I am so glad your opinion is in line with National experience.(not) When minimum wage laws were first introduced, all of your arguments were presented, and none came to pass. Minimum wage that was above poverty level was what created the middle class. If we learn anything from history, it is that we learn nothing from history.

I am quite familiar with Milton Friedman. My point is that insanity is repeating the same actions, and expecting different results. There are many other experts with various opinions. The problems is we are looking for a magic solution. We need to go back to basic economics.

Bram Boy: You are trying to walk as close to the line as you can without going over the cliff. The original comment was about respecting the rights of others so that the courts do not feel compelled to restrict the rights of all to protect the rights from a few people who can't respect others. My suggestion is that you apply 2 standards. First, under the most unreasonable situations you can imagine, if you or your children were the subject of the pictures, would you want the pictures out there? And second, Will your actions make others uncomfortable, even if you are technically legal? The line is not clear. If you are going to walk that line, you are part of the problem.

You can take them if from a public venue, such as the street, but you may not publish them for money if the faces are recognizable unless you have a release. There is a body of existing law. You don't have to agree, but it will cost you if you violate the rights of others.

I suggest you ask a lawyer. I can't stop you from taking pictures of me in the mall, but if the mall owner asks you to stop, they own rights to the private property. As a paying customer, they have given permission for you to enter. They can also rescind that permission. Pretty much, if the property owner denies you permission to photograph, it would be the same as if I was in your home and you asked me to stop. You know what they say about people who "ASSUME" too much. It is not the government that sets the rules, but the lawyers; and usually because somebody overstepped their rights and trample the rights of others.

The Mall is private property.

Agreed, but back on topic. You do not have the right to photograph any event that is put on for entertainment by a private entity. They own those rights. Perhaps they plan on selling photos? Same at plays, concerts, and other "private" events. Don't get too wound upon losing your rights as you trample on the rights of others. That is the primary reason for laws, not the desire to control. If you intrude on the rights of others in your quest of your hobby (profession?), they have the right to push back. Unfortunately, this lack of consideration on your part is what keeps lawyers in business.

For all your opinion, the current system isn't working. Henry Ford got rich by making sure his workers could afford his cars. When minimum wage was first introduced, it was supposed to destroy America. It didn't; it raised many people out of poverty. Unfortunately, while the rich have increased their wealth 10 fold over 20 years, the poor have lost buying power. It would require a minimum wage of $12/hr to make it out of poverty. The wealthy do not create jobs, they create product. If it doesn't sell because no one can afford it, there are no new jobs. Since the wealthy have increased their wealth and had their taxes cut, where are the new jobs? We have tried this "job creator" theory for 30 years: that is a full working generation. It didn't work. Until the buyers have the money, there will be no new jobs, because the wealthy are not buying enough product. Reagan called it supply side economics. Economists call it the Law of supply & DEMAND. We need to try that for a while, since the current system has not worked in 30 years.

Unless you have experience in removing red eye, you will need an off camera flash, usually meaning a bracket of some sort. It is not hard in PP unless you have a lot to do.

2 more thoughts. Do lots of candids. Know who the important people are. I was a family member at a wedding where the principle didn't know who Great-grandma was, and didn't know they were going to announce a Papal Blessing. (He was out getting a smoke)
And learn to use fill flash outdoors. It will make a world of difference.

2 more thoughts. Do lots of candids. Know who the important people are. I was a family member at a wedding where the principle didn't know who Great-grandma was, and didn't know they were going to announce a Papal Blessing. (He was out getting a smoke)
And learn to use fill flash outdoors. It will make a world of difference.

Since you have some time, I have 3 suggestions:
Ask all your married friends if you can look at their wedding pictures. Take notes. You can also take a female friend and visit photographers as a "couple" Take notes.
Second, take pictures at all the events you can. Birthday parties, graduations, football games, anything outdoors. Critique your work, and see what you would change. Then try it on the next event. Plan your pictures, keep a list of what you want to take.
When you are about 2 months out, ask your friend if there are any specific pictures/ people he wants taken. Then practice some more.
Good luck.

Look at the work of others doing the type of photography you plan to do (ie: studio, wedding, pets, etc) Get a few friends to compare your work to theirs. You might have to undersell yourself to get experience. You might do some free work for friends in order to get exposure. As you become more in demand, you can raise your prices. It is not what you think your time is worth, but what others are willing to pay for the quality you deliver.

You're probably right, but again, it depends on the desired end product. I also understand that there is technology that can increase the number of pixels in PP and generate appropriate shading to blend the image. I have never seen the results, but it should be theoretically possible.

Back to the original question. Yes, technology allows better images. It allows the amateur to take more photos and get lucky more often. It allows a skilled photographer to experiment more without worrying about expense of film. The digital aspect allows PP of individual images, rather than depend on an expensive darkroom with time limited chemicals, or someone else's opinion of what you wanted. That being said, the camera is still just a tool. Better tools produce better results in the hands of an expert. This particular tool also allows the average snapshot photographer to at least record passable memories.
A few years ago, I would have agreed that large format film might be better than digital. With the increase of megapixals, that may be open to question now. I can take images from my DSLR and send them to an 80" LED screen and see no degradation. I have no clue what the limits are. Anyone with experience here?