absentaneous

would you be happy if some people did something to you which would bother you in a way or another yet it wasn't illegal? like you had a night job and during the day you'd be obviously sleeping yet...

it's simple for people who are capable of expressing sympathy and understanding for how other people might feel about getting photographed. law is just one aspect of the matter. people are not...

it's much more simple and reasonable. the question is simply: why can't I have the right to decide whether I or my kids can end on someone else's photo or not? so, why can't I have the right to...

It's a matter of privacy and all possible abuses that can arise from it. It's not much different from taking pictures of adults who clearly oppose to it just that kids are even more vulnerable.

as far as commercial photography is concerned I doubt it. but in art film still has advantage over digital and that might last for quite a while.

@valentinian,

the problem with your comment is that you are already implying how things should be while I am wondering why can't they be different since apparently taking a picture of something...

@zdman,

well, first of all the photographer who did that wouldn't make money selling his sculptures but a photo he took of them. the question then is can't be a photograph of a sculpture...

@valentinian,

how about seek permission from the firm who designed the clothes the model was wearing? or maybe seek permission from the company which designed the tires the ferrari is using or...

@valentinian,

how about seek permission from the firm who designed the clothes the model was wearing? or maybe seek permission from the company which designed the tires the ferrari is using or...

in some way it of course make sense but on the other hand I wonder where would be fair to draw the line. for example, I come across a great looking sports car on the street and I take a picture of...

LOL, you already answered it - YES! especially when you can't prove your point.

yes. now you only need to understand what does that mean or rather accept it (since it's a fact) and you are set to go. which is what I always claimed. here is a copy and paste of my original...

anyone can set the exposure as they will. you can even set it at f/1.8, 60s in a bright sunny day. the question is what will come out of it. exposure triangle is not a magic formula that solves all...

thing is no one can use ASA as part of exposure in the sense you understand it. because ASA doesn't control exposure at all. it can only influence the choice of aperture and shutter speed. and only...

what confuses you is that you are using the formula literally while it is only a representation of what in practice works differently. if you describe that with words it simply means that there is...

and your point exactly is? I mean where is that ansel adams disagree with me?

you still didn't provide any argument so there is nothing I can respond to.  you mean 10 photographers that in practice use exposure triangle? I would bet all do actually. yes, pity for you that...

exactly!

to be a fallacy you need to first define the meaning of "being part of" and prove that by that meaning A indeed is not part of B. look above. perfectly logical and straightforward reasoning. if...

that's what exposure triangle is all about, yes. but A is not B. A being part of B refers only to what you already described. you can only argue that that doesn't mean "being part of it". I will...