phenomenology

Sorry about the poor quality of the image. It shows that wearing masks depresses the rate of infection, indeed the S Korean line flattens after they instituted masks. Statistics paint a dramatic possibility. An expert in probability, Naseem Taleb a risk professor, says mass mask wearing is inevitable -because not doing so involves an asymmetric risk: even the worst mask reduces infection rates by 30%, and if both people involved in an interaction wear one, risk of infection can drop by 90%. Moderator Note The off topic latitudes sometimes allowed in the Casual Photo Conversations Forum are wearing thin. (absolutely terrible mixed metaphors) Back onto Photography related comments, please. Thanks. William

How many here have filed a copyright lawsuit? Most often it takes more than sending a demand letter. Very often the defendant will claim it was theirs, it was public domain, or just say "so sue me."

Yes, that's for the US.

Photography renders the moment for most photographers. We grab a slice of time and place, cropped just so, to include elements we feel are significant. Four dimensional consciousness is rendered to a two dimensional plane. I would have said three dimensional space, but in reality we are capturing a moment, a moment in time. The camera is a great tool for achieving this. One can depict more time within a picture, and its OK to do so. Forget the highly focused images of Ansel Adams and Elliot Porter for a moment. We really don't see still images, the camera does, but we don't. The camera can be used, I'd argue it should be used, to smear those parts of experience that move quickly and fix those that don't. Imagine the story a photo of a couple embracing in Grand Central Station would have if all those walking by are smeared with a two second exposure. It would tell how a hug trancends the moment.

You seem to be a little outraged they were able to catch you, even going so far as to run an image search to see if what you stole was easily found. Property laws preceded copyright, but one is essentially based on the other. The law looks at what you've done as having stolen someone's opportunity to benefit from using their property, their creative labor. I'll add, that if you don't copyright your work, have it registered, then you can't bring a lawsuit in federal court based on infringement. So if one day, you value your work enough to fight for it as those who caught you have, get your work registered.

As its Saturday and with the coronavirus most of us are shut in. I thought I'd get philosophical. In the previous question about valuing a studio, someone wisely commented its not worth it getting irked. The best synonym is being aggravated, perhaps annoyed or bugged. I've been wondering just now if there isn't a connection between being irked and doing your best creative work? I'd suggest that allowing oneself to be irked can often lead to thinking outside the box, getting the creative juices flowing.

Thanks for the feedback. Just my opinion, but zoning and appraisals have become much like photography judges who are constrained to thinking the only good landscape looks like Elliot Porter or Ansel Adams. Photography should be like a paintbrush in the hand of an artist, its not a recording instrument that comes with instructions and a rule book. And to extend the analogy past its useful life, zoning should be allowed so long as it doesn't harm or be dangerous to occupants and passerbys.

Sorry, had trouble posting specs in original post, had to shorten the original question. Space is 38'x24' with 16' ceilings, 2x6 framing, 6" wall insulation, 14" in ceiling, a 9'x12' exterior deck out a glass slider on second level which has an office space. Double oak doors 6' wide X 7'6" tall open to a lower level shooting area with a bath/shower and separate kitchenette. The design allows camera placement to make full use of either the 24' or 30' wide x16 tall wall. Building is separate from home.. so your commute is a 30' walk. As for what was photographed... every kind of furniture, products or setups up to 18' wide, you can hang a camera directly overhead for large rugs and carpets, the interior open space has a tested white paint to get perfect 5500K using Sppedotrons bounced off the walls or any combination of softboxes. No, it won't take a car, but it will take anything two men and a dolly can lift. The upper level areas have two drafting tables, a 44" wide printer, two computer stations, two desks and a sitting area. What irked me is the appraiser said no more than 3 out of 10 home shoppers would even want a space/office/studio like this so he called it a barn and won't budge on his value. Perhaps I'm wrongly assuming anyone would want to have such a space for a hundred different reasons from movie theatre man cave, to mail order business, to an open space within which one could make anything. What's frustrating is, and the recent corona virus pandemic has shown, there's a huge value in having a home office.

The rules for appraising a home's value are to exclude buildings other than the home itself, nothing more. For example if your home were 1600 sq feet and your separate studio building had 1,000 sq ft you couldn't claim for mortgaging purposes that your home had 2600 sf. We're looking to find a way to value the studio. The appraiser says the studio is worth 10 per square foot, about the same as a barn, even though it cost 80k to build and has great business utility. Perhaps the only time it will be properly valued is when we sell.

First post here. How do you appraise a home office and studio built separately on your property? Is there a rule of thumb, it has its own kitchenette, bath, entry, a little over 1,000 sq ft. Thanks