Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Chris H, Jun 29, 2008.

  1. Chris H

    Chris H Guest

    In message <>, Shawn
    Hirn <> writes
    >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.



    Long time ago before google Earth and many similar systems the only
    people in the 1960's to mid 1990's who had access to satellite
    photography were a few governments.

    Prior to 1960 no one had satellite maps.

    So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
    been by photography

    Before about 1920 it would be land forces again photography was used.

    It was the only way of gathering information. Spys did use cameras a lot
    for gathering information. Pre internet days it took a lot of work to
    get information on places bridges.

    Bridges and railways were (and still are) vulnerable points and quite
    strategic. Looking at a good photo will tell a demolition's expert how
    to blow it up. How much it can carry, the clearances under/over the
    line or road etc

    Therefore photographing government/military buildings etc railways and
    bridges. (latterly telephone exchanges) tended to be deemed "important"
    and had a no photography law in many countries.

    Some still hold on to this in the mistaken belief that it can still help
    the enemy. However the enemy are not going to play by your rules anyway
    so it is pointless putting up signs anyway..

    However thank to google Earth (MS earth?) street-map, multi-map et all I
    can in seconds get high ress pictures of most places of a quality that
    the government spy services could only dream of 30 years ago.

    Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
    put it on flicker or in stock libraries.

    The other possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
    bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.
















    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Jun 29, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Chris H

    Chris H Guest

    In message <>, Neil Ellwood
    <> writes
    >On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0100, Chris H wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
    >> been by photography
    >>
    >> Before about 1920 it would be land forces again photography was used.

    >Aerial photography was used in the First World War.


    Yes but only on the battle field and was very primitive. Before WW1 it
    was very uncommon After WW! people knew how to do it. Then places
    started to get photographed from the air.

    >> Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
    >> put it on flicker or in stock libraries.

    >Neither myself or my dogs have put anything on flickr - no reason to.

    :)

    Me neither but you get the point. In 1930 you had to buy a guide book
    with a couple of pictures in and send a spy

    now you can probably find three pictures of any building in the world.
    And several dozen of any dam, railway bridge, telephone exchange, water
    treatment plant, etc.

    >> The other possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
    >> bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.

    >That is a more likely reason, and that they believe they own the rights
    >to the air around it.


    More likely :)


    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Jun 29, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Chris H

    JamesStep Guest


    > some idiot in the company that owns the
    > bridges thinks they can make some money
    > out of the photography rights.


    The bridge isn't owned by a corporation; it's owned by New York City
    and operated by the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority.

    A number of New York bridges have signs prohibiting photography, and I
    believe officials have said that it's due to security concerns after
    9/11.

    I agree that it seems pointless since so many photos are already
    available via Google.

    James
     
    JamesStep, Jun 29, 2008
    #3
  4. On Jun 29, 8:14 pm, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    > Neil Ellwood wrote:
    > > On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0100, Chris H wrote:

    >
    > >> So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
    > >> been by photography

    >
    > >> Before about 1920  it would be land forces again photography was used.

    > > Aerial photography was used in the First World War.

    >
    > >> Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
    > >> put it on flicker or in stock libraries.

    > > Neither myself or my dogs have put anything on  flickr - no reason to..
    > >> The other  possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
    > >> bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.

    > > That is a more likely reason, and that they believe they own the rights
    > > to the air around it.

    >
    > They used balloons in the Civil War, so I suspect that they also did
    > aerial photographs then as well.-


    There were no snapshots then. A camera couldn't have been kept steady
    enough to take an aerial photograph.
     
    Peter T. Daniels, Jun 30, 2008
    #4
  5. Chris H

    JamesStep Guest


    > There were no snapshots then [during the Civil War].
    > A camera couldn't have been kept steady enough to
    > take an aerial photograph.


    The first aerial photo from a balloon was taken in 1858 (several years
    before the Civil War), so a Civil War photo from a balloon would have
    been possible, although I've never seen one.

    James
     
    JamesStep, Jun 30, 2008
    #5
  6. Chris H

    Chris H Guest

    In message
    <>,
    Peter T. Daniels <> writes
    >On Jun 29, 8:14 pm, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >> Neil Ellwood wrote:
    >> > On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0100, Chris H wrote:

    >>
    >> >> So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
    >> >> been by photography

    >>
    >> >> Before about 1920  it would be land forces again photography was used.
    >> > Aerial photography was used in the First World War.

    >>
    >> >> Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
    >> >> put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
    >> > Neither myself or my dogs have put anything on  flickr - no reason to.
    >> >> The other  possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
    >> >> bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.
    >> > That is a more likely reason, and that they believe they own the rights
    >> > to the air around it.

    >>
    >> They used balloons in the Civil War, so I suspect that they also did
    >> aerial photographs then as well.-

    >
    >There were no snapshots then. A camera couldn't have been kept steady
    >enough to take an aerial photograph.


    They were but there were very few pictures taken and even fewer that
    worked. Also a balloon is somewhat difficult to hid if you are spying...
    Getaway speeds are not great :)



    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Jun 30, 2008
    #6
  7. Peter T. Daniels wrote:
    > On Jun 29, 8:14 pm, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >> Neil Ellwood wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0100, Chris H wrote:
    >>>> So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
    >>>> been by photography
    >>>> Before about 1920 it would be land forces again photography was used.
    >>> Aerial photography was used in the First World War.
    >>>> Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
    >>>> put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
    >>> Neither myself or my dogs have put anything on flickr - no reason to.
    >>>> The other possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
    >>>> bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.
    >>> That is a more likely reason, and that they believe they own the rights
    >>> to the air around it.

    >> They used balloons in the Civil War, so I suspect that they also did
    >> aerial photographs then as well.-

    >
    > There were no snapshots then. A camera couldn't have been kept steady
    > enough to take an aerial photograph.


    You are not seriously trying to say that all of those WW1 aerial
    reconnaissance photos in the Canberra War Memorial, supposedly taken from
    blimps, are fakes? Like the Moon landing only older? ;)

    No, they definitely had aerial photography back then. Google zeppelins and WW!.

    Secret Squirrel

    --

    Ingrid Rose

    clandestin.ecureuil(insert missing symbol here)gmail.com
     
    clandestin_écureuil, Jun 30, 2008
    #7
  8. "Chris H" <> wrote in message
    news:7qMocyDMGIaIFA$...
    >>
    >>There were no snapshots then. A camera couldn't have been kept steady
    >>enough to take an aerial photograph.

    >
    > They were but there were very few pictures taken and even fewer that
    > worked. Also a balloon is somewhat difficult to hid if you are spying...
    > Getaway speeds are not great :)
    >


    The problem was that photography at the time used glass plates
    coated with emulsion that required long exposure times and
    was difficult to process. Thats why there are lots of after battle
    photos but few shots of the fighting.

    Balloons were used to provide intelligence throughout the 19th
    century and were still in widespread use during WW1 , it was
    the machine gun armed fighter plane that put paid to them.

    Keith
     
    Keith Willshaw, Jun 30, 2008
    #8
  9. Chris H

    Chris H Guest

    In message <>, clandestin_écureuil
    <> writes
    >Peter T. Daniels wrote:
    >> On Jun 29, 8:14 pm, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >>> Neil Ellwood wrote:
    >>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0100, Chris H wrote:
    >>>>> So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
    >>>>> been by photography
    >>>>> Before about 1920 it would be land forces again photography was used.
    >>>> Aerial photography was used in the First World War.
    >>>>> Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
    >>>>> put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
    >>>> Neither myself or my dogs have put anything on flickr - no reason to.
    >>>>> The other possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
    >>>>> bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.
    >>>> That is a more likely reason, and that they believe they own the rights
    >>>> to the air around it.
    >>> They used balloons in the Civil War, so I suspect that they also did
    >>> aerial photographs then as well.-

    >> There were no snapshots then. A camera couldn't have been kept
    >>steady
    >> enough to take an aerial photograph.

    >
    >You are not seriously trying to say that all of those WW1 aerial
    >reconnaissance photos in the Canberra War Memorial, supposedly taken
    >from blimps, are fakes? Like the Moon landing only older? ;)
    >
    >No, they definitely had aerial photography back then. Google zeppelins and WW!.


    However the number of things photographed was relatively small. The
    number of photographs were comparatively small and were generally kept
    by governments.

    As you said they were WW1 Spying photos. This is exactly what the no
    photography rule is (was) trying to stop.

    I think it is one of those laws that was there "in case it was needed".
    If you have 200 tourist taking pictures of a bridge and you know one is
    a spy. You have grounds to pick up the spy (whilst ignoring all 199
    others) and prosecute without going into what ever else he was doing.
    It all gets convoluted...

    Since about 2000 and google earth (and similar) you can get a high res
    aerial photo and probably half a dozen ground based photos of almost any
    building in the world with probably not more than a couple of hours
    Internet searching.

    However the curve on what is available was exponential from about the
    mid 1800's

    Even as close as the 1980's aerial pictures were very difficult to get
    unless you were a government or big corporation. Remember some parts of
    the world you could not fly a balloon or light aircraft over. (Even now)

    Just google the sat maps for white house USA... There are also a lot og
    ground based photos for that building too.

    So most of the vulnerable points have been well and truly covered
    already.

    Really it is only in the last 15- 20 years that "no photography" of
    static items on the ground for security reasons has become pointless...
    These no photography rules probably predate the Internet and the people
    in charge still think are fighting the cold war.


    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Jun 30, 2008
    #9
  10. On Jun 30, 2:54 am, clandestin_écureuil <> wrote:
    > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
    > > On Jun 29, 8:14 pm, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    > >> Neil Ellwood wrote:
    > >>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0100, Chris H wrote:
    > >>>> So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
    > >>>> been by photography
    > >>>> Before about 1920  it would be land forces again photography was used.
    > >>> Aerial photography was used in the First World War.
    > >>>> Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
    > >>>> put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
    > >>> Neither myself or my dogs have put anything on  flickr - no reason to.
    > >>>> The other  possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
    > >>>> bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights..
    > >>> That is a more likely reason, and that they believe they own the rights
    > >>> to the air around it.
    > >> They used balloons in the Civil War, so I suspect that they also did
    > >> aerial photographs then as well.-

    >
    > > There were no snapshots then. A camera couldn't have been kept steady
    > > enough to take an aerial photograph.

    >
    > You are not seriously trying to say that all of those WW1 aerial
    > reconnaissance photos in the Canberra War Memorial, supposedly taken from
    > blimps, are fakes? Like the Moon landing only older? ;)
    >
    > No, they definitely had aerial photography back then. Google zeppelins and WW!.


    I will assume from your reference to the Canberra War Memorial that
    you are an Australian and not aware that the Civil War was between
    1861 and 1865.
     
    Peter T. Daniels, Jun 30, 2008
    #10
  11. Chris H

    Chris H Guest

    In message
    <>,
    Peter T. Daniels <> writes
    >On Jun 30, 2:54 am, clandestin_écureuil <> wrote:
    >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
    >> > On Jun 29, 8:14 pm, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >> >> Neil Ellwood wrote:
    >> >>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0100, Chris H wrote:
    >> >>>> So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
    >> >>>> been by photography
    >> >>>> Before about 1920  it would be land forces again photography was used.
    >> >>> Aerial photography was used in the First World War.
    >> >>>> Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
    >> >>>> put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
    >> >>> Neither myself or my dogs have put anything on  flickr - no reason to.
    >> >>>> The other  possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
    >> >>>> bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.
    >> >>> That is a more likely reason, and that they believe they own the rights
    >> >>> to the air around it.
    >> >> They used balloons in the Civil War, so I suspect that they also did
    >> >> aerial photographs then as well.-

    >>
    >> > There were no snapshots then. A camera couldn't have been kept steady
    >> > enough to take an aerial photograph.

    >>
    >> You are not seriously trying to say that all of those WW1 aerial
    >> reconnaissance photos in the Canberra War Memorial, supposedly taken from
    >> blimps, are fakes? Like the Moon landing only older? ;)
    >>
    >> No, they definitely had aerial photography back then. Google
    >>zeppelins and WW!.

    >
    >I will assume from your reference to the Canberra War Memorial that
    >you are an Australian and not aware that the Civil War was between
    >1861 and 1865.


    The Civil War was between 1642 to 1646... no one specified a country for
    the Civil War in this international group. .

    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Jun 30, 2008
    #11
  12. On Jun 30, 8:05 am, Chris H <> wrote:
    > In message
    > <>,
    > Peter T. Daniels <> writes
    > >On Jun 30, 2:54 am, clandestin_écureuil <> wrote:
    > >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
    > >> > On Jun 29, 8:14 pm, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    > >> >> Neil Ellwood wrote:
    > >> >>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0100, Chris H wrote:
    > >> >>>> So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
    > >> >>>> been by photography
    > >> >>>> Before about 1920  it would be land forces again photography was used.
    > >> >>> Aerial photography was used in the First World War.
    > >> >>>> Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
    > >> >>>> put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
    > >> >>> Neither myself or my dogs have put anything on  flickr - no reason to.
    > >> >>>> The other  possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
    > >> >>>> bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.
    > >> >>> That is a more likely reason, and that they believe they own the rights
    > >> >>> to the air around it.
    > >> >> They used balloons in the Civil War, so I suspect that they also did
    > >> >> aerial photographs then as well.-

    >
    > >> > There were no snapshots then. A camera couldn't have been kept steady
    > >> > enough to take an aerial photograph.

    >
    > >> You are not seriously trying to say that all of those WW1 aerial
    > >> reconnaissance photos in the Canberra War Memorial, supposedly taken from
    > >> blimps, are fakes? Like the Moon landing only older? ;)

    >
    > >> No, they definitely had aerial photography back then. Google
    > >>zeppelins and WW!.

    >
    > >I will assume from your reference to the Canberra War Memorial that
    > >you are an Australian and not aware that the Civil War was between
    > >1861 and 1865.

    >
    > The Civil War was between 1642 to 1646... no one specified a country for
    > the Civil War in this international group. .


    "This group" is nyc.transit.

    If, however, you think aerial photography was used during the English
    Civil War, you are far more mistaken than the lady from Canberra.
     
    Peter T. Daniels, Jun 30, 2008
    #12
  13. Peter T. Daniels wrote:
    > On Jun 30, 2:54 am, clandestin_écureuil <> wrote:
    >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
    >>> On Jun 29, 8:14 pm, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >>>> Neil Ellwood wrote:
    >>>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0100, Chris H wrote:
    >>>>>> So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
    >>>>>> been by photography
    >>>>>> Before about 1920 it would be land forces again photography was used.
    >>>>> Aerial photography was used in the First World War.
    >>>>>> Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
    >>>>>> put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
    >>>>> Neither myself or my dogs have put anything on flickr - no reason to.
    >>>>>> The other possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
    >>>>>> bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.
    >>>>> That is a more likely reason, and that they believe they own the rights
    >>>>> to the air around it.
    >>>> They used balloons in the Civil War, so I suspect that they also did
    >>>> aerial photographs then as well.-
    >>> There were no snapshots then. A camera couldn't have been kept steady
    >>> enough to take an aerial photograph.

    >> You are not seriously trying to say that all of those WW1 aerial
    >> reconnaissance photos in the Canberra War Memorial, supposedly taken from
    >> blimps, are fakes? Like the Moon landing only older? ;)
    >>
    >> No, they definitely had aerial photography back then. Google zeppelins and WW!.

    >
    > I will assume from your reference to the Canberra War Memorial that
    > you are an Australian and not aware that the Civil War was between
    > 1861 and 1865.


    I recall a reference in an article from the Canberra War Memorial on WW1
    Aerial Photography that indicated that the very first military use of
    aerial photography, as with the first military use of submarines, was
    during the American Civil War. They had a US Army Balloon Corps in the 1860s.

    This is a photo of Boston taken from a balloon in 1860.

    http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/lae/images/LE110L29.jpg

    Secret Squirrel


    --

    Ingrid Rose

    clandestin.ecureuil(insert missing symbol here)gmail.com
     
    clandestin_écureuil, Jun 30, 2008
    #13
  14. On Jun 30, 10:53 am, clandestin_écureuil <> wrote:
    > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
    > > On Jun 30, 2:54 am, clandestin_écureuil <> wrote:
    > >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
    > >>> On Jun 29, 8:14 pm, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    > >>>> Neil Ellwood wrote:
    > >>>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0100, Chris H wrote:
    > >>>>>> So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
    > >>>>>> been by photography
    > >>>>>> Before about 1920  it would be land forces again photography was used.
    > >>>>> Aerial photography was used in the First World War.
    > >>>>>> Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
    > >>>>>> put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
    > >>>>> Neither myself or my dogs have put anything on  flickr - no reason to.
    > >>>>>> The other  possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
    > >>>>>> bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.
    > >>>>> That is a more likely reason, and that they believe they own the rights
    > >>>>> to the air around it.
    > >>>> They used balloons in the Civil War, so I suspect that they also did
    > >>>> aerial photographs then as well.-
    > >>> There were no snapshots then. A camera couldn't have been kept steady
    > >>> enough to take an aerial photograph.
    > >> You are not seriously trying to say that all of those WW1 aerial
    > >> reconnaissance photos in the Canberra War Memorial, supposedly taken from
    > >> blimps, are fakes? Like the Moon landing only older? ;)

    >
    > >> No, they definitely had aerial photography back then. Google zeppelins and WW!.

    >
    > > I will assume from your reference to the Canberra War Memorial that
    > > you are an Australian and not aware that the Civil War was between
    > > 1861 and 1865.

    >
    > I recall a reference in an article from the Canberra War Memorial on WW1
    > Aerial Photography that indicated that the very first military use of
    > aerial photography, as with the first military use of submarines, was
    > during the American Civil War. They had a US Army Balloon Corps in the 1860s.
    >
    > This is a photo of Boston taken from a balloon in 1860.
    >
    > http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/lae/images/LE110L29.jpg


    A tethered balloon, presumably? I'm having a bit of trouble imagining
    a tethered balloon being of much use in a battlefield situation. You
    can't get around the fact that there were no snapshots, and any
    photograph at all required a considerable length of exposure --
    perhaps down to several seconds by the 1860s? (maybe someone at the
    digital photo newsgroup knows something about pre-digital photography)
    -- and a very steady camera.
     
    Peter T. Daniels, Jun 30, 2008
    #14
  15. Chris H

    Chris H Guest

    In message
    <>,
    Peter T. Daniels <> writes
    >On Jun 30, 8:05 am, Chris H <> wrote:
    >> In message
    >> <>,
    >> Peter T. Daniels <> writes
    >> >On Jun 30, 2:54 am, clandestin_écureuil <> wrote:
    >> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
    >> >> > On Jun 29, 8:14 pm, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >> >> >> Neil Ellwood wrote:
    >> >> >>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0100, Chris H wrote:
    >> >> >>>> So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
    >> >> >>>> been by photography
    >> >> >>>> Before about 1920  it would be land forces again photography
    >> >> >>>>
    >> >> >>> Aerial photography was used in the First World War.
    >> >> >>>> Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
    >> >> >>>> put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
    >> >> >>> Neither myself or my dogs have put anything on  flickr - no reason to.
    >> >> >>>> The other  possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
    >> >> >>>> bridges thinks they can make some money out of the
    >> >> >>>>photography rights.
    >> >> >>> That is a more likely reason, and that they believe they own
    >> >> >>>the rights
    >> >> >>> to the air around it.
    >> >> >> They used balloons in the Civil War, so I suspect that they also did
    >> >> >> aerial photographs then as well.-

    >>
    >> >> > There were no snapshots then. A camera couldn't have been kept steady
    >> >> > enough to take an aerial photograph.

    >>
    >> >> You are not seriously trying to say that all of those WW1 aerial
    >> >> reconnaissance photos in the Canberra War Memorial, supposedly taken from
    >> >> blimps, are fakes? Like the Moon landing only older? ;)

    >>
    >> >> No, they definitely had aerial photography back then. Google
    >> >>zeppelins and WW!.

    >>
    >> >I will assume from your reference to the Canberra War Memorial that
    >> >you are an Australian and not aware that the Civil War was between
    >> >1861 and 1865.

    >>
    >> The Civil War was between 1642 to 1646... no one specified a country for
    >> the Civil War in this international group. .

    >
    >"This group" is nyc.transit.


    This group is rec.photo.digital

    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Jun 30, 2008
    #15
  16. Peter T. Daniels wrote:
    > On Jun 30, 8:05 am, Chris H <> wrote:
    >> In message
    >> <>,
    >> Peter T. Daniels <> writes
    >>> I will assume from your reference to the Canberra War Memorial that
    >>> you are an Australian and not aware that the Civil War was between
    >>> 1861 and 1865.

    >>
    >> The Civil War was between 1642 to 1646... no one specified a country for
    >> the Civil War in this international group. .

    >
    > "This group" is nyc.transit.


    No, "this group" is rec.photo.digital, rec.autos.driving, nyc.transit,
    and rec.travel.usa-canada. Well over half the people reading this
    thread are _not_ in the US, reading in globally chartered groups,
    therefore you _must_ specify which country's Civil War you are referring
    to. There is more to the world than just the US, I hope you realize...

    S
     
    Stephen Sprunk, Jun 30, 2008
    #16
  17. On Jun 30, 11:23 am, Chris H <> wrote:
    > In message
    > <>,
    > Peter T. Daniels <> writes
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Jun 30, 8:05 am, Chris H <> wrote:
    > >> In message
    > >> <>,
    > >> Peter T. Daniels <> writes
    > >> >On Jun 30, 2:54 am, clandestin_écureuil <> wrote:
    > >> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
    > >> >> > On Jun 29, 8:14 pm, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    > >> >> >> Neil Ellwood wrote:
    > >> >> >>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0100, Chris H wrote:
    > >> >> >>>> So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
    > >> >> >>>> been by photography
    > >> >> >>>> Before about 1920  it would be land forces again photography

    >
    > >> >> >>> Aerial photography was used in the First World War.
    > >> >> >>>> Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
    > >> >> >>>> put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
    > >> >> >>> Neither myself or my dogs have put anything on  flickr - no reason to.
    > >> >> >>>> The other  possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
    > >> >> >>>> bridges thinks they can make some money out of the
    > >> >> >>>>photography rights.
    > >> >> >>> That is a more likely reason, and that they believe they own
    > >> >> >>>the rights
    > >> >> >>> to the air around it.
    > >> >> >> They used balloons in the Civil War, so I suspect that they also did
    > >> >> >> aerial photographs then as well.-

    >
    > >> >> > There were no snapshots then. A camera couldn't have been kept steady
    > >> >> > enough to take an aerial photograph.

    >
    > >> >> You are not seriously trying to say that all of those WW1 aerial
    > >> >> reconnaissance photos in the Canberra War Memorial, supposedly taken from
    > >> >> blimps, are fakes? Like the Moon landing only older? ;)

    >
    > >> >> No, they definitely had aerial photography back then. Google
    > >> >>zeppelins and WW!.

    >
    > >> >I will assume from your reference to the Canberra War Memorial that
    > >> >you are an Australian and not aware that the Civil War was between
    > >> >1861 and 1865.

    >
    > >> The Civil War was between 1642 to 1646... no one specified a country for
    > >> the Civil War in this international group. .

    >
    > >"This group" is nyc.transit.

    >
    > This group is rec.photo.digital


    Then answer the question. How short could an exposure be during the
    Civil War?
     
    Peter T. Daniels, Jun 30, 2008
    #17
  18. On Jun 30, 12:34 pm, Stephen Sprunk <> wrote:
    > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
    > > On Jun 30, 8:05 am, Chris H <> wrote:
    > >> In message
    > >> <>,
    > >> Peter T. Daniels <> writes
    > >>> I will assume from your reference to the Canberra War Memorial that
    > >>> you are an Australian and not aware that the Civil War was between
    > >>> 1861 and 1865.

    >
    > >> The Civil War was between 1642 to 1646... no one specified a country for
    > >> the Civil War in this international group. .

    >
    > > "This group" is nyc.transit.

    >
    > No, "this group" is rec.photo.digital, rec.autos.driving, nyc.transit,
    > and rec.travel.usa-canada.  Well over half the people reading this
    > thread are _not_ in the US, reading in globally chartered groups,
    > therefore you _must_ specify which country's Civil War you are referring
    > to.  There is more to the world than just the US, I hope you realize...


    I'm not respnsible for the profligate promiscuity of one Shawn Him.
     
    Peter T. Daniels, Jun 30, 2008
    #18
  19. Chris H

    Eugene Miya Guest

    In article <>,
    Chris H <> wrote:
    >Long time ago before google Earth and many similar systems the only
    >people in the 1960's to mid 1990's who had access to satellite
    >photography were a few governments.
    >
    >Prior to 1960 no one had satellite maps.


    No, not really.

    Go find a US Yellow-Pages(tm) and look up "Aerial Surveys" or
    "Surveys/Surveying".

    It's how topographic maps are made.

    Satellites in large part aren't used to make maps.

    >So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
    >been by photography
    >
    >Before about 1920 it would be land forces again photography was used.


    Well Baden-Powell, who founded the Boy Scouts had examples of maps
    sketched as patterns on what appeared to be butterflies.

    >It was the only way of gathering information. Spys did use cameras a lot
    >for gathering information. Pre internet days it took a lot of work to
    >get information on places bridges.
    >
    >Bridges and railways were (and still are) vulnerable points and quite
    >strategic. Looking at a good photo will tell a demolition's expert how
    >to blow it up. How much it can carry, the clearances under/over the
    >line or road etc
    >
    >Therefore photographing government/military buildings etc railways and
    >bridges. (latterly telephone exchanges) tended to be deemed "important"
    >and had a no photography law in many countries.
    >
    >Some still hold on to this in the mistaken belief that it can still help
    >the enemy. However the enemy are not going to play by your rules anyway
    >so it is pointless putting up signs anyway..


    Ask in Iraq.

    The above is laden with a mix os truth and partial truth and BS.

    >However thank to google Earth (MS earth?) street-map, multi-map et all I

    MS TerraServer {I have the golf shirt}
    >can in seconds get high ress pictures of most places of a quality that
    >the government spy services could only dream of 30 years ago.


    Google is merely an index to preexisting commercial source matter
    (marginal quality at that).

    >Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
    >put it on flicker or in stock libraries.


    8^)

    >The other possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
    >bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.


    Ask Bill Gates about his share of stock photo companies.


    >\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/


    Ah Ordinance Survey mapping country eh.
    Things are different in the USA.

    --
     
    Eugene Miya, Jul 1, 2008
    #19
  20. Peter T. Daniels wrote:
    > On Jun 30, 10:53 am, clandestin_écureuil <> wrote:
    >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
    >>> On Jun 30, 2:54 am, clandestin_écureuil <> wrote:
    >>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
    >>>>> On Jun 29, 8:14 pm, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >>>>>> Neil Ellwood wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:53 +0100, Chris H wrote:
    >>>>>>>> So any recce for a bombing air raid (from about 1920-1960) would have
    >>>>>>>> been by photography
    >>>>>>>> Before about 1920 it would be land forces again photography was used.
    >>>>>>> Aerial photography was used in the First World War.
    >>>>>>>> Also every man and his dog has photographed absolutely everything and
    >>>>>>>> put it on flicker or in stock libraries.
    >>>>>>> Neither myself or my dogs have put anything on flickr - no reason to.
    >>>>>>>> The other possible reason is some idiot in the company that owns the
    >>>>>>>> bridges thinks they can make some money out of the photography rights.
    >>>>>>> That is a more likely reason, and that they believe they own the rights
    >>>>>>> to the air around it.
    >>>>>> They used balloons in the Civil War, so I suspect that they also did
    >>>>>> aerial photographs then as well.-
    >>>>> There were no snapshots then. A camera couldn't have been kept steady
    >>>>> enough to take an aerial photograph.
    >>>> You are not seriously trying to say that all of those WW1 aerial
    >>>> reconnaissance photos in the Canberra War Memorial, supposedly taken from
    >>>> blimps, are fakes? Like the Moon landing only older? ;)
    >>>> No, they definitely had aerial photography back then. Google zeppelins and WW!.
    >>> I will assume from your reference to the Canberra War Memorial that
    >>> you are an Australian and not aware that the Civil War was between
    >>> 1861 and 1865.

    >> I recall a reference in an article from the Canberra War Memorial on WW1
    >> Aerial Photography that indicated that the very first military use of
    >> aerial photography, as with the first military use of submarines, was
    >> during the American Civil War. They had a US Army Balloon Corps in the 1860s.
    >>
    >> This is a photo of Boston taken from a balloon in 1860.
    >>
    >> http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/lae/images/LE110L29.jpg

    >
    > A tethered balloon, presumably? I'm having a bit of trouble imagining
    > a tethered balloon being of much use in a battlefield situation. You
    > can't get around the fact that there were no snapshots, and any
    > photograph at all required a considerable length of exposure --
    > perhaps down to several seconds by the 1860s? (maybe someone at the
    > digital photo newsgroup knows something about pre-digital photography)
    > -- and a very steady camera.



    You really are a stubborn person.

    Google Gaspard-Felix Tournachon, he had a balloon in 1858 that had its own
    darkroom on board.


    See: http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/nadar.htm

    Secret Squirrel


    --

    Ingrid Rose

    clandestin.ecureuil(insert missing symbol here)gmail.com
     
    clandestin_écureuil, Jul 1, 2008
    #20
    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:
    952
    Peter
    Aug 7, 2010
  2. Penis Kolada

    Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge

    Penis Kolada, Jun 29, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    362
    Vince
    Jun 30, 2008
  3. Paul Furman

    Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge

    Paul Furman, Jun 29, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    420
    Sancho Panza
    Jul 1, 2008
  4. Cynicor

    Re: Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge

    Cynicor, Jun 29, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    42
    Views:
    1,910
  5. GK
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    480
    John Turco
    Jul 4, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page