«

tony cooper <> writes:

> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 20:43:30 +0200, Alfred Molon
> <> wrote:
>
>>I need to get a good compact for use in places where "professional"
>>cameras are not allowed. Happened to me today in a cafe on the 56th
>>floor of a skyscraper in Jakarta, Indonesia (the Skye cafe in case you
>>are interested). There was a view of Jakarta, not a great one, but at
>>least some view not through glass. Took a shot with a DSLR and was
>>immediately approached by some clerk who told me that DSLRs are not
>>allowed and pointed to board where it was written that "professional
>>cameras are not allowed...".
>>
>>In other words you were not allowed to take a photo of the view of
>>Jakarta from this cafe if you were using a professional camera.
>>
>>This is a bit funny because nowadays you can get from a compact camera
>>images which are more than good enough for most professional uses.
>
> One always wonders why such rules are put into effect. I would
> imagine that it is not the photography aspect that inspired the rule,
> but the comfort and safety to the patrons of the cafe. A dslr
> swinging from a shoulder strap can cause some damage. A dslr hanging
> from back of a chair, or in a camera bag on the floor, can cause bumps
> and trips for other patrons.

Sounds like nonsense to me -- nobody objected to him bringing the camera
there, thy only objected when he used it. Hence, photographs, rather
than presence, were the target.

> This is not the kind of ban that bothers me. The owner of the cafe
> has a right to set out any rule that he/she feels is to the benefit or
> safety of his customers. It's like banning bare feet, dogs, or
> unattended children. Owner's place, owner's rules.

Bothers the hell out of me; I'd never go there again, demand a refund
for anything I bought this trip, and make a point of widely publicizing
their policy.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

tony cooper <> writes:

> I also doubt if the person who decided what the sign says makes that
> distinction. It is most probable that both the person who decided the
> wording of the sign, and the employee who guards against the use of
> particular cameras, mentally separates point and shoots from dslrs,
> and includes dslr-look-alike cameras with non-interchangeable lenses
> as "professional cameras". The distinction is probably "big cameras,
> no" and "little cameras, yes".

Yeah; Leica M9, yes, Nikon D40, no.

Makes perfect sense, right?

(And I'd at least try arguing that a D700 isn't a professional camera,
the pro line is the D4.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

tony cooper <> writes:

> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:16:02 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2012-08-17 10:57:44 -0700, Joe Kotroczo <> said:
>>
>>> On 17/08/2012 18:37, tony cooper wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:07:15 -0700, Savageduck
>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> (...)
>>>> Yes, but the question is about why "professional cameras" are not
>>>> allowed. The question is not about professional photographers, but
>>>> the camera. Anyone can own a "professional camera", but everyone
>>>> owning one is not a professional.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know the training program that the cafe employee went through,
>>>> but I sincerely doubt if the training included the difference between
>>>> an entry level dslr and the model of camera that a professional would
>>>> use.
>>>
>>> Do you think the G4S security guards or the soldiers guarding the
>>> Olympics are qualified to make the distinction between a "professional
>>> camera" and a hobbyist camera?
>>>
>>> And yet "professional cameras" were prohibited.
>>
>>Not for credentialed professional photographers they weren't. All the
>>security guard or soldier had to do was check the credential hanging
>>from the photog's neck, and it doesn't matter what he brings into the
>>stadium.
>>
>>
>>> Here:
>>>
>>> <http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/538956/olympic-chiefs-don-t-bring-any-detachable-lens-camera-to-wembley-update>
>>
>>"That's
>>>
>>> the stark message from Olympics chiefs who have today warned spectators
>>> not to bring 'any' cameras with detachable lenses into Wembley Stadium
>>> in case they breach rules by looking ‘professional'. "
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> <http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2191402/london-2012-olympic-games-organisers-refuse-to-clarify-photography-rules-in-advance>
>>
>>So
>>>
>>they don't get that tourists and photo-hobbyists also use DSLR's and
>>cameras with detachable lenses. I guess that makes them just as
>>ignorant regarding photographic equipment as the average
>>non-photographer.
>
> I think they "get it", but they want to restrict the usage of
> photographs. The first article says: "They fear that amateurs, who
> don't hold media accreditation, will grab unauthorized photos and
> video footage of the action and post it on websites such as YouTube."

And why should the have the right to restrict that?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Mxsmanic <> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
>
>> Yeah; Leica M9, yes, Nikon D40, no.
>>
>> Makes perfect sense, right?
>
> A lot of people unfamiliar with photography think Leicas are hand-me-downs
> from Grandpa and the great war.

Certainly a III series probably is, or else too valuable to take out and
use.

> Sometimes it's the length of the lens. I guess pros only use long lenses.
>
> Ironically, the diameter of the lens is more likely to distinguish pros from
> amateurs than the length.

People fairly frequently ask how "powerful" my lens is. Mostly when I'm
using the 24-70/2.8. With the petal hood; so it's actually fairly long,
and quite big around too.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 9/8/2012 12:42 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Mxsmanic <> writes:
>
>> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
>>
>>> Yeah; Leica M9, yes, Nikon D40, no.
>>>
>>> Makes perfect sense, right?
>>
>> A lot of people unfamiliar with photography think Leicas are hand-me-downs
>> from Grandpa and the great war.
>
> Certainly a III series probably is, or else too valuable to take out and
> use.
>
>> Sometimes it's the length of the lens. I guess pros only use long lenses.
>>
>> Ironically, the diameter of the lens is more likely to distinguish pros from
>> amateurs than the length.
>
> People fairly frequently ask how "powerful" my lens is. Mostly when I'm
> using the 24-70/2.8. With the petal hood; so it's actually fairly long,
> and quite big around too.
>

I've hard similar comments when using my 70-299 f2.8. When I want to be
inconspicuous, I use my 50mm f1.4.


--
Peter

Mxsmanic <> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
>
>> People fairly frequently ask how "powerful" my lens is. Mostly when I'm
>> using the 24-70/2.8. With the petal hood; so it's actually fairly long,
>> and quite big around too.
>
> Just tell them that it's as powerful as a small gas turbine engine.

Yeah, I should work out an answer in horsepower. Or Newtons.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Mxsmanic <> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
>
>> Yeah, I should work out an answer in horsepower. Or Newtons.
>
> Or curies. That would scare them!

Amusing the Curious for 58 years!
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> tony cooper <> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:16:02 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-08-17 10:57:44 -0700, Joe Kotroczo <> said:
>>>
>>>> On 17/08/2012 18:37, tony cooper wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:07:15 -0700, Savageduck
>>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (...)
>>>>> Yes, but the question is about why "professional cameras" are not
>>>>> allowed. The question is not about professional photographers, but
>>>>> the camera. Anyone can own a "professional camera", but everyone
>>>>> owning one is not a professional.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know the training program that the cafe employee went through,
>>>>> but I sincerely doubt if the training included the difference between
>>>>> an entry level dslr and the model of camera that a professional would
>>>>> use.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think the G4S security guards or the soldiers guarding the
>>>> Olympics are qualified to make the distinction between a "professional
>>>> camera" and a hobbyist camera?
>>>>
>>>> And yet "professional cameras" were prohibited.
>>>
>>> Not for credentialed professional photographers they weren't. All the
>>> security guard or soldier had to do was check the credential hanging
>> >from the photog's neck, and it doesn't matter what he brings into the
>>> stadium.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Here:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/538956/olympic-chiefs-don-t-bring-any-detachable-lens-camera-to-wembley-update>
>>>
>>> "That's
>>>>
>>>> the stark message from Olympics chiefs who have today warned spectators
>>>> not to bring 'any' cameras with detachable lenses into Wembley Stadium
>>>> in case they breach rules by looking ‘professional'. "
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2191402/london-2012-olympic-games-organisers-refuse-to-clarify-photography-rules-in-advance>
>>>
>>> So
>>>>
>>> they don't get that tourists and photo-hobbyists also use DSLR's and
>>> cameras with detachable lenses. I guess that makes them just as
>>> ignorant regarding photographic equipment as the average
>>> non-photographer.
>>
>> I think they "get it", but they want to restrict the usage of
>> photographs. The first article says: "They fear that amateurs, who
>> don't hold media accreditation, will grab unauthorized photos and
>> video footage of the action and post it on websites such as YouTube."
>
> And why should the have the right to restrict that?
>

Hi,

Some years ago, I had the opposite effect. My wife and I were visiting
Carcassone, France, and were near the courtyard of the old castle. They
were shooting a French period movie, with people in costumes plus ducks
and cows, and swordsmen scaling the walls and fighting each other. My
wife had a simple camera,and was denied permission to enter. I was
carrying 2 SLR bodies plus a large case filled with lenses, motor drive,
etc. and I was waved right in. They probably thought that I was a
professional photographer, and not the traveler that I was.

Incidentally, I could not find any Kodachrome there, and had to use
Agfachrome, but its brownish earthy colors went very well with the
subject matter.

You win some and lose some. That day, I won.

Mort Linder