Roshni: Images of children should only be published with the consent of the care givers. Decent photographers and journalists need to pressure the governments of their countries to pass laws to make it that way. This protects the children and those people making a respectable living.
Is there a private-figure privilege in Australia? So, are there public figures who are children (for example, child actors), and the photographers would still need permission?
There is a difference between photojournalism and what these paparazzi are doing. So if you are photographing into a crowd with say 100 adults and 50 kids, you are going to ask all those adults?
At least in the USA and somewhat in England there is a divide of public and private space. When one enters a public space it becomes fair game, but that doesn't protect stalking and harassment.
viking79: I have never understood "pro" support. Have spare gear.
viking79, pro support in the past has sometimes meant faster repairs, loaner gear, and emergency service at major events.
I used to be a member of Nikon's service, but it was been a long time ago. If I recall correctly, it used to be more important that a person actually made a living from photography than which cameras the person owned.
This is really making me think of selling my V1 and gear, because I have little confidence in Nikon growing the system that I will satisfy me. I bought into the V1 with the hope that Nikon would ramp up the entire system, which it hasn't.
justmeMN: I suspect that the Nikon 1 V3 has a much better kit lens than the Sony a6000. It wouldn't take much...
I doubt it. Some people don't like the kit lens but I think they'd dislike pretty much every kit lens, based on my use of the kit on the A6000, V1 and V2. Maybe a little better, but I doubt much better. I generally like the Nikon look better than the Sony look, but that is based on the Nikon programming of image data.
Some of you may be more interested in Alex Webb and Rebecca Norris Webb's view on Rochester. http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/in-kodak-alex-webb-rochester-rebecca-norris-webb-photos-memory
There were two things that bothered me about the project. One, Rochester isn't even located correctly in the running story: "the city of Rochester - also known as Kodak City - in northeastern New York State". This will probably get changed later in the story, but Rochester is in Western New York, something residents tend to be proud of. Its location is connected to its sense of identity.
Also, Rochester's problems are deeper than Kodak. Yes, it was a major manufacturer in the area. But Rochester has had additional problems. Years ago it was the headquarters of Gannett media, until it moved in 1986. Xerox moved out in 1969. A handful of companies moved to the suburbs. I wish there was a deeper understanding of the greater Rochester area, however. Those former Kodak employees weren't living only in Rochester--they also lived in suburbs and even more distant rural areas.