Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Discrimination  (Read 7304 times)
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6180


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« on: December 06, 2011, 01:23:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Just when you thought for a brief moment that stupidity is not infinite after all, there will always be someone to prove you wrong: DSLRs banned
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 10:19:53 PM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2011, 03:25:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Just when you thought for a brief moment that stupidity is not infinitesimal after all, there will always be someone to prove you wrong: DSLRs banned




Clever marketing, Leica!

Rob C
Logged

Gary Brown
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 211


« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2011, 11:38:26 AM »
ReplyReply

There's another item here with quotes from a spokesperson trying (not particularly successfully) to explain it: "Tight schedule" forced ban on DSLRs, says London Transport Museum.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8343



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2011, 04:29:22 PM »
ReplyReply

They might have granted exclusive coverage rights to a photography studio who demanded exclusivity?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Brian Hirschfeld
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 817



WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2011, 05:16:42 PM »
ReplyReply


Clever marketing, Leica!

Rob C

Hehe that made me chuckle,
Logged

www.brianhirschfeldphotography.com / www.flickr.com/brianhirschfeldphotography
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leica / Nikon / Hasselblad / Mamiya ~ Proud IQ180 owner
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2011, 06:47:41 PM »
ReplyReply

That's pretty typical. Many tourist attractions limit the use of "professional" gear, not always limited to just tripods. Any "pro-looking" gear marks you as a pro, and they expect you to either pay for a property release or at least a permit, and/or to waste their precious time by actually taking time to take your photos.

But it does sound like as enlightened as the (de facto) ban on "assault" rifles in the US - but let's not belabor that point further.

Yet another reason to move to MFT Smiley
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1987


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 07, 2011, 04:41:47 AM »
ReplyReply

They might have granted exclusive coverage rights to a photography studio who demanded exclusivity?
No.
London Underground are VERY protective of their IP, in particular the underground logo. They also try to tightly control what images of the system are allowed to be published.
It's a combination of concerns, including terrorism, security, commercial interests and limiting unauthorised filming.
Photography is banned(only allowed by prior permission) within the system as a whole. Although many tourists get away with quick grabbed shots, try and take anything more considered and you're very likely to be stopped by their staff within a minute or two as every area is rigorously watched by CCTV.

Curious that they should pick on DSLRs at Aldwych as it's been so widely used before for filming and photography in the past. I'd guess it's just trying to keep people moving to allow the most people through the station whilst it's open to the public(it's not usually as it's been closed for many years), a few photographers stopping to take photos seriously can slow throughput down a lot.
Overall it's just another annoyance, but it's more easily justified than say the ban on any photography in other major buildings eg St Pauls cathedral
Logged
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #7 on: December 07, 2011, 11:27:07 AM »
ReplyReply

every area is rigorously watched by CCTV.

Irony?  Hypocrisy?  Or just business as usual for most governments?  Roll Eyes
Logged

Dean Erger
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2885



WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2011, 11:37:58 AM »
ReplyReply

For an amusing follow-up see this
Logged

DennisWilliams
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2011, 02:34:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Why on earth would you consider this discrimination?  As if  photographers are some protected class. Amateur photographers at that since a pro would simply get a permit.

It's controlled property and they don't want to deal with every joe with 24fps and auto focus jamming up the works and the easiest and most efficient response from their perspective is to ban DSLRs.  Makes perfect sense to me.

Another option I see regularly is to ban cameras with interchangeable lenses but that requires more training to enforce.  That's when a Fuji GW670lll comes in handy. Learn the rules. Play by the rules. Win the game and take week ends off.   Grin
 
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6180


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2011, 03:27:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Why on earth would you consider this discrimination?...

Discrimination against DSLRs vs. SLRs vs. rangefinders vs. a bunch of other acronyms (EVIL, CSC, etc.), which can equally easily have either a "high-quality sensor" or "high resolution" or both. Besides, the title is tongue-in-cheek.

But, since it makes perfect sense for you, what "high-quality sensors" or "high resolution" have to do with "jamming up the works"!?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Gary Brown
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 211


« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2011, 03:59:00 PM »
ReplyReply

What do "high-quality sensors" or "high resolution" have to do with "jamming up the works"!?

Perhaps they theorize that big, high-resolution sensors capture more photons than smaller cameras, causing the room to darken and jamming up the works when people can't see where they're going.
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2011, 04:11:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Why on earth would you consider this discrimination?  As if  photographers are some protected class.

Photographers aren't a protected class. All people should be protected from capricious and pointless rules meant to protect us from the latest pedoph.. I mean Sasquat... or was it Nessi... naah I think it was terrorists this time around.
Logged

Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1476



WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 07, 2011, 09:53:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Just when you thought for a brief moment that stupidity is not infinitesimal after all, there will always be someone to prove you wrong: DSLRs banned
Funny, Iran has exactly the same limitations.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8205



WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 07, 2011, 10:55:25 PM »
ReplyReply

For an amusing follow-up see this
That makes at least as much sense as the original sign.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6512



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 08, 2011, 07:03:45 AM »
ReplyReply

It's just the usual bunch of bureaucrats doing their ignorant thing. It's pretty obvious they haven't a clue about cameras or photography.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #16 on: December 08, 2011, 12:38:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, I know it's fashionable on this forum to attack any sign of authority or of restriction on photograhy, but doesn't it occur to anyone that large cameras and tripods, especially tripods, can be a damned nuisance in various instances, the confines of a tube station being one such. I assume we are talking about an Underground stop? I'm not terribly au fait with London, going there only when unavoidable.

No point in discussing security from a terrorist point of view - already know there are a zillion replies trundled out in such cases, some as spurious as some of the objections, in fact. Simply different and irreconcilable opinions. Anyway, since the authorities in question own the sites I'd have imagined they had some rights in the matter, but obviously not...

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1476



WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 08, 2011, 12:43:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Discrimination against DSLRs vs. SLRs vs. rangefinders vs. a bunch of other acronyms (EVIL, CSC, etc.), which can equally easily have either a "high-quality sensor" or "high resolution" or both. Besides, the title is tongue-in-cheek.

But, since it makes perfect sense for you, what "high-quality sensors" or "high resolution" have to do with "jamming up the works"!?

Can an inanimate object really be discriminated against?   Huh   
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6180


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 08, 2011, 12:54:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Can an inanimate object really be discriminated against?   Huh   

From a dictionary:

"make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things"
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6180


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 08, 2011, 12:57:54 PM »
ReplyReply

... but doesn't it occur to anyone that large cameras and tripods, especially tripods, can be a damned nuisance...

Rob, where did you find any mention of "large cameras" or "tripods" in the sign in question?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad