Forums >
Photography Talk >
DSLR banned from Churchill Downs
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 Apr 23 13 06:35 pm Link They totally misunderstood photo-bombing. Apr 23 13 06:39 pm Link 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 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 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 ChiMo wrote: 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?? Apr 23 13 06:50 pm Link 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 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 Will Snizek wrote: And of course extreme paranoia does not hurt the bottom line of the security industry. Apr 23 13 07:40 pm Link Marin Photography wrote: You think? Apr 23 13 07:42 pm Link "They" want to control everything. Cameras, guns, pressure cookers. What next? Apr 23 13 07:57 pm Link 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 Marin 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. Apr 23 13 08:19 pm Link Marin Photography wrote: Have been for a long time.... Apr 23 13 08:21 pm Link Marin Photography wrote: The Triboro (RFK) bridge has signs like that. You're not allowed to video or photograph from the bridge itself. Apr 23 13 08:55 pm Link Edge of the Moon wrote: Yeah, it's really getting out of control!.... Apr 23 13 09:04 pm Link Al Lock Photography wrote: 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 You wanna shoot sumpthin? You don't need a camera, you need a SHOTGUN! Just ask uncle Joe.......Buy a shotgun Apr 23 13 09:21 pm Link 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 Sounds like they are protecting some by take the rights away from others? Apr 23 13 10:01 pm Link Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote: Apr 23 13 10:13 pm Link RennsportPhotography wrote: Then they'll be begging for high quality photos after something goes down. Apr 23 13 10:20 pm Link 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 Marin Photography wrote: No, useless officials trying to justify their own existence are winning. Apr 24 13 12:24 am Link 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 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 Al Lock Photography 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. Apr 24 13 01:35 am Link RennsportPhotography wrote: 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 S A L I N G E R wrote: shh. that legislation protects us from getting too many emails no one forces us to read. Apr 24 13 04:09 am Link 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 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 Mickey Rountree wrote: 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: We speaketh the same language! Apr 24 13 04:41 am Link Contrary to popular opinion, no tripods were used on 9/11. Apr 24 13 06:44 am Link 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 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: Apr 24 13 06:54 am Link 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 Preime Photography wrote: Wow. Gun-phobic much? :-O Apr 24 13 07:31 am Link 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 ChiMo wrote: 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. Apr 24 13 07:40 am Link |