Re: Professional cameras not allowed

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by otter, Aug 17, 2012.

  1. otter

    otter Guest

    On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, 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.


    That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
    from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?
     
    otter, Aug 17, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:27:48 -0700 (PDT), otter
    <> wrote:

    >On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, 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.

    >
    >That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
    >from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?


    They certainly own the rights to what you do when you are standing in
    their property.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. otter

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 17/08/2012 15:27, otter wrote:
    > On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, 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.


    One of the Ixus's that is small enough to palm is what I use.

    > That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
    > from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?


    If you are stood on their private land to see it - they do!

    I fail to see why you think it would be otherwise.

    ISTR Monterey Golf club are particularly belligerent and vindictive
    about image rights to their tree.

    In the UK you have to watch out for brass studs in the sidewalk (UK
    pavement) which delineate the separation between private land which at
    the moment happens to be a part of the public footpath and the true
    public footpath. The sort to put these studs in are litigious. It is the
    sort of thing that only matters if there is commercial usage.

    Refuge Assurance famously got it wrong in the 1970's and had to scrap an
    entire national advertising campaign after losing spectacularly all the
    way up to the high court. There was in this instance no doubt that the
    photographer stood on private land marked "private members only" to take
    the photograph they had used. Private landowners do have rights.

    Most will usually consent to using their premises as a platform for
    architectural photography if you ask but the odd one will not.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Aug 17, 2012
    #3
  4. otter

    Irwell Guest

    On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:11:24 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

    > On 2012-08-17 07:55:12 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:27:48 -0700 (PDT), otter
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, 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.
    >>>
    >>> That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
    >>> from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?

    >>
    >> They certainly own the rights to what you do when you are standing in
    >> their property.

    >
    > I think what they want you to do when you are standing in their
    > property is, leave money.


    Which is what they do at the Tour Montparnasse in Paris,
    the restaurant/coffee bar is on a level with the Eiffel tower
    about 2/3 miles away. To go to the observation deck a person
    has to take the elevator and pay a hefty fee, but they can go to
    the restaurant for free, but are obliged to buy an expensive meal
    or an equally expensive cup of coffee. Taking a photgraph is free?
     
    Irwell, Aug 17, 2012
    #4
  5. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:25:57 -0700, Irwell <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:11:24 -0700, Savageduck wrote:
    >
    >> On 2012-08-17 07:55:12 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:27:48 -0700 (PDT), otter
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, 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.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
    >>>> from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?
    >>>
    >>> They certainly own the rights to what you do when you are standing in
    >>> their property.

    >>
    >> I think what they want you to do when you are standing in their
    >> property is, leave money.

    >
    >Which is what they do at the Tour Montparnasse in Paris,
    >the restaurant/coffee bar is on a level with the Eiffel tower
    >about 2/3 miles away. To go to the observation deck a person
    >has to take the elevator and pay a hefty fee, but they can go to
    >the restaurant for free, but are obliged to buy an expensive meal
    >or an equally expensive cup of coffee. Taking a photgraph is free?


    Is this wrong, in your opinion?

    Should you be able to go to the observation deck for free, or to the
    restaurant without ordering anything, in order to take a photograph?

    If the owner of the Jakarta cafe decided to set aside an area for
    photographers to take photographs of the city view with any type of
    camera, but charged an admission fee to that area, would that be
    wrong?


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012
    #5
  6. otter

    RichA Guest

    On Aug 17, 10:27 am, otter <> wrote:
    > On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, 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.

    >
    > That's amazing.  It would be interesting to know where this rule came
    > from.  Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?


    They may. If someone puts up a huge building in front of them, they
    could sue because of the lost view, "enjoyment of their property" or
    loss of "patron's enjoyment." It's been done before. But today,
    businesses are ravenous to protect any possible form of income stream,
    physical, intellectual, etc.
     
    RichA, Aug 17, 2012
    #6
  7. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/17/2012 10:27 AM, otter wrote:
    > On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, 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.

    >
    > That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
    > from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?
    >


    I ran into that same rule at a racetrack in PA. It seems the local track
    pro doesn't want competition. I thought about making a deal with the
    pro, but decided the photo ops wasn't worth the effort.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 17, 2012
    #7
  8. otter

    nospam Guest

    In article <502eb915$0$6506$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > I ran into that same rule at a racetrack in PA. It seems the local track
    > pro doesn't want competition. I thought about making a deal with the
    > pro, but decided the photo ops wasn't worth the effort.


    that's another reason. they have a deal with a particular photographer
    who wants to sell the photos to the patrons. this is common at sports
    events, such as at high school and college.
     
    nospam, Aug 17, 2012
    #8
  9. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/17/2012 12:47 PM, RichA wrote:
    > On Aug 17, 10:27 am, otter <> wrote:
    >> On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, 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.

    >>
    >> That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
    >> from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?

    >
    > They may. If someone puts up a huge building in front of them, they
    > could sue because of the lost view, "enjoyment of their property" or
    > loss of "patron's enjoyment." It's been done before. But today,
    > businesses are ravenous to protect any possible form of income stream,
    > physical, intellectual, etc.
    >


    Wrong. At least in NY there is no such thing as an easement for light
    and air. I think, but do not know, as you seem to, there are similar
    laws on most States.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 17, 2012
    #9
  10. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:35:07 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 8/17/2012 10:27 AM, otter wrote:
    >> On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, 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.

    >>
    >> That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
    >> from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?
    >>

    >
    >I ran into that same rule at a racetrack in PA. It seems the local track
    >pro doesn't want competition. I thought about making a deal with the
    >pro, but decided the photo ops wasn't worth the effort.


    I've run into this. With grandchildren in sports, the local pros
    don't want the amateurs to horn in on their business. They want to
    sell the photographs to the parents. I can't say I blame them in
    these times, but I shoot anyway.

    The boys just posed for the team photos for the coming Pop Warner
    football season. The official photographer brought backdrops, lights,
    and two (assumably paid) assistants.

    A really gracious guy, though. He made an announcement that any
    parent could take photographs of the kids in front of the backdrop,
    but to wait until after he had taken his shots and to hold back until
    he was done. He didn't want the kids looking at their parents instead
    of the camera or the flashes going off.

    At the race track, though, you are not photographing scenery. You are
    photographing the participants in the race and maybe the spectators.

    I take photos like this at the track:
    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Dog-Track-2-new/i-fGRR79H/0/X2/2011-11-30-09-X2.jpg

    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Dog-Races/dog-014/514630628_5f4WL-X2.jpg

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 18, 2012
    #10
  11. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:20:10 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-08-17 16:17:20 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    ><<< Le Snip >>>
    >
    >> I take photos like this at the track:
    >> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Dog-Track-2-new/i-fGRR79H/0/X2/2011-11-30-09-X2.jpg

    >
    >What
    >>

    >is this? Tony playing with effects!!


    Of course I do. Photoshop is my playground. No plug-ins, though.
    >Nice capture regardless.



    >> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Dog-Races/dog-014/514630628_5f4WL-X2.jpg

    >
    >...and this is a great capture. Good work.
    >I think this one might have great B&W potential.


    Thanks.

    I do do some b&w track shots:

    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Dog-Track-2-new/i-bWn288C/0/X2/2011-11-30-04-X2.jpg
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 18, 2012
    #11
  12. otter

    Irwell Guest

    On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:46:40 -0400, tony cooper wrote:

    > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:25:57 -0700, Irwell <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:11:24 -0700, Savageduck wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2012-08-17 07:55:12 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:27:48 -0700 (PDT), otter
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, 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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
    >>>>> from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?
    >>>>
    >>>> They certainly own the rights to what you do when you are standing in
    >>>> their property.
    >>>
    >>> I think what they want you to do when you are standing in their
    >>> property is, leave money.

    >>
    >>Which is what they do at the Tour Montparnasse in Paris,
    >>the restaurant/coffee bar is on a level with the Eiffel tower
    >>about 2/3 miles away. To go to the observation deck a person
    >>has to take the elevator and pay a hefty fee, but they can go to
    >>the restaurant for free, but are obliged to buy an expensive meal
    >>or an equally expensive cup of coffee. Taking a photgraph is free?

    >
    > Is this wrong, in your opinion?

    No.
    >
    > Should you be able to go to the observation deck for free, or to the
    > restaurant without ordering anything, in order to take a photograph?

    No.
    >
    > If the owner of the Jakarta cafe decided to set aside an area for
    > photographers to take photographs of the city view with any type of
    > camera, but charged an admission fee to that area, would that be
    > wrong?

    No.
     
    Irwell, Aug 18, 2012
    #12
  13. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:38:56 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-08-17 17:46:17 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:20:10 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2012-08-17 16:17:20 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>>
    >>> <<< Le Snip >>>
    >>>
    >>>> I take photos like this at the track:
    >>>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Dog-Track-2-new/i-fGRR79H/0/X2/2011-11-30-09-X2.jpg

    >
    >What
    >>>>
    >>> is this? Tony playing with effects!!


    Here's another "playing with effects". This was taken in February at
    a flea market, but sat in the "not bad enough to delete but not good
    enough to process file" for months. I came across it, noticed how
    much the man looks like a statue or wax figure, and processed it to
    emphasize this. I saw it as "blue" from the minute I started on it.


    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Miscellanea/i-nWpqHwg/0/X2/2012-02-04-1-X2.jpg
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 18, 2012
    #13
  14. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:25:46 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-08-17 19:09:04 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:38:56 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2012-08-17 17:46:17 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:20:10 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2012-08-17 16:17:20 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> <<< Le Snip >>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I take photos like this at the track:
    >>>>>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Dog-Track-2-new/i-fGRR79H/0/X2/2011-11-30-09-X2.jpg

    >
    >What
    >
    >is
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> this? Tony playing with effects!!

    >>
    >> Here's another "playing with effects". This was taken in February at
    >> a flea market, but sat in the "not bad enough to delete but not good
    >> enough to process file" for months. I came across it, noticed how
    >> much the man looks like a statue or wax figure, and processed it to
    >> emphasize this. I saw it as "blue" from the minute I started on it.
    >>
    >>
    >> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Miscellanea/i-nWpqHwg/0/X2/2012-02-04-1-X2.jpg

    >
    >Another
    >>

    >great capture, but I see the potential in that image as a B&W
    >conversion from the original.


    I converted the color image to B&W first using a B&W adjustment layer
    and then added the Cooling Filter (80), did a High Pass sharpening,
    then added a Hue & Saturation Layer Mask to fade out the background
    and painted the face back in. Sounds complicated, but it was about a
    10 minute job.

    The B&W conversion alone didn't pop enough.





    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 18, 2012
    #14
  15. otter

    otter Guest

    On Aug 17, 9:55 am, tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:27:48 -0700 (PDT), otter
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, 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.

    >
    > >That's amazing.  It would be interesting to know where this rule came
    > >from.  Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?

    >
    > They certainly own the rights to what you do when you are standing in
    > their property.


    Yeah, I understand they have the legal right to set the rules on their
    property. Not sure what their motivation is, though.

    I can't believe the speculation that they have a deal with a pro who
    owns the sole rights to take photo's there. Seems unlikely that a pro
    would purchase such rights at this cafe. Could be possible, but my
    gut says that is unlikely.

    I run into the "no professional camera" policy all the time at
    concerts. There it makes a little more sense, as the artists want to
    control their image rights. But this doesn't seem like the same thing
    at all.

    Maybe DSLR owners made a nuisance of themselves in the past. That
    probably makes the most sense. But I don't see how they are that much
    more of a nuisance than all the P&S shooters, and especially the
    tablet shooters. Those should be the FIRST things banned.

    Eh, whatever. It ticks me off so much, I refuse to eat there!
     
    otter, Aug 18, 2012
    #15
  16. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/17/2012 7:17 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:35:07 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 8/17/2012 10:27 AM, otter wrote:
    >>> On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, 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.
    >>>
    >>> That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
    >>> from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?
    >>>

    >>
    >> I ran into that same rule at a racetrack in PA. It seems the local track
    >> pro doesn't want competition. I thought about making a deal with the
    >> pro, but decided the photo ops wasn't worth the effort.

    >
    > I've run into this. With grandchildren in sports, the local pros
    > don't want the amateurs to horn in on their business. They want to
    > sell the photographs to the parents. I can't say I blame them in
    > these times, but I shoot anyway.
    >
    > The boys just posed for the team photos for the coming Pop Warner
    > football season. The official photographer brought backdrops, lights,
    > and two (assumably paid) assistants.
    >
    > A really gracious guy, though. He made an announcement that any
    > parent could take photographs of the kids in front of the backdrop,
    > but to wait until after he had taken his shots and to hold back until
    > he was done. He didn't want the kids looking at their parents instead
    > of the camera or the flashes going off.
    >
    > At the race track, though, you are not photographing scenery. You are
    > photographing the participants in the race and maybe the spectators.
    >
    > I take photos like this at the track:
    > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Dog-Track-2-new/i-fGRR79H/0/X2/2011-11-30-09-X2.jpg
    >
    > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Dog-Races/dog-014/514630628_5f4WL-X2.jpg
    >


    We have a difference in style. I would have isolated and taken three
    different shots of those guys. They all look interesting, but are not
    relating to each other. One of my shots destined for the SI will
    illustrate my point. As I said you are not wrong in what you do, I just
    prefer isolation or relations.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 18, 2012
    #16
  17. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/17/2012 10:09 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:38:56 -0700, Savageduck
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2012-08-17 17:46:17 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:20:10 -0700, Savageduck
    >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2012-08-17 16:17:20 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>>>
    >>>> <<< Le Snip >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> I take photos like this at the track:
    >>>>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Dog-Track-2-new/i-fGRR79H/0/X2/2011-11-30-09-X2.jpg

    >>
    >> What
    >>>>>
    >>>> is this? Tony playing with effects!!

    >
    > Here's another "playing with effects". This was taken in February at
    > a flea market, but sat in the "not bad enough to delete but not good
    > enough to process file" for months. I came across it, noticed how
    > much the man looks like a statue or wax figure, and processed it to
    > emphasize this. I saw it as "blue" from the minute I started on it.
    >
    >
    > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Miscellanea/i-nWpqHwg/0/X2/2012-02-04-1-X2.jpg
    >


    There ya go. Glad you took my advice about isolation. ;-)

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 18, 2012
    #17
  18. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/17/2012 10:46 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:25:46 -0700, Savageduck
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2012-08-17 19:09:04 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:38:56 -0700, Savageduck
    >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2012-08-17 17:46:17 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:20:10 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 2012-08-17 16:17:20 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> <<< Le Snip >>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I take photos like this at the track:
    >>>>>>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Dog-Track-2-new/i-fGRR79H/0/X2/2011-11-30-09-X2.jpg

    >>
    >> What
    >>
    >> is
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> this? Tony playing with effects!!
    >>>
    >>> Here's another "playing with effects". This was taken in February at
    >>> a flea market, but sat in the "not bad enough to delete but not good
    >>> enough to process file" for months. I came across it, noticed how
    >>> much the man looks like a statue or wax figure, and processed it to
    >>> emphasize this. I saw it as "blue" from the minute I started on it.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Miscellanea/i-nWpqHwg/0/X2/2012-02-04-1-X2.jpg

    >>
    >> Another
    >>>

    >> great capture, but I see the potential in that image as a B&W
    >> conversion from the original.

    >
    > I converted the color image to B&W first using a B&W adjustment layer
    > and then added the Cooling Filter (80), did a High Pass sharpening,
    > then added a Hue & Saturation Layer Mask to fade out the background
    > and painted the face back in. Sounds complicated, but it was about a
    > 10 minute job.
    >
    > The B&W conversion alone didn't pop enough.
    >

    That one certainly does. Well done.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 18, 2012
    #18
  19. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/17/2012 11:38 PM, otter wrote:
    > On Aug 17, 9:55 am, tony cooper <> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:27:48 -0700 (PDT), otter
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> <> wrote:
    >>> On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, 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.

    >>
    >>> That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
    >>> from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?

    >>
    >> They certainly own the rights to what you do when you are standing in
    >> their property.

    >
    > Yeah, I understand they have the legal right to set the rules on their
    > property. Not sure what their motivation is, though.
    >
    > I can't believe the speculation that they have a deal with a pro who
    > owns the sole rights to take photo's there. Seems unlikely that a pro
    > would purchase such rights at this cafe. Could be possible, but my
    > gut says that is unlikely.
    >
    > I run into the "no professional camera" policy all the time at
    > concerts. There it makes a little more sense, as the artists want to
    > control their image rights. But this doesn't seem like the same thing
    > at all.
    >
    > Maybe DSLR owners made a nuisance of themselves in the past. That
    > probably makes the most sense. But I don't see how they are that much
    > more of a nuisance than all the P&S shooters, and especially the
    > tablet shooters. Those should be the FIRST things banned.
    >
    > Eh, whatever. It ticks me off so much, I refuse to eat there!
    >


    I can think of several reasons why I probably not eat or drink there.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Aug 18, 2012
    #19
  20. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 20:32:03 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-08-17 19:46:55 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 19:25:46 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2012-08-17 19:09:04 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:38:56 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2012-08-17 17:46:17 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:20:10 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On 2012-08-17 16:17:20 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> <<< Le Snip >>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I take photos like this at the track:
    >>>>>>>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animals/Dog-Track-2-new/i-fGRR79H/0/X2/2011-11-30-09-X2.jpg

    >
    >What
    >
    >is
    >
    >this?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Tony playing with effects!!
    >>>>
    >>>> Here's another "playing with effects". This was taken in February at
    >>>> a flea market, but sat in the "not bad enough to delete but not good
    >>>> enough to process file" for months. I came across it, noticed how
    >>>> much the man looks like a statue or wax figure, and processed it to
    >>>> emphasize this. I saw it as "blue" from the minute I started on it.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Miscellanea/i-nWpqHwg/0/X2/2012-02-04-1-X2.jpg

    >
    >Another
    >
    >great
    >>>>
    >>> capture, but I see the potential in that image as a B&W
    >>> conversion from the original.

    >>
    >> I converted the color image to B&W first using a B&W adjustment layer
    >> and then added the Cooling Filter (80), did a High Pass sharpening,
    >> then added a Hue & Saturation Layer Mask to fade out the background
    >> and painted the face back in. Sounds complicated, but it was about a
    >> 10 minute job.
    >>
    >> The B&W conversion alone didn't pop enough.

    >
    >Well, if you wouldn't mind sending an appropriately size unaltered
    >color version my way, say via email and a DB url, I like to have at it
    >to see what I could do with Silver Efex Pro 2.


    Sent the original .dng and a .jpg of the original...just opened the
    ..dng and made the .jpg w/o adjustments in RAW.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 18, 2012
    #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. tony cooper

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    tony cooper, Aug 17, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    77
    Views:
    1,292
  2. ray

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    ray, Aug 17, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    292
  3. Rob

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    Rob, Aug 18, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    283
    PeterN
    Aug 18, 2012
  4. sms88

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    sms88, Aug 18, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    361
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Aug 23, 2012
  5. Laszlo Lebrun

    Re: Professional cameras not allowed

    Laszlo Lebrun, Aug 20, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    303
    Laszlo Lebrun
    Aug 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page