No Photos Please

Sandy

When a venue requests that no photos be taken during a performance what do you do? Of course you would not use flash phottography, but do you sneak a few pics anyway?

marlinspike

Sandy wrote:

When a venue requests that no photos be taken during a performance what do you do? Of course you would not use flash phottography, but do you sneak a few pics anyway?

No, because I'm not a...well I don't want to use foul language.

claudermilk

No photos means no photos. If I have a camera with me, I put it away & enjoy the performance. I'll respect the request as I've been on the other side of that and had problems because of people who could not follow the simple instruction.

Flyinggina

Nope. I don't take pictures in those circumstances, but I have noticed that people with very small point and shoots and especially those with cellphones ignore the prohibition and snap away. Which, I confess, I find especially frustrating when I would dearly love to be able to take photographs myself.

The Louvre Museum in Paris has been increasing the number of galleries where photography is prohibited but that hasn't stopped the cellphone onslaught against which I have observed no enforcement. This makes me wonder how long they and other public plances will be able to enforce such bans - short of requiring everyone to check their phones and cameras at the door.

Oops. I just remembered that I did do it once. I took photos (no flash) of the original ancient Grecian horses inside St Peter's basicilca in Venice when I saw literally dozens of people doing the same. I can't justify it, but it is what I did.


Virginia

W.W. Webster

Sandy wrote:

When a venue requests that no photos be taken during a performance what do you do?

I wait until there is clear evidence for all to see that people are taking photos with cell phones, which is inevitably the case these days. Then I start taking photos with my 'proper' camera and, when challenged, agree to desist immediately action is also taken to stop the cell phone camera users. The organisers won't do it, because it's impractical, so you're home free!

Pixoul

Sandy wrote:

When a venue requests that no photos be taken during a performance what do you do? Of course you would not use flash phottography, but do you sneak a few pics anyway?

When a speed limit sign requests that you only drive 55 MPH what do you do? Of course you would not drive at 120 MPH, but do you drive a few miles per hour over the speed limit anyway?

gluwater

Pixoul wrote:

When a speed limit sign requests that you only drive 55 MPH what do you do? Of course you would not drive at 120 MPH, but do you drive a few miles per hour over the speed limit anyway?

Aparently you've never driven with Dragon300zx

JenGrace

I haven't been too many places where this is the case, except of course performances where they don't want flash to distract the audience and performers. One place that I would DEARLY have loved to take pictures but couldn't was inside the Grand Temple in Bangkok, where they had the Emerald Buddha. The outside was fair game though. I respected their rules...the cell phone thing drives me nuts sometimes. And I don't know if I'd be able to check my camera at the door. I'd probably just have to leave.

aktse

I believe no photos means no photos allowed. Just because you see other people taking pictures doesn't make it right. I believe most performances ban camera for two reason -- safety and an exclusive contracted photographer.

Was there a official photographer at the performance or another performance? I recently learned that the offical photographer might demand an exlcusive contract in which he or she is the only person with a camera at the venue. -- Hobbyist Photographer Ethical Dilemma

W.W. Webster

JenW wrote:

One place that I would DEARLY have loved to take pictures but couldn't was inside the Grand Temple in Bangkok, where they had the Emerald Buddha.

Me too, but I didn't. Respect for solemn occasions, personal privacy, and places of religious significance, etc by refraining from undertaking any photography in such places goes without saying. But at a rock concert, where there is no such condition of entry, and where dozens, if not hundreds, of cell phones are being used to take photos without sanction?

In my book, that's an entirely different matter!

Pixoul

gluwater wrote:

Aparently you've never driven with Dragon300zx

Ha! Nope, but I can guess from his username what he drives. Personally, I drive a fully-prepared Production GT ProRally Impreza.

Scott_Quier

Weddings. Even as the contracted photographer, if the official has requested no photos during portions of, or all of, a ceremony, I put the camera down and enjoy the events. It's part of my contract that I DON'T EVER violate the house rules.

All other occasions - again it's house rules. One either respects the rules or, my opinion, the individual in question has other, personal issues to deal with.

The "no photos" rule is rarely, if ever, arbitrarily imposed. It's usually invoked/asked to preserve the atmosphere, income for the contracted photog, or to preserve the quality of the displayed art work (flash will, eventually, burn and fad art work).

Drive 56+ in a 55? Yep, except in construction zones. There, I follow the posted speed limit and get all the folks behind me royally p!ssed at me. It's fun sometimes!

Fred Maurer

Never use flash!
Almost always take my camera if I am not sure about the policy. Frequently, if unsure, I will be discreet about bringing it in. If "no photographs" announced, put it away and enjoy the show. If no announcement, look around and see what is happening. If there are a hundred cell phones flashing, take it out and get a few shots. At a show once, there were hundreds of cells phones and point&shoots, I pulled out a 5D with a 70-200mm 2.8 lens and was "approached" within 2 minutes. Forced to delete photos from card. (My kids really enjoy telling that story!)

lynnesite

Scott_Quier wrote:

Weddings. Even as the contracted photographer, if the official has requested no photos during portions of, or all of, a ceremony, I put the camera down and enjoy the events. It's part of my contract that I DON'T EVER violate the house rules.

All other occasions - again it's house rules. One either respects the rules or, my opinion, the individual in question has other, personal issues to deal with.

The "no photos" rule is rarely, if ever, arbitrarily imposed. It's usually invoked/asked to preserve the atmosphere, income for the contracted photog, or to preserve the quality of the displayed art work (flash will, eventually, burn and fad art work).

I have to agree with Scott on all his points. I've been on both sides. To amplify one, in a performance the SLR shutter's click can be intensely disturbing to fellow audience members. I shot 5 public performances of Cavalia <http://www.cavalia.net&gt; for them, cameras banned, and the staff relocated paying audience members around me to better seats to spare them the annoyance, generally I had 2 seats in front, one on each side and 2 in back clear (a big investment on the their part, eh?) I was using a monopod and mostly was on my knees, sometimes using two cameras.

marlinspike

W.W. Webster wrote:

Me too, but I didn't. Respect for solemn occasions, personal privacy, and places of religious significance, etc by refraining from undertaking any photography in such places goes without saying. But at a rock concert, where there is no such condition of entry, and where dozens, if not hundreds, of cell phones are being used to take photos without sanction?

In my book, that's an entirely different matter!

So, stealing from a church would be wrong, but if there is a riot and other people are looting it is then ok to go to the electronics stores and steal a TV?

Harryb

JenW wrote:

I haven't been too many places where this is the case, except of course performances where they don't want flash to distract the audience and performers. One place that I would DEARLY have loved to take pictures but couldn't was inside the Grand Temple in Bangkok, where they had the Emerald Buddha. The outside was fair game though. I respected their rules...the cell phone thing drives me nuts sometimes. And I don't know if I'd be able to check my camera at the door. I'd probably just have to leave.

When I was in Bangkok (68-69) they allowed photgraphy inside the Grand Temple. Sad to see more restrictions being placed as we "progress".

richW

marlinspike wrote:

So, stealing from a church would be wrong, but if there is a riot and other people are looting it is then ok to go to the electronics stores and steal a TV?

Yes, but in only a few selected cites. Los Angeles being one of them...:D

re: No Photos
I'm a No means No person. Their house, their rules..

gus

marlinspike wrote:

So, stealing from a church would be wrong, but if there is a riot and other people are looting it is then ok to go to the electronics stores and steal a TV?

Ive thought about this a lot you know. Are you talking about a 50 inch plasma or an old flat screen CRT ?

wxwax

marlinspike wrote:

if there is a riot and other people are looting it is then ok to go to the electronics stores and steal a TV?

Not quite sure how the situations are analogous.

Sandy

Lynnesite, bet you got some awesome photos. They picked the right photographer. Very interesting comments. I have been to a few venues lately and have experienced the same thing, cell phone and P & S. However no pro cameras were allowed to shoot. I did have a press photo pass for K.T. Tungstall, but only the kit lense with me.

Seneca

I like to follow the rules and respect their wishes. No photos.

lynnesite

Sandy wrote:

Lynnesite, bet you got some awesome photos. They picked the right photographer. Very interesting comments. I have been to a few venues lately and have experienced the same thing, cell phone and P & S. However no pro cameras were allowed to shoot. I did have a press photo pass for K.T. Tungstall, but only the kit lense with me.

Thanks, Sandy! Another thing that occurs to me is that since a performance is a "product", the producers and performers want to be represented at their best. It's really easy to take bad pictures and absolutely litter the web/world with them. In my area, horses, the critters suffer greatly by being shot with a short lens. You can see it in newspaper stories around the world. Big noses, spindly legs. A breeder would have apoplexy to see their gazillion-dollar stallion presented that way, with name attached. When you see racehorse photos, you never see that distortion--those people know better. A friend took a p&s Cavalia shot and e-mailed it to me. It is the most gruesomely ugly, distorted view of one of the world's most magnificent horses. Yet she was happy with it.

claudermilk

lynnesite wrote:

I have to agree with Scott on all his points. I've been on both sides. To amplify one, in a performance the SLR shutter's click can be intensely disturbing to fellow audience members. I shot 5 public performances of Cavalia <http:> for them, cameras banned, and the staff relocated paying audience members around me to better seats to spare them the annoyance, generally I had 2 seats in front, one on each side and 2 in back clear (a big investment on the their part, eh?) I was using a monopod and mostly was on my knees, sometimes using two cameras.

Yup. I've been running into that lately (damn loud 20D shutter-- just feeds part of my lust for a Mk IIN). I'm looking into a muzzle for this year's events.
</http:>

cabbey

As with many others here, I always abide by their posted decision... their house/show, their rules. But I've actually been known to take it a step farther, and "remind" the cellphone paparazzi about the rules.

Once asking an usher at a break in the action (I was seated at the end of the row, so it was easy to get out to the ushers without disturbing many folks.) to please do something about the four teenagers in front of me that were constantly snapping pictures with their cell phones and showing them to each other, or sending them out to friends. In a dark theatre, the glare of those screens was really driving me nuts. (not to mention their reaction when I politely asked them to stop it.) The usher did stop by and ask them to stop shortly there after, and again a few minutes later. At the intermission the usher was going to throw them out, but only then did their parents take any notice and got all huffy about them harassing their kids. Once I knew their parents were in attendance as well, I took my issue up with dad, suggesting that if he had the bucks to shell out for four tickets for these four that clearly didn't care about the show he could pay compensation to the dozen of us that had been sitting behind them and been unable to enjoy the show due to his kids consistent cell phone screens shining in our eyes. Mom took away their cellphones at that point. The ladies sitting behind us thanked me on the way out.

Art Scott

r

When I was in Prague my camera went every where, thru all the parts of Prague Castle and then one an out to a local Zamek {Zamek Troja} I was asked at the front door to czech my camera....surprisingly in englsih by a person who had already told me Nerozumim anglicky (do not speak english)....I did czech my camera(s) Lowepro backpack and all....it was all in tack when returned at then end of my stay at Zamek Troja....I wil prevail in shooting the inside of that Palace when I return and have time to spend flirting with ladies at the front counter........wil probably cost me a dinner but I will succeed:D

As the Facilities manager at WSU I had to eject people from performances for dis-obeying the no camera rules and yes it is hard to get people to understand that the media gets special privailages.....

Seneca

Sandy wrote:

When a venue requests that no photos be taken during a performance what do you do? Of course you would not use flash phottography, but do you sneak a few pics anyway?

I haven't read everyone's replies...but if I asked someone not to smoke in my house...I would hope they would comply with my wishes. Not to be ugly...but no photos means - no photos. I would hate for someone to take my camera away if I got caught shooting. JMHO.

Seneca

Seneca wrote:

I haven't read everyone's replies...but if I asked someone not to smoke in my house...I would hope they would comply with my wishes. Not to be ugly...but no photos means - no photos. I would hate for someone to take my camera away if I got caught shooting. JMHO.

ETA: DIdn't realize I had already responded to this post. Sorry.