# What exposure is appropriate in ski-lift incident? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 8, 2009, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exposure-is-appropriate-in-ski-lift-incident/480374 "2009-01-08T14:51:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exposure-is-appropriate-in-ski-lift-incident/480374/21 "2009-01-09T14:35:20Z")
Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response. I’m a tad surprised more folk did not deem this worthy of discussion. One aspect that sort of had me thinking was the suggestion that the resort would be liable for damages because of the embarrassment resulting from the pictures. I found that interesting, the suggestion that a duty arises simply because of the proliferation of cameras and image sharing in our society. Take 2 identical situations, but one is not captured on film. I can understand the theory that the guy who was photographed suffered greater harm than the guy who was embareassed privately. But I’m not sure how I feel about imposing liability for that upon the resort, manufacturer, etc. Seems like a questionable duty to impose on the providers of goods and services. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exposure-is-appropriate-in-ski-lift-incident/480374/22 "2009-01-09T15:33:46Z")
> [@Q.E.D](#): > > f:16 at 1/2000th sec. > > What? Looks a little overcast. I’m guessing _f_/11 or _f_/8 at 1/125 with ASA 100. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-exposure-is-appropriate-in-ski-lift-incident/480374.md?page=1)