login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > DSLR banned from Churchill Downs Search   Reply
first12
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,736
Buena Park, California, 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?

When did that happen?  Is that only in the Bronx?  I was in NYC in 2007 and walked up and down the Brooklyn Bridge and took photos.

Apr 24 13 07:41 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Z_Photo
Posts: 6,896
Huntsville, Alabama, US


MMDesign wrote:
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).

last year after buying F1 tickets  i got a message the circuit of the americas in austin sent out stating that lenses over a certain length would not be permitted for the F1 event.  i called and eventually got to the people who made the decision and discussed it.  after a couple days they changed the rule and allowed long lenses in the track for the F1 race.

perhaps if people contact them the rule can be rescinded.  don't be an ass about it, but rather simply state the case.

Apr 24 13 07:41 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 53,736
Buena Park, California, US


Herman Surkis wrote:

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?

"Ever since 9/11" will now change to, "Sorry, ever since Boston..."

Apr 24 13 07:43 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Z_Photo
Posts: 6,896
Huntsville, Alabama, US


remember that speech with the comments that "the United States will not be intimidated" (or whatever the wording was)? guess again.  the people may not be but the govt sure is
Apr 24 13 07:45 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MMDesign
Posts: 18,647
Louisville, Kentucky, US


Z_Photo wrote:

last year after buying F1 tickets  i got a message the circuit of the americas in austin sent out stating that lenses over a certain length would not be permitted for the F1 event.  i called and eventually got to the people who made the decision and discussed it.  after a couple days they changed the rule and allowed long lenses in the track for the F1 race.

perhaps if people contact them the rule can be rescinded.  don't be an ass about it, but rather simply state the case.

Who are you to tell me not to be an ass!??



smile

Apr 24 13 09:38 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 37,484
Portland, Oregon, US


Something tells me this is about profit and controlling professional quality images so they can get their cut of the action and the security claim is just the bullshit explanation they are giving.

They are not telling the truth. 

I've never heard of a camera bomb, and obviously photo bombs are something else entirely.
Apr 24 13 09:48 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,113
Tampa, Florida, 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.

No, you're not at all. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the highest quality/best image of the Boston bombing suspect provided by one of the runners with his iPhone? The FBI saw the image and contacted him because he was the only one who had that good of an image. We saw that image on every news outlet and it was used to identify the suspect.

And I don't recall, in any of these tragedies or acts of terrorism, that the perpetrator had a camera with them. They did, however, have backpacks and hoodies. Maybe those should be outlawed. And I think they had firearms...maybe...oh, nevermind, that would just be crazy.

Apr 24 13 09:49 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MC Photo
Posts: 4,144
New York, New York, US


I bet the policy was written before the marathon and they're just referencing it because they think people will be wondering if they've done anything in response.

I don't believe that anyone in law enforcement connected to the marathon has taken the time to talk to the Kentucky Derby people since the bombing. Maybe in another week.


Considering that cellphones can be used to set off bombs, that's what really needs to be banned.
Apr 24 13 12:52 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David Parsons
Posts: 972
Quincy, Massachusetts, US


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.

They can't take away your liberties.  They aren't the government.

What they can do is restrict what you can do on their property.

Apr 24 13 02:35 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,516
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


Living on the edge in paranoid America

http://www.novacon.com.br/lenses04a_arquivos/image004.jpg

http://www.novacon.com.br/lenses04a_arquivos/image010.jpg

Will you get your shot .............. or be shot?

Studio36

EDIT: Would be interesting to see if you could get this past TSA at an airport as a carry-on.
Apr 25 13 12:15 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MC Seoul Photography
Posts: 388
Seoul, Seoul, Korea (South)


DougBPhoto wrote:
Something tells me this is about profit and controlling professional quality images so they can get their cut of the action and the security claim is just the bullshit explanation they are giving.

They are not telling the truth. 

I've never heard of a camera bomb, and obviously photo bombs are something else entirely.

the whole concern is that people would use high quality cameras to get images that would allow them to plan an attack later.

Apr 25 13 01:29 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DC Chavez
Posts: 350
Redondo Beach, California, US


MC Seoul Photography wrote:

the whole concern is that people would use high quality cameras to get images that would allow them to plan an attack later.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17yvocrdmgn8ijpg/xlarge.jpg

This is ridiculous.  Buy one of these.  24MP 14bit RAW images and its a fixed lens.  I think you can skirt around the rules and still take great photos.  Or even a Fuji X20 if you want a zoom lens...  There are always ways around the rules...

Apr 25 13 02:19 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Brian Scanlon
Posts: 786
Encino, 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.

It comes down to that the powers that be feel they have to do something to show that they are doing something to protect people or they will be out of a job.  No matter that the measures have absolutely no effect.

Apr 25 13 03:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AtomicPenguin
Posts: 449
New York, New York, US


Preime Photography wrote:
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.

So you came to a thread where people are concerned about waning constitutional rights and whine about our freedom?

Apr 25 13 04:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
FJR Photography
Posts: 6,534
Pekin, Indiana, US


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

Right with you, can't go to the Derby with my camera, won't go the rest of the season either.

Apr 25 13 04:12 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MC Seoul Photography
Posts: 388
Seoul, Seoul, Korea (South)


DC Chavez wrote:

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17yvocrdmgn8ijpg/xlarge.jpg

This is ridiculous.  Buy one of these.  24MP 14bit RAW images and its a fixed lens.  I think you can skirt around the rules and still take great photos.  Or even a Fuji X20 if you want a zoom lens...  There are always ways around the rules...

I know it's ridiculous. Just conveying the logic they use. The same reason they don't want you taking pictures of buildings and bridges.
The real reason is that they are morons.

Apr 25 13 05:45 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,521
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


I have no proof for my theory, but I'm with those who think it has nothing to do with recent security and everything to do with limiting access by photographers to an event.


but if i wanted to be a paranoid conspiracy theorists hiding a bomb inside a Derby horse would do it.
Apr 25 13 06:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6,153
Los Angeles, California, US


If you really want to know why horse race courses do not want long lenses on their tracks take a look at this website:

http://www.horsedeathwatch.com/

There are many things they do not want you to see.

The horse death rate in the US is significantly higher.
Apr 25 13 06:16 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,521
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


Fred Greissing wrote:
If you really want to know why horse race courses do not want long lenses on their tracks take a look at this website:

http://www.horsedeathwatch.com/

There are many things they do not want you to see.

The horse death rate in the US is significantly higher.

that makes a lot of sense in general, but this race is extremely public and televised with multiple cameras watching the entire track.  It would be difficult for anything TV-worthy to escape being captured.  For the rest of the races that nobody outside the scene has heard about, I totally buy it.

Apr 25 13 06:21 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
James Morgan aka Maddog
Posts: 102
Burlison, Tennessee, US


It's a money grab.. they say it's for security.. but in actuality all they want is more money.  You can't bring coolers and Thermos because they want you to have to buy the overcharged drinks at the concessions:, You can't have a camera because they want you to buy the photographs from them that they've approved.   If they tried to ban all cameras (including the ones on Cell phones and from the Press), this story would be right behind the Boston Marathon Bombing on the news and the outrage would be enormous.

Only one case of a bomb inside a camera has ever been done.. Sept 8th 2001,, just before the 9/11 bombing.. two Al-Quida operatives killed a Northern Alliance Warlord by inviting him to a fake interview.. the bomb was inside a large professional video camera used by news crews.  Never has a DSLR, SLR, or handheld videocamera ever been used to make a bomb.

What all the security dorks have is too much time watching cheesy terrorist movies where terrorists always prescout their targets and take thousands of photos.   In actuality.. they get the information off google maps or something like that.  They never take photos or do maps, so that if their hideouts are raided, their targets are not alerted.   Tim McVeigh didn't take photos of the Murrah Building (which I had two job interviews in), None of the 9/11 bombers took photos of the world trade centers, Eric Rudolph didn't take pictures of Olympic Park, if you think I'm lying.. FIND ONE INSTANCE OF A TERRORIST ATTACK IN THE PAST TWO DECADES THAT WAS PRESCOUTED WITH A CAMERA.
Apr 25 13 06:24 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6,153
Los Angeles, California, US


AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
that makes a lot of sense in general, but this race is extremely public and televised with multiple cameras watching the entire track.  It would be difficult for anything TV-worthy to escape being captured.  For the rest of the races that nobody outside the scene has heard about, I totally buy it.

Most of the deaths are collapses post race. They collapses are also nastier for the public to swallow because the on track deaths are passed off as accidents. However they are far from it. These wonderful animals are pushed to unacceptable limits and treated like dirt bikes.

Some horeses "explode" on the track, but many fracture beyond repair and are put down out of the public's eye.

Apr 25 13 07:30 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kincaid Blackwood
Posts: 23,293
Atlanta, Georgia, US


It'll be fun times when we move into the age of Google Glass
Apr 25 13 10:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 15,767
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand


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.

Are you trained in bridge destruction via explosives? I have been involved in dropping a bridge with explosives (over the Ohio River near Cincinnati). The photos we took during the planning phase were of much more use than the blueprints. Seriously.

Apr 26 13 04:31 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MMDesign
Posts: 18,647
Louisville, Kentucky, US


James Morgan aka Maddog wrote:
It's a money grab.. they say it's for security.. but in actuality all they want is more money.  You can't bring coolers and Thermos because they want you to have to buy the overcharged drinks at the concessions.....

$8.00 cans of Heineken are a form of economic terrorism.

Apr 26 13 05:49 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mike Hemming
Posts: 355
Easton, Maryland, US


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

After Boston they were begging everyone to let them look at their photos.

Make up your mind Government Buttheads

Apr 26 13 05:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rp_photo
Posts: 42,488
Houston, Texas, US


MMDesign wrote:

$8.00 cans of Heineken are a form of economic terrorism.

With willing victims who choose to be exploited.

Apr 26 13 07:19 pm  Link  Quote 
first12   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers