Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Penis Kolada, Jun 29, 2008.

  1. Penis Kolada

    Penis Kolada Guest

    Shawn Hirn wrote:
    > Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just to
    > check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
    > Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
    >
    > My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
    > the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The signs
    > said something along the lines of ...
    >
    > "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
    >
    > I drove, but had my friend been so inclined, he could have easily taken
    > out his digital camera from his pocket and snapped a few photos or used
    > its video recording feature to shoot some video as we traveled over the
    > bridge.
    >
    > What's the bid deal about photographing that bridge. I have several
    > photos that I shot of that bridge from a friend's small plane a few
    > weeks prior to 9/11/2001 and I imagine if I was still in touch with that
    > friend, we could go up and shoot some more photos. I also don't see why
    > this ban exists; it can't possibly be for security, can it? I could
    > easily shoot photos of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge from several vantage
    > points and the authorities would never know.
    >
    > I have also shot many photos of the Brooklyn Bridge, even about two
    > weeks after 9/11 occurred, and I have spent some enjoyable afternoons
    > walking across that bridge photographing it on foot, so why the
    > prohibition about shooting photos of the "Verrazano-Narrows Bridge" but
    > not the Brooklyn Bridge? It makes no sense.
    >
    > I am wondering if anyone has actually been caught shooting such photos
    > and hassled by the cops? Actually, a few years ago, I was asked not to
    > shoot photos of the Tacony-Palmyra bridge near where I live. That bridge
    > spans the Delaware River. I was standing on the New Jersey side of the
    > bridge, in front of a police station, when a cop walked over to me and
    > asked me to put my camera away, which I did. Despite that, I have
    > subsequently shot numerous photos of that bridge, from the park that's
    > adjacent to that bridge, no problem.


    It was probably to prevent people from stopping to take a photo -
    creating a traffic hazard - more than a photographic restriction. I have
    seen bridges with similar signs.

    PK
     
    Penis Kolada, Jun 29, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Penis Kolada

    Vince Guest

    Penis Kolada wrote:
    > Shawn Hirn wrote:
    >
    >> Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just
    >> to check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
    >> Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
    >> My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
    >> the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The
    >> signs said something along the lines of ...
    >>
    >> "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
    >> I drove, but had my friend been so inclined, he could have easily
    >> taken out his digital camera from his pocket and snapped a few photos
    >> or used its video recording feature to shoot some video as we traveled
    >> over the bridge.
    >> What's the bid deal about photographing that bridge. I have several
    >> photos that I shot of that bridge from a friend's small plane a few
    >> weeks prior to 9/11/2001 and I imagine if I was still in touch with
    >> that friend, we could go up and shoot some more photos. I also don't
    >> see why this ban exists; it can't possibly be for security, can it? I
    >> could easily shoot photos of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge from several
    >> vantage points and the authorities would never know.
    >> I have also shot many photos of the Brooklyn Bridge, even about two
    >> weeks after 9/11 occurred, and I have spent some enjoyable afternoons
    >> walking across that bridge photographing it on foot, so why the
    >> prohibition about shooting photos of the "Verrazano-Narrows Bridge"
    >> but not the Brooklyn Bridge? It makes no sense.
    >>
    >> I am wondering if anyone has actually been caught shooting such photos
    >> and hassled by the cops? Actually, a few years ago, I was asked not to
    >> shoot photos of the Tacony-Palmyra bridge near where I live. That
    >> bridge spans the Delaware River. I was standing on the New Jersey side
    >> of the bridge, in front of a police station, when a cop walked over to
    >> me and asked me to put my camera away, which I did. Despite that, I
    >> have subsequently shot numerous photos of that bridge, from the park
    >> that's adjacent to that bridge, no problem.

    >
    >
    > It was probably to prevent people from stopping to take a photo -
    > creating a traffic hazard - more than a photographic restriction. I have
    > seen bridges with similar signs.
    >
    > PK


    Bull it based on 9/11 period.

    Kind of ridiculous seeing as the plans for every bridge in the world are
    a matter of public record.
    --












    *********************Less than 210 days to go**************************
     
    Vince, Jun 29, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Penis Kolada

    Chris H Guest

    In message <>, Vince
    <> writes
    >
    >> It was probably to prevent people from stopping to take a photo -
    >>creating a traffic hazard - more than a photographic restriction. I
    >>have seen bridges with similar signs.
    >> PK

    >
    >Bull it based on 9/11 period.


    The US had gone into panic mode since 9/11

    >Kind of ridiculous seeing as the plans for every bridge in the world
    >are a matter of public record.


    Absolutely not. They are in many countries but not in all.


    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Jun 29, 2008
    #3
  4. Penis Kolada

    Vince Guest

    Chris H wrote:
    > In message <>, Vince
    > <> writes
    >
    >>
    >>> It was probably to prevent people from stopping to take a photo -
    >>> creating a traffic hazard - more than a photographic restriction. I
    >>> have seen bridges with similar signs.
    >>> PK

    >>
    >>
    >> Bull it based on 9/11 period.

    >
    >
    > The US had gone into panic mode since 9/11
    >
    >> Kind of ridiculous seeing as the plans for every bridge in the world
    >> are a matter of public record.

    >
    >
    > Absolutely not. They are in many countries but not in all.
    >
    >


    Bottom line a terrorist dosn't need photos to blow up a bridge
    --












    *********************Less than 210 days to go**************************
     
    Vince, Jun 30, 2008
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Cynicor

    Verrazano-Narrows bridge

    Cynicor, Nov 13, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    911
    Peter
    Aug 7, 2010
  2. Chris H

    Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge

    Chris H, Jun 29, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    941
    Eugene Miya
    Jul 2, 2008
  3. Paul Furman

    Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge

    Paul Furman, Jun 29, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    405
    Sancho Panza
    Jul 1, 2008
  4. Cynicor

    Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge

    Cynicor, Jun 29, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    42
    Views:
    1,821
  5. GK
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    450
    John Turco
    Jul 4, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page