawrence Way
> > Karratha, Western Australia,
> > 6714
> >
> > 0414-967644
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > http://www.heritageservices.com.au
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> 
>

Re: Moral Dilemma

[Cotty]

On 4/5/05, Jostein, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Okay, here's for another moral dilemma:
>
>Sell my gear to finance a thirst quench for these rabid PDML'ers, AND 
>having to explain that to the wife in a plausible way;
>
>or,
>
>Show her the mail I sent to Shaun.
>
>
>Hmmm...
>
>Afraid you'll end up thirsty, guys...:-)

Har, not after I put a bit of spin on the tale..!!

Make mine Valhalla-sized, Viking Boy!


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Re: Moral Dilemma

[Jostein]

- Original Message - 
From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yy!!!  Drinks are on Jostein!
Okay, here's for another moral dilemma:
Sell my gear to finance a thirst quench for these rabid PDML'ers, AND 
having to explain that to the wife in a plausible way;

or,
Show her the mail I sent to Shaun.
Hmmm...
Afraid you'll end up thirsty, guys...:-)
Che...
greetings,
Jostein 

Re: Moral Dilemma

[Jostein]

- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
HAR. A crack into which a crowbar will take purchase..
Now don't make me peckish...
Drinks are on you!
Uh-oh.
Have mercy!
Imagine how much Pentax gear I would have to sell of to finance that!
Jostein

Re: Moral Dilemma

[Cotty]

On 4/5/05, Jostein, discombobulated, unleashed:

>To all London DPML'ers,
>Please don't mention this mail to Vera in the coming week-end. :-)

HAR. A crack into which a crowbar will take purchase..

Drinks are on you!




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Moral Dilemma

[ernreed2]

Quoting Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Shaun,
> 
> If your wife is any bit like mine, the opposition against cameras is
> basically a
> mild jealousy over the time you spend with it, instead of assisting her
> with the
> kid. :-)

Jostein's probably right. My husband has the very same issue -- but he does 
not ever try to forbid my carrying a camera. (He's probably older and more 
pragmatic than Shaun's wife!)

ERNR

Re: Moral Dilemma

[Tom Reese]

Shaun Canning wrote:
"We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North 
Queensland with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to
take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:

1. Leave camera at home,
2. Leave wife and son at home,
3. Take son and leave wife,
4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come close 
to replicating the results of the *istD, or
5. Throw a tantrum."

I vote for proseletyzing. Buy her an Optio and turn her into a 
photographer too.

Tom Reese

Re: Re: Moral Dilemma

[mike wilson]

> 
> From: Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/05/04 Wed AM 09:58:46 GMT
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Moral Dilemma
> 
> Shaun,
> 
> If your wife is any bit like mine, the opposition against cameras is 
> basically a
> mild jealousy over the time you spend with it, instead of assisting her with 
> the
> kid. :-)
> 
> In the long term, this will pass as the kids grow out of their diapers.
> In the short term, bring the camera. You must never confirm her theory that 
> it's
> _either_ family _or_ camera. take ample of shots of the kid, enjoy outdoors
> photography while taking the lad for a stroll (especially when he sleeps in 
> the
> stroller), volunteer for some (not all...) extra diaper changes, feeding, etc.
> 
> To all London DPML'ers,
> Please don't mention this mail to Vera in the coming week-end. :-)

Yy!!!  Drinks are on Jostein!

> 
> Cheers,
> Jostein
> 
> Quoting Shaun Canning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North Queensland
> > with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to
> > take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:
> > 
> > 1. Leave camera at home, 
> > 2. Leave wife and son at home,
> > 3. Take son and leave wife, 
> > 4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come close to
> > replicating the results of the *istD, or
> > 5. Throw a tantrum.
> > 
> > I am really confused
> > 
> > :-) 
> > 
> > Shaun
> > 
> > 
> > Dr. Shaun Canning
> > Cultural Heritage Services
> > 11 Lawrence Way
> > Karratha, Western Australia, 
> > 6714
> > 
> > 0414-967644
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > http://www.heritageservices.com.au
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> 
> 

-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
 

Re: Moral Dilemma

[Jostein]

Shaun,

If your wife is any bit like mine, the opposition against cameras is basically a
mild jealousy over the time you spend with it, instead of assisting her with the
kid. :-)

In the long term, this will pass as the kids grow out of their diapers.
In the short term, bring the camera. You must never confirm her theory that it's
_either_ family _or_ camera. take ample of shots of the kid, enjoy outdoors
photography while taking the lad for a stroll (especially when he sleeps in the
stroller), volunteer for some (not all...) extra diaper changes, feeding, etc.

To all London DPML'ers,
Please don't mention this mail to Vera in the coming week-end. :-)

Cheers,
Jostein

Quoting Shaun Canning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North Queensland
> with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to
> take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:
> 
> 1. Leave camera at home, 
> 2. Leave wife and son at home,
> 3. Take son and leave wife, 
> 4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come close to
> replicating the results of the *istD, or
> 5. Throw a tantrum.
> 
> I am really confused
> 
> :-) 
> 
> Shaun
> 
> 
> Dr. Shaun Canning
> Cultural Heritage Services
> 11 Lawrence Way
> Karratha, Western Australia, 
> 6714
> 
> 0414-967644
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> http://www.heritageservices.com.au
> 
> 
> 





This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

RE: Moral Dilemma

[Shaun Canning]

Thank you all for your witty and obviously well practiced answers to my 
dilemma. I'll talk the wife around...

I've managed to talk her in to everything else for the last 8 years, so I think 
I can manage a camera.

The replies were funny though

Cheers

Shaun

Dr. Shaun Canning
Cultural Heritage Services
11 Lawrence Way
Karratha, Western Australia, 
6714

0414-967644
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.heritageservices.com.au

RE: Moral Dilemma

[Shaun Canning]

Take it lie a man Boris, lie down and cry right now

Cheers

Shaun

Dr. Shaun Canning
Cultural Heritage Services
11 Lawrence Way
Karratha, Western Australia, 
6714

0414-967644
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.heritageservices.com.au


-Original Message-
From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 12:41 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Moral Dilemma

Hi!

> We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North Queensland 
> with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me
to
> take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:
> 
> 1. Leave camera at home, 
> 2. Leave wife and son at home,
> 3. Take son and leave wife, 
> 4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come close to 
> replicating the results of the *istD, or
> 5. Throw a tantrum.

6. Choose just one lens, the most sturdy one. Attach it to the camera. 
Pack the camera as deep as you can. Your wife is up to surprise. You can 
probably buy spare batteries on location. Few memory cards can be 
conveniently hidden in your wallet.

7. Try to convince her she's wrong about 1.

8. Divorce

9. See if you can buy another D or Ds on location. Pre-order one to have 
it delivered to your hotel or wherever you'd be staying. She'd be up for 
a way bigger surprise.

10. If you have another digi camera at home challenge your wife to take 
better pictures during location. You bring your piece, she brings hers. 
If she wants, you can always buy another D/Ds to even the odds.

11. Don't throw a tantrum!

Boris

P.S. Julia asks if she can kick my head real hard just in case...

RE: Moral Dilemma

[Shaun Canning]

Nah, he's too damn cute, and can pull more women than I ever could

Dr. Shaun Canning
Cultural Heritage Services
11 Lawrence Way
Karratha, Western Australia, 
6714

0414-967644
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.heritageservices.com.au


-Original Message-
From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 10:54 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Moral Dilemma

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 08:03:13PM -0600, Joseph Tainter wrote:
> Henri:
> Take it anyway, give her the creditcard and tell her to go shopping.
> 
> Godfrey:
> Do what you want.
> Deal with the consequences.
> 
> Both experienced husbands, I expect.

Tell her you'll leave the *ist-D at home if she leaves the baby at home ...

RE: Moral Dilemma

[Shaun Canning]

Joe, you're goodvery good! Obviously significant amounts of practice gone 
into your reasoning

Cheers

Shaun

Dr. Shaun Canning
Cultural Heritage Services
11 Lawrence Way
Karratha, Western Australia, 
6714

0414-967644
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.heritageservices.com.au

-Original Message-
From: Joseph Tainter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 10:03 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Moral Dilemma

Henri:
Take it anyway, give her the creditcard and tell her to go shopping.

Godfrey:
Do what you want.
Deal with the consequences.

Both experienced husbands, I expect.

As another such, I suspect she is concerned that you will spend time taking 
pictures rather than with her and the baby.


Tell her you want the best possible pictures of the three of you 
together on vacation, and only photos from the *ist D will have digital 
longevity so that the three of you can look at them together, over and 
over, in the years to come, and you and she can share the photos with 
your grandchildren, etc. Photos taken on any lesser camera just won't 
last. Remember, Pentax is for your special moments.

Joe

Re: Moral Dilemma

[Cotty]

On 4/5/05, Shaun Canning, discombobulated, unleashed:

>We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North
>Queensland with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to
>take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:
>
>1. Leave camera at home, 
>2. Leave wife and son at home,
>3. Take son and leave wife, 
>4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come close
>to replicating the results of the *istD, or
>5. Throw a tantrum.

Actually, I can relate to the above. Reminds me of my first wife.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Moral Dilemma

[Cotty]

On 4/5/05, Shaun Canning, discombobulated, unleashed:

>We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North
>Queensland with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to
>take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:
>
>1. Leave camera at home, 
>2. Leave wife and son at home,
>3. Take son and leave wife, 
>4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come close
>to replicating the results of the *istD, or
>5. Throw a tantrum.
>
>I am really confused

So am I. You're Strine and *she* makes the decisions???




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Moral Dilemma

[mike wilson]

> 
> From: "Shaun Canning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/05/03 Tue PM 11:25:29 GMT
> To: 
> Subject: Moral Dilemma
> 
> We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North Queensland 
> with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to
> take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:
> 
> 1. Leave camera at home, 
> 2. Leave wife and son at home,
> 3. Take son and leave wife, 
> 4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come close to 
> replicating the results of the *istD, or
> 5. Throw a tantrum.
> 
> I am really confused

I am really curious about her reasoning.

> 
> :-) 
> 
> Shaun
> 
> 
> Dr. Shaun Canning
> Cultural Heritage Services
> 11 Lawrence Way
> Karratha, Western Australia, 
> 6714
> 
> 0414-967644
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> http://www.heritageservices.com.au
> 
> 
> 

-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
virus-checked using mcAfee(R) Software
visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
 

Re: Moral Dilemma

[dagt]

> fra: "Shaun Canning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North Queensland 
> with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to
> take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:
> 
> 1. Leave camera at home, 
> 2. Leave wife and son at home,
> 3. Take son and leave wife, 
> 4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come close to 
> replicating the results of the *istD, or
> 5. Throw a tantrum.
> 
> I am really confused

Ignore it, but don't bring a lot of lenses etc.
Use it to take a cute picture of your son, and she'll probably forgive you.
If she dont, tell her that when she chose a guy with a camera she'll have to 
accept the consequences.

DagT

Re: Moral Dilemma

[Juan Buhler]

On 5/3/05, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > particularly observant, you may need a little black electrical tape to
> > cover up the *ist-D logo.
> 
> I believe Juan may have a bit of black tape left over that he could
> lend Shaun...

Sure. But it's *gaffers* tape, not electrical tape!

Shaun, as others said, there isn't enough data to give an opinion.
However, I wonder: why do you have a camera if you're not going to
take it with you on trips?

j

-- 
Juan Buhler - SIGGRAPH 2005
http://www.jbuhler.com
photoblog at http://photoblog.jbuhler.com

Re: Moral Dilemma

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Moral Dilemma


You just became the biggest whipped man I know. Blue rare steaks, my eye! 
:)
For this sacrifice, I'd be looking at a 4x5 rig for our next vacation..
William Robb 

Re: Moral Dilemma

[Tom C]

You just became the biggest whipped man I know. Blue rare steaks, my eye! :)
Tom C.

From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: 
Subject: Re: Moral Dilemma
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 21:26:25 -0600
- Original Message - From: "Shaun Canning"
Subject: Moral Dilemma

We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North 
Queensland with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to
take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:

1. Leave camera at home,
Correct answer.
William Robb

Re: Moral Dilemma

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!
We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North Queensland 
with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to
take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:
1. Leave camera at home, 
2. Leave wife and son at home,
3. Take son and leave wife, 
4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come close to replicating the results of the *istD, or
5. Throw a tantrum.
6. Choose just one lens, the most sturdy one. Attach it to the camera. 
Pack the camera as deep as you can. Your wife is up to surprise. You can 
probably buy spare batteries on location. Few memory cards can be 
conveniently hidden in your wallet.

7. Try to convince her she's wrong about 1.
8. Divorce
9. See if you can buy another D or Ds on location. Pre-order one to have 
it delivered to your hotel or wherever you'd be staying. She'd be up for 
a way bigger surprise.

10. If you have another digi camera at home challenge your wife to take 
better pictures during location. You bring your piece, she brings hers. 
If she wants, you can always buy another D/Ds to even the odds.

11. Don't throw a tantrum!
Boris
P.S. Julia asks if she can kick my head real hard just in case...

Re: Moral Dilemma

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Shaun Canning"
Subject: Moral Dilemma


We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North 
Queensland with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to
take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:

1. Leave camera at home,
Correct answer.
William Robb 

Re: Moral Dilemma

[frank theriault]

On 5/3/05, David Oswald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The answer, of course, is to buy an SMC Pentax-DA 40mm f/2.8 Pancake
> lens, and a vertical grip.  Those two new components will change the
> look of the *ist-D enough that you can trick her into believing you
> complied with the request of leaving your *ist-D home.  If she is
> particularly observant, you may need a little black electrical tape to
> cover up the *ist-D logo.

I believe Juan may have a bit of black tape left over that he could
lend Shaun...

I think your suggestion is an excellent one, BTW, David.  Best one
yet.  If deception doesn't work, try clever deception.  

cheers,
frank

-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Moral Dilemma

[David Oswald]

The answer, of course, is to buy an SMC Pentax-DA 40mm f/2.8 Pancake 
lens, and a vertical grip.  Those two new components will change the 
look of the *ist-D enough that you can trick her into believing you 
complied with the request of leaving your *ist-D home.  If she is 
particularly observant, you may need a little black electrical tape to 
cover up the *ist-D logo.


Shaun Canning wrote:
We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North Queensland 
with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to
take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:
1. Leave camera at home, 
2. Leave wife and son at home,
3. Take son and leave wife, 
4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come close to replicating the results of the *istD, or
5. Throw a tantrum.

I am really confused
:-) 

Shaun
Dr. Shaun Canning
Cultural Heritage Services
11 Lawrence Way
Karratha, Western Australia, 
6714

0414-967644
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.heritageservices.com.au

Re: Moral Dilemma

[John Francis]

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 08:03:13PM -0600, Joseph Tainter wrote:
> Henri:
> Take it anyway, give her the creditcard and tell her to go shopping.
> 
> Godfrey:
> Do what you want.
> Deal with the consequences.
> 
> Both experienced husbands, I expect.

Tell her you'll leave the *ist-D at home if she leaves the baby at home ...

Re: Moral Dilemma

[frank theriault]

On 5/3/05, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >
> Someone needs to fix you with a chainsaw. :)

What makes you think someone hasn't already?

cheers,
frank, aka "Lefty" (former member of the Canadian Olympic Chainsaw
Juggling Team)


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Moral Dilemma

[Tom C]

5.  If she said you can't bring the *istD with you, sell it along with
all your lenses, to finance the purchase of a DigiRebel and a couple
of lenses, and bring those along.  There's no prohibition against
that, AFAIK.  In the bargain, you'll then possess a real camera, and
you'll look really really "pro".  Plus, you'll be just like 1/4 of
this list (Canon owners, that is...).  
cheers,
frank
Someone needs to fix you with a chainsaw. :)
Tom C.

Re: Moral Dilemma

[frank theriault]

On 5/3/05, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. Explain how taking the *ist D will allow for a higher quality of pictures
> of both your wife and your son.
> 2. Make her think you're doing it because SHE's important.
> 3. Explain that if you have the best tool for the job, you shold use it
> instead of an inferior one.
> 4. If all else fails, beg.

5.  If she said you can't bring the *istD with you, sell it along with
all your lenses, to finance the purchase of a DigiRebel and a couple
of lenses, and bring those along.  There's no prohibition against
that, AFAIK.  In the bargain, you'll then possess a real camera, and
you'll look really really "pro".  Plus, you'll be just like 1/4 of
this list (Canon owners, that is...).  

cheers,
frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Moral Dilemma

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On May 3, 2005, at 7:03 PM, Joseph Tainter wrote:
Both experienced husbands, I expect.
Experienced, yes.
Husband, no.
Godfrey

Re: Moral Dilemma

[Joseph Tainter]

P.S. This is a strategic and tactical dilemma, not a moral one.
Joe

Re: Moral Dilemma

[Joseph Tainter]

Henri:
Take it anyway, give her the creditcard and tell her to go shopping.
Godfrey:
Do what you want.
Deal with the consequences.
Both experienced husbands, I expect.
As another such, I suspect she is concerned that you will spend time taking 
pictures rather than with her and the baby.
Tell her you want the best possible pictures of the three of you 
together on vacation, and only photos from the *ist D will have digital 
longevity so that the three of you can look at them together, over and 
over, in the years to come, and you and she can share the photos with 
your grandchildren, etc. Photos taken on any lesser camera just won't 
last. Remember, Pentax is for your special moments.

Joe

Re: Moral Dilemma

[Collin R Brendemuehl]

At 20:38 2005.05.03 -0400, you wrote:
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 07:25:29 +0800
From: "Shaun Canning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Subject: Moral Dilemma
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North 
Queensland with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to
take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:

1. Leave camera at home,
2. Leave wife and son at home,
3. Take son and leave wife,
4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come close 
to replicating the results of the *istD, or
5. Throw a tantrum.

I am really confused
:-)
Shaun
This is easy.
Move to Canada.
Red Green has the answers you seek.
Collin

Re: Moral Dilemma

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Do what you want.
Deal with the consequences.
G
On May 3, 2005, at 4:25 PM, Shaun Canning wrote:
We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North 
Queensland with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to
take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:

1. Leave camera at home,
2. Leave wife and son at home,
3. Take son and leave wife,
4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come 
close to replicating the results of the *istD, or
5. Throw a tantrum.

I am really confused

RE: Moral Dilemma

[Tom C]

1. Explain how taking the *ist D will allow for a higher quality of pictures 
of both your wife and your son.
2. Make her think you're doing it because SHE's important.
3. Explain that if you have the best tool for the job, you shold use it 
instead of an inferior one.
4. If all else fails, beg.

Tom C.

From: "Shaun Canning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: 
Subject: Moral Dilemma
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 07:25:29 +0800
We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North Queensland 
with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to
take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:

1. Leave camera at home,
2. Leave wife and son at home,
3. Take son and leave wife,
4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come close to 
replicating the results of the *istD, or
5. Throw a tantrum.

I am really confused
:-)
Shaun
Dr. Shaun Canning
Cultural Heritage Services
11 Lawrence Way
Karratha, Western Australia,
6714
0414-967644
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.heritageservices.com.au

Re: Moral Dilemma

[Rob Studdert]

On 4 May 2005 at 7:25, Shaun Canning wrote:

> We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North Queensland 
> with
> wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to take *ist D etc. What do I
> do? Do I:
> 
> 1. Leave camera at home, 
> 2. Leave wife and son at home,
> 3. Take son and leave wife, 
> 4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come close to
> replicating the results of the *istD, or 5. Throw a tantrum.
> 
> I am really confused

I guess if there was rational reasoning behind the ultimatum you'd have clued 
us in so I'd have to go with 5, I say fight irrationality with a tanny. :-(


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Moral Dilemma

[frank theriault]

On 5/3/05, Shaun Canning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North Queensland 
> with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to
> take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:
> 
> 1. Leave camera at home,
> 2. Leave wife and son at home,
> 3. Take son and leave wife,
> 4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come close to 
> replicating the results of the *istD, or
> 5. Throw a tantrum.
> 
> I am really confused
> 
> :-)

That's a hard question to answer, not knowing her reason(s) for
wanting to exclude such an important part of your family from the
trip.  Can you enlighten us?

I'm thinking that armed with such information, we might be better able
to assist you in formulating some cogent, compelling and persuasive
arguments in your favour.

HTH,
frank

-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Moral Dilemma

[Henri Toivonen]

Shaun Canning wrote:
We are about to embark on a 3 week holiday in tropical Far North Queensland 
with wife and 8 month old son. Wife does not want me to
take *ist D etc. What do I do? Do I:
1. Leave camera at home, 
2. Leave wife and son at home,
3. Take son and leave wife, 
4. Justify buying a new compact digicam because our S50 can't come close to replicating the results of the *istD, or
5. Throw a tantrum.

I am really confused
:-) 

Shaun
 

Uhm, what, so you HAVE TO do as the wife wants?
Take it anyway, give her the creditcard and tell her to go shopping.
/Henri

Re: Moral Dilemma re Selling on Ebay

[eactivist]

In a message dated 1/15/2003 12:58:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> Thanks for the specimen shot.  As for the distinction you make
> between "swirlies" and bokeh, I'm not sure that I agree with the
> distinction (or, to be more specific, the necessity for such a
> distinction).  To me, "swirlies" still represent a form of bad bokeh
> - in other words, there are several ways that a lens can provide
> unpleasant (yes, I know that's a subjective term) out-of-focus areas
> in an image, and a bad case of "swirlies" is just one of 
> them.
> 
> Fred

You're making an assumption that I have not made.

The circular distortion occurs at the zoom's maximum focal length. I think it might 
occur even without a shallow depth of field -- i.e. no bokeh. 

I don't have a photo illustrating that because I bought the lens for close-ups 
(70-200).

Anyway, when I first brought it up on this list, the consensus was that swirlies was a 
different and separate effect than just bad bokeh -- so I will go with the list's 
wisdom.

Later, Doe aka Marnie ;-)

Re: Moral Dilemma re Selling on Ebay

[Keith Whaley]

Fred wrote:
> 
> > No, it's not just bad bokeh. Actually the bokeh isn't that bad.
> 
> Thanks for the specimen shot.  As for the distinction you make
> between "swirlies" and bokeh, I'm not sure that I agree with the
> distinction (or, to be more specific, the necessity for such a
> distinction).  

I saw the circular or spiral orientation to the bokeh 'blobs' in her
swirly out of focus image.
I think "swirley" is a good description for the phenomenon.  

> To me, "swirlies" still represent a form of bad bokeh
> - in other words, there are several ways that a lens can provide
> unpleasant (yes, I know that's a subjective term) out-of-focus areas
> in an image, and a bad case of "swirlies" is just one of them.
> 
> Fred

keith whaley

Re: Moral Dilemma re Selling on Ebay

[Fred]

> No, it's not just bad bokeh. Actually the bokeh isn't that bad.

Thanks for the specimen shot.  As for the distinction you make
between "swirlies" and bokeh, I'm not sure that I agree with the
distinction (or, to be more specific, the necessity for such a
distinction).  To me, "swirlies" still represent a form of bad bokeh
- in other words, there are several ways that a lens can provide
unpleasant (yes, I know that's a subjective term) out-of-focus areas
in an image, and a bad case of "swirlies" is just one of them.

Fred

Re: Moral Dilemma re Selling on Ebay

[eactivist]

In a message dated 1/14/2003 4:08:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 
> > I'd leave this bit out.
> > 
> > 
> >   > It also takes okay pictures, not too bad, with no obvious distortions
> >   > until the zoom is extended to its maximum focal length, then it produces
> >   > swirlies. But the swirlies are not terrible, so it's adequate for the
> >   > student
> > 
> > Especially the "adequate for the student" bit.
> > You could leave the photo examples link in the description but drop the
> > comment swirlies/no swirlies. Too psychadelic.
> 
> Exactly. Let the buyer judge for him/herself. You've shown 
> them the
> prints, now it's up to them.
> 
> keith whaley

Thanks everyone for their input.

Hehehehe.

Maybe I should target the aging hippie-photographer crowd. 

Special effect lens! Communicates that mellow stoned feel!!!

Good advice, the photos will be there for truthfulness and I will take the comments 
out. (Remove comments from photos too.) 

I was/am also in a writing newsgroup group (well, a game newsgroup composed of writers 
and programmers). I know a writer would tell me to leave out the editorializing and 
just stick to the facts.

Same thing here: Just describe the mechanics of the lens and leave out my judgment 
calls on what kind of pictures the lens produces.

Besides I'd like to try to sell the @#$%! zoom.

Thanks, Doe aka Marnie :-)  That's the main thing, of course.

Re: Moral Dilemma re Selling on Ebay

[William Johnson]

Oh yeah, I used to have a Vivitar 70-210/4.5 that did the same thing at the long 
endmight be the same lens under a different name, the pictures of the lens look 
similar.

William in Utah.

1/14/2003 11:38:24 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>In a message dated 1/14/2003 11:02:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Put these words in the description.People will be agast at how 
>> honest you are and just might bid :) :)
>> 
>> Dave(soon to be an ebayer to)Brooks
>> 
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
>> > 
>> > most of the pictures taken with it look okay, not that 
>> > bad, with no obvious distortions, until it is zoomed to 
>> its 
>> > maximum focal length, then it has swirlies. Not terrible 
>> > swirlies , but swirlies.
>> 
>> Seems candid enough to me without looking too desparaging.
>
>I liked that advice (all of it) -- it made me feel better -- so I tried it in a trail 
>ebay page.
>
>There is also a link with a photo that shows swirlies for those who were wondering 
>what they are.
>
>What do you think?
>
>http://members.aol.com/eactivist/ebaytrial.html
>
>Still debating over the beginning price, I paid $9.99 without tax for the lens cap. 
>Of course, it may not sell at all.
>
>Doe aka Marnie :-)
>
>
>

Re: Moral Dilemma re Selling on Ebay

[Keith Whaley]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> I'd leave this bit out.
> 
> 
>   > It also takes okay pictures, not too bad, with no obvious distortions
>   > until the zoom is extended to its maximum focal length, then it produces
>   > swirlies. But the swirlies are not terrible, so it's adequate for the
>   > student
> 
> Especially the "adequate for the student" bit.
> You could leave the photo examples link in the description but drop the
> comment swirlies/no swirlies. Too psychadelic.

Exactly. Let the buyer judge for him/herself. You've shown them the
prints, now it's up to them.

keith whaley

P.S. What's a mosaid? Teeny little glue packets to help them stay
stuck to rocks?
 
> W.
> ---
> Wendy Beard
> Mosaid Technologies Inc
> 11 Hines Rd, Kanata,
> Ontario K2K 2X1, Canada

Re: Moral Dilemma re Selling on Ebay

[WBeard]

I'd leave this bit out.





  >It also takes okay pictures, not too bad, with no obvious distortions
  until the zoom is extended to its maximum focal length, then it produces  
  swirlies. But the >swirlies are not terrible, so it's adequate for the
  student   



Especially the "adequate for the student" bit.
You could leave the photo examples link in the description but drop the
comment swirlies/no swirlies. Too psychadelic.

W.
---
Wendy Beard
Mosaid Technologies Inc
11 Hines Rd, Kanata,
Ontario K2K 2X1, Canada

Re: Moral Dilemma re Selling on Ebay

[Fred]

> There is also a link with a photo that shows swirlies for those
> who were wondering what they are.

So, are "swirlies" referring to the sort of concentric circular
bokeh effects, then?

Fred

Re: Re: Moral Dilemma re Selling on Ebay

[David Brooks]

Sure those swirlies are not just poor bokeh??
Dave
 Begin Original Message 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:38:24 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Moral Dilemma re Selling on Ebay


In a message dated 1/14/2003 11:02:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> Put these words in the description.People will be agast at how 
> honest you are and just might bid :) :)
> 
> Dave(soon to be an ebayer to)Brooks
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> > 
> > most of the pictures taken with it look okay, not that 
> > bad, with no obvious distortions, until it is zoomed to 
> its 
> > maximum focal length, then it has swirlies. Not terrible 
> > swirlies , but swirlies.
> 
> Seems candid enough to me without looking too desparaging.

I liked that advice (all of it) -- it made me feel better -- so I 
tried it in a trail ebay page.

There is also a link with a photo that shows swirlies for those who 
were wondering what they are.

What do you think?

http://members.aol.com/eactivist/ebaytrial.html

Still debating over the beginning price, I paid $9.99 without tax for 
the lens cap. Of course, it may not sell at all.

Doe aka Marnie :-)



 End Original Message 






Pentax User
Stouffville Ontario Canada
"Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art 
stops and the wall begins"--Frank Zappa
http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/
http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses
Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail 

Re: Moral Dilemma re Selling on Ebay

[eactivist]

In a message dated 1/14/2003 11:02:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> Put these words in the description.People will be agast at how 
> honest you are and just might bid :) :)
> 
> Dave(soon to be an ebayer to)Brooks
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> > 
> > most of the pictures taken with it look okay, not that 
> > bad, with no obvious distortions, until it is zoomed to 
> its 
> > maximum focal length, then it has swirlies. Not terrible 
> > swirlies , but swirlies.
> 
> Seems candid enough to me without looking too desparaging.

I liked that advice (all of it) -- it made me feel better -- so I tried it in a trail 
ebay page.

There is also a link with a photo that shows swirlies for those who were wondering 
what they are.

What do you think?

http://members.aol.com/eactivist/ebaytrial.html

Still debating over the beginning price, I paid $9.99 without tax for the lens cap. Of 
course, it may not sell at all.

Doe aka Marnie :-)