Interesting concept... If that is true then the child's parent is equally complicit in producing child pornography.

Hence both the photographer and the parent need to be charged.

The only alternative is the obvious recognition that your original premise is patently false.

The problem with quoting apocritical incidents as proof that a given solution that worked in one situation will work in another situation is that there is no evidence that any given hypotheses was even tested in the first place, or that it would be applied in the second place.

An example! Don't worry about condensation at all going from a cold outside into a given warm building. After many times never seeing a problem it seems correct to say one need not worry!

But the building normally may have virtually no moisture added to colder outside air that is heated to warm the house. (A very common situation for a typical home, and almost universal for a cabin.)

Then one day a very expensive camera is brought into the same house just after the kids have taken bathes, the floor was mopped, the clothes washer is started, and dinner is on the stove. I.e., that house is loaded with moisture! The camera in ten seconds is soaking wet with condensation. It requires several hundred dollars in repairs and eventually will still suffer damage from internal corrosion.

On any given occassion we can't know how much condensation may happen until it is too late. The only answer is to always protect against the worst possible.

What is the best protection? If you have never actually encountered real worst case scenarios it will be impossible to relate imperical results. I.e., if you test solutions in Denver it is interesting, but not definitive.

I've been testing at the two coldest locations in the US, for over 4 decades. Fairbanks AK gets as cold as anywhere in the US and Barrow AK has the lowest average temperature of anywhere. Twenty years in each place constitutes an excellent test

Once again, a kitchen size plastic trash bag is by far the best solution available. It happens that on occasion that can be adapted to the situation too. On many occasions I have pressed a plastic shopping bag from the grocery store into use to save a little time...

Using a "cooler" is a pretty horrible idea. On the otherhand a ZipLock bag does at least work to some degree

But the best is easily a kitchen sized plastic trash bag. Nothing else comes even close!

Far and away the best bag is a kitchen size plastic trash bag.

It actually is best to squeeze out as much air as possible because air is good insulation and the less air in the bag the quicker the equipment warms up and can be removed from the bag.

Argueing points about others that we know nothing about does demonstrate a lack of class. But what I argued was the lack of class clearly stated and not at all in doubt.

Rather clearly none of those would be appropriate either.

If you have no concept of art, continue to exhibit that total lack of knowledge.

Yes. Interesting, but somebody does not understand Picasso at all.

Perhaps you should more carefully investigate your statements. Both are invalid.

The idea that one can "zoom with your feet" is a myth that simply does not work.

When the camera is moved the effect is to change the perspective. We don't need a lens, or even a camera, to choose the desired perspective.

And once the correct perspective has been selected the focal length (zoom) can be set to get the right framing. Cropping in post processing can also be used to adjust framing.

The two choices, perspective and framing, have to be selected in that order. Neither affects the other.

But if one has the necessary skills or wants to develop those skills a high end camera is essential for the tools they provide.

Even operating a camera is very technical. It is too technical for many people.

The idea that photography is not extremely technical is just not well considered.

If the artist is a technician. It is not artistic talent that determines in advance when the light will be right. Artistic talent is used to make a great capture from the light that exists. And they are both required to best process what was captured.

Photography is a very technical art.

Photography is a very technical art that requires a photographer to be a technition.

Your "move on, or come back later" shows that exactly. Having perhaps accidentally (imperically) discovered a great potential photograph, moving on is appropriate but not randomly returning to see if conditions are right. An educated technical analysis indicating when to return is appropriate.

First and foremost my answer was not incomplete. It was not even minimal (BebuLamar restated it in a complete, correct, and minimal form.)

Second I did not put down any contributor. I commented on the comments but not the commentors.

Third nobody has said the question was invalid, only that non-sequitur responses are obfuscation that make it more difficult to realize the significance of the correct answers, which have nothing to do with how the modes work, which are often very different on different cameras.

It might be noted that two of the 5 C's of good writing are Concise and Correct. Obfuscation is neither!

Another source of pre-Internet information was from the many photography magazines.

New photographers did not just go out and shoot photographs to learn all on their own. There were formal classes at colleges and informal classes at camera clubs too.

Learning only by making mistakes is foolish when learning from the mistakes of others is so easy!