Forums > Photography Talk > DSLR banned from Churchill Downs

Photographer

Bob Helm Photography

Posts: 18220

Cherry Hill, New Jersey, US

Not just DSLR's but any camera that has interchangable lenses.
"Security" measures following Boston. Guess they are expecting an increase in use of camera bombs.
http://petapixel.com/2013/04/23/kentuck … -purposes/

Photographer as terrorist war continues.

Apr 23 13 06:32 pm Link

Photographer

Brooklyn Bridge Images

Posts: 10538

Brooklyn, New York, US

http://discarted.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/tsa_poster_object.jpg

Apr 23 13 06:35 pm Link

Photographer

Cinema Photography

Posts: 4451

Mission Viejo, California, US

They totally misunderstood photo-bombing.

Apr 23 13 06:39 pm Link

Photographer

Mortonovich

Posts: 5806

San Diego, California, US

What's interesting is what with all the hype of random civilians photos assisting in ID'ing the suspects, there isn't a call to "Please bring all your cameras!!!"

Of course, I'm being absurd. But it's still amusing.

Apr 23 13 06:40 pm Link

Photographer

Marin Photography NYC

Posts: 7319

New York, New York, US

I see signs here in the Bronx that say no photography near bridges. I don't understand the paranoia, what can you do with a photo of a bridge that's already all over google earth?

Apr 23 13 06:44 pm Link

Photographer

Will Snizek Photography

Posts: 1387

Beckley, West Virginia, US

This is why terror attacks end up succeeding.  They have everyone worried about stuff that's not going to happen.

Apr 23 13 06:49 pm Link

Photographer

DougBPhoto

Posts: 39088

Portland, Oregon, US

ChiMo wrote:
What's interesting is what with all the hype of random civilians photos assisting in ID'ing the suspects, there isn't a call to "Please bring all your cameras!!!"

Of course, I'm being absurd. But it's still amusing.

Equally ironic (idiotic?), I would not be surprised if pressure cookers for tailgating would still be permitted.   Aren't there parties on the infield or something too??

Always gotta ban the cameras...

Apr 23 13 06:50 pm Link

Photographer

T R A N Q U I L I T Y

Posts: 13

Cincinnati, Ohio, US

This Sucks,Some my favorite times are just going and taking photos of all the beautfiul people decked out.I have met people from all over the world there and became friends with many after sending them thier pics.And was looking forward to it again..but guess not this year.Thanks for the heads up

Apr 23 13 06:51 pm Link

Photographer

Marin Photography NYC

Posts: 7319

New York, New York, US

In the course of trying to protect us they always find a way to take away more of our liberties. Looks like the terrorist are winning.

Apr 23 13 06:55 pm Link

Photographer

Herman Surkis

Posts: 9475

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Will Snizek wrote:
This is why terror attacks end up succeeding.  They have everyone worried about stuff that's not going to happen.

And of course extreme paranoia does not hurt the bottom line of the security industry.

Also allows the police and others more reasons to violate your civil liberties.

Think there could be a bunch of reasons to heighten fear that have little to do with real security?

Apr 23 13 07:40 pm Link

Photographer

Herman Surkis

Posts: 9475

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Marin Photography wrote:
In the course of trying to protect us they always find a way to take away more of our liberties. Looks like the terrorist are winning.

You think?

Apr 23 13 07:42 pm Link

Photographer

Light and Lens Studio

Posts: 2003

Sisters, Oregon, US

"They" want to control everything.  Cameras, guns, pressure cookers.  What next?

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/130423/19/5177493808123.jpg

Apr 23 13 07:57 pm Link

Photographer

rp_photo

Posts: 42544

Houston, Texas, US

Shameless and pointless exploitation of the Boston Marathon tragedy. I just knew it would somehow be used against photographers.

Apr 23 13 08:13 pm Link

Photographer

Al Lock Photography

Posts: 16584

Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand

Marin Photography wrote:
I see signs here in the Bronx that say no photography near bridges. I don't understand the paranoia, what can you do with a photo of a bridge that's already all over google earth?

Detailed photos allow for planning precise placement of explosive charges. What you can see on Google Earth is of limited use for that. Not defending the signs, just pointing out the reasoning.

Apr 23 13 08:19 pm Link

Photographer

Al Lock Photography

Posts: 16584

Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand

Marin Photography wrote:
In the course of trying to protect us they always find a way to take away more of our liberties. Looks like the terrorist are winning.

Have been for a long time....

Recommended reading:

Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty by James Brovard

It was written before 9/11

Apr 23 13 08:21 pm Link

Photographer

Edge of the Moon

Posts: 431

New York, New York, US

Marin Photography wrote:
I see signs here in the Bronx that say no photography near bridges. I don't understand the paranoia, what can you do with a photo of a bridge that's already all over google earth?

The Triboro (RFK) bridge has signs like that. You're not allowed to video or photograph from the bridge itself.
In the past I've walked on the bridge walkway to take pictures of the Hell Gate Bridge.  It's an awesome view.  Can't do that anymore, I might get arrested.

Edit:  I also love to take pictures of the planes taking off and landing at LGA.  Who knows I'd probably get arrested for that too.

Apr 23 13 08:55 pm Link

Photographer

Marin Photography NYC

Posts: 7319

New York, New York, US

Edge of the Moon wrote:

The Triboro (RFK) bridge has signs like that. You're not allowed to video or photograph from the bridge itself.
In the past I've walked on the bridge walkway to take pictures of the Hell Gate Bridge.  It's an awesome view.  Can't do that anymore, I might get arrested.

Edit:  I also love to take pictures of the planes taking off and landing at LGA.  Who knows I'd probably get arrested for that too.

Yeah, it's really getting out of control!....

Apr 23 13 09:04 pm Link

Photographer

Marin Photography NYC

Posts: 7319

New York, New York, US

Al Lock Photography wrote:
Detailed photos allow for planning precise placement of explosive charges. What you can see on Google Earth is of limited use for that. Not defending the signs, just pointing out the reasoning.

I get it but geeze what next? Check your cell phones in at the toll booth?....Most of it is impossible to enforce but I like traveling with my camera and I just worry about being harassed. It's bad enough the police harass you for driving while brown...LOL Oh no, wait that was my younger days...sorry...

Apr 23 13 09:07 pm Link

Photographer

ForeverFotos

Posts: 6646

Indianapolis, Indiana, US

You wanna shoot sumpthin? You don't need a camera, you need a SHOTGUN! Just ask uncle Joe.......Buy a shotgun

http://nicedeb.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/biden-shotgun-3.jpg

Apr 23 13 09:21 pm Link

Photographer

Revenge Photography

Posts: 1868

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't they be banning backpacks and not cameras?

I thought the Boston bombs were in backpacks left on the ground, not hidden in cameras.

Apr 23 13 09:38 pm Link

Photographer

terrysphotocountry

Posts: 4287

Rochester, New York, US

Sounds like they are protecting some by take the rights away from others?

Apr 23 13 10:01 pm Link

Photographer

fullmetalphotographer

Posts: 2797

Fresno, California, US

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
http://discarted.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/tsa_poster_object.jpg

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4085/4994840134_8a82e6f276_z.jpg
TSAGodzilla by FullMetalPhotographer, on Flickr

Apr 23 13 10:13 pm Link

Photographer

NothingIsRealButTheGirl

Posts: 35281

Los Angeles, California, US

RennsportPhotography wrote:
Not just DSLR's but any camera that has interchangable lenses.
"Security" measures following Boston. Guess they are expecting an increase in use of camera bombs.
http://petapixel.com/2013/04/23/kentuck … -purposes/

Photographer as terrorist war continues.

Then they'll be begging for high quality photos after something goes down.

Apr 23 13 10:20 pm Link

Photographer

NothingIsRealButTheGirl

Posts: 35281

Los Angeles, California, US

A smartphone won't cut it, according to SDPD

"Phones can be converted to a weapon. Look it up online."

http://boingboing.net/2013/04/19/san-di … phone.html

Apr 23 13 10:22 pm Link

Photographer

WMcK

Posts: 5298

Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom

Marin Photography wrote:
In the course of trying to protect us they always find a way to take away more of our liberties. Looks like the terrorist are winning.

No, useless officials trying to justify their own existence are winning.

Apr 24 13 12:24 am Link

Photographer

Preime Photography

Posts: 50

Brighton, England, United Kingdom

typical ridiculous knee-jerk reaction. There is one simple solution to it though. Mount your camera on a high-powered assault rifle and nobody will bother you because every knows that in america you aren't a terrorist if you use a gun. plus should they arrest you you can just shout second amendment and you will have a high-priced NRA lawyer by your side before they have finished reading you your rights.

Apr 24 13 01:07 am Link

Photographer

rbphotos

Posts: 39

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Thanks should go out to NBC sports and to Dodge for saying this is good for them seeing thay are the big sponsor of this race.. think ill just watch it on U Tube and go by a new Ford F150 this year.

Apr 24 13 01:13 am Link

Photographer

S A L I N G E R

Posts: 604

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Detailed photos allow for planning precise placement of explosive charges. What you can see on Google Earth is of limited use for that. Not defending the signs, just pointing out the reasoning.

Really, because if I wanted to lay explosive devices in precise places I'd probably just look up the blueprints for the bridge in question.

Blueprints that are all over the internet.

The same internet that appears to be your one-stop shop for terror act planning. So, I assume the internet will be on the banned list next.

Apr 24 13 01:35 am Link

guide forum

Photographer

Robb Mann

Posts: 11117

Baltimore, Maryland, US

RennsportPhotography wrote:
Not just DSLR's but any camera that has interchangable lenses.
"Security" measures following Boston. Guess they are expecting an increase in use of camera bombs.
http://petapixel.com/2013/04/23/kentuck … -purposes/

Photographer as terrorist war continues.

Wait, didn't the massive crowd-sourced outporing of photos & videos help identify/capture the bombers in short order? So banning all the good cameras from mass events would make it harder to find the suspects in the event of a tragedy?

Apr 24 13 01:52 am Link

Photographer

SensualThemes

Posts: 3043

Swoyersville, Pennsylvania, US

S A L I N G E R wrote:

Really, because if I wanted to lay explosive devices in precise places I'd probably just look up the blueprints for the bridge in question.

Blueprints that are all over the internet.

The same internet that appears to be your one-stop shop for terror act planning. So, I assume the internet will be on the banned list next.

shh. that legislation protects us from getting too many emails no one forces us to read.
and stopping those horrible 'hacker' people and their deviant open source software

it has noting to do with controlling the flow of information so the elite can get more control.

how silly

Apr 24 13 04:09 am Link

Photographer

Mickey Rountree

Posts: 242

HIXSON, Tennessee, US

Once again fear and superstition triumphs over truth and reason.

Or did  they just want to ban cameras and here is a convenient excuse.

Apr 24 13 04:39 am Link

Photographer

Cali Life Productions

Posts: 25

Boston, Massachusetts, US

This is very sad to read, two weeks before the Kentucky Derby.   Since Boston, I've been worried about this.  I always shoot morning workouts, in late May at Suffolk Downs and always shoot a couple of race days, during the summer.  I am dreading the response when I write to security this season, requesting permission.  My horse racing, hobby photography, may be coming to an end.  Thank you for posting this info.

Apr 24 13 04:41 am Link

Photographer

KMP

Posts: 4834

Houston, Texas, US

Mickey Rountree wrote:
Once again fear and superstition triumphs over truth and reason.

Or did  they just want to ban cameras and here is a convenient excuse.

So true.. and when you think that the terrorists in Boston were identified and verified many times from all sorts of video and photography AT the event.. it seems to make more sense to heighten the amount of high-res, photographic coverage than hinder it.

ChiMo wrote:
What's interesting is what with all the hype of random civilians photos assisting in ID'ing the suspects, there isn't a call to "Please bring all your cameras!!!"

Of course, I'm being absurd. But it's still amusing.

We speaketh the same language! smile

Apr 24 13 04:41 am Link

Photographer

Traditional Curmudgeon

Posts: 605

Chicago, Illinois, US

Contrary to popular opinion, no tripods were used on 9/11.

Apr 24 13 06:44 am Link

Clothing Designer

GRMACK

Posts: 3016

Bakersfield, California, US

I recall that Amtrak had a photo contest recently.

Only problem was the railroad police would run you away from the station if they saw you with a large camera trying for an entry.  Maybe they had a slow day and just needed something to do to justify their job.  Probably grounds to hire another 1,000 railway police too.

"Dispatch:  "Suspicious person with a large camera spotted near mainline switch #12.""

Apr 24 13 06:53 am Link

Photographer

KMP

Posts: 4834

Houston, Texas, US

As sinister as the hooded sweat shirt makes that person, there are many aviation enthusiasts who love to photograph civil aviation and can talk for hours about different models of planes, airline history etc...  It's a fun hobby for thousands.. Some airports have discovered this and have designated "spotting" areas to view and photograph the planes.

The experienced ones know it's a good policy to inform airport security if they are there. 

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
http://discarted.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/tsa_poster_object.jpg

Apr 24 13 06:54 am Link

Photographer

MMDesign

Posts: 18647

Louisville, Kentucky, US

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/7216524-md.jpg

Don't think I could have gotten this with a cell phone.

They've lost me for good. I boycott all events that don't allow cameras (which is quite a few around here).

Apr 24 13 07:12 am Link

Photographer

SKITA Studios

Posts: 1569

Boston, Massachusetts, US

Preime Photography wrote:
Mount your camera on a high-powered assault rifle and nobody will bother you because every knows that in america you aren't a terrorist if you use a gun. plus should they arrest you you can just shout second amendment and you will have a high-priced NRA lawyer by your side before they have finished reading you your rights.

Wow.  Gun-phobic much? :-O
Seriously out of touch w/ reality :-(
FYI, if you do shoot someone in self-defense in the US, you can count on being out at least $100K in legal fees...you'll get strung up by the local D.A. who wants to make an "example" out of you...then you'll get sued by the bad guy's family for lost wages and wrongful death.  This is all the while you're trying to keep your job because this sucks up a lot of time and your company will probably want to get rid of the "gun nut" in their midst.  That's more the reality if you talk to people who have actually had to do this.  It's enough of a disincentive that it's really a last resort and running away and avoiding conflict is a better thing to do.

And Jihadists' M.O. isn't mass shootings w/ guns.  It's blowing stuff up.  It's making you wonder whether that sports event you're at is safe.  It's making you wonder if the subway (tube for you UK folks) is safe.  It's making you wonder if your friendly neighbor is a nutjob who's about to "go off" on a killing spree.  They could shoot people, but easy to build bombs is a much easier/cheaper way to accomplish all that...if you haven't read the "how-to" instructions on yahoo's stupid news story, look at it and tell me a typical high school kid can't build it using gasoline or a propane tank (because they'll no doubt try to ban fireworks in every state instead of MA now because something has to be blamed for bad behavior and banning inanimate stuff "always" stops bad behavior)-:

Apr 24 13 07:31 am Link

Photographer

Rick OBanion Photo

Posts: 1351

Saint Catharines-Niagara, Ontario, Canada

Some of the Canon point and shoot have 50x lenses now...much more reach than most DSLR lenses.

Apr 24 13 07:32 am Link

Photographer

Christopher Hartman

Posts: 54153

Buena Park, California, US

ChiMo wrote:
What's interesting is what with all the hype of random civilians photos assisting in ID'ing the suspects, there isn't a call to "Please bring all your cameras!!!"

Of course, I'm being absurd. But it's still amusing.

Maybe they SHOULD be encouraging cameras.  That way, if anything DOES happen, the odds of someone capturing the act and the those responsible are increased significantly.

I don't believe the marathon bombers realized this.  Think about...without all the photo evidence that came up...they'd have very likely gotten away with this!  or at least would not have been caught yet as it would have taken a much longer investigation.

Apr 24 13 07:40 am Link