Professional cameras not allowed

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:01:31 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

Why do you feel dslrs are not allowed?

From what I understand of Alfred's OP, the the "professional Type
Camera monitor" decreed his DSLR to be a "professional type" camera,
and advised him that he was not permitted to use it.

From the OP:
"Took a shot with a DSLR and was
immediately approached by some clerk who told me that DSLRs are not
allowed and pointed to board where it was written that "professional
cameras are not allowed..."."

Yes, but the question is about why "professional cameras" are not
allowed. The question is not about professional photographers, but
the camera.

nope. it's about professional photographers and the usage of the photos.

You keep coming up with these pronouncements of what it's about
without the slightest damned idea of what it's about. You're
ascribing motivation to a person you don't know or know anything
about.

the restrictions are because of how the photos might be used. ask any
pro photographer. they deal with this all the time.

This about "any" situation. You are making assertions as if they are
based on fact about a specific situation at a cafe in Jakarta,
Indonesia.

ok fine, we don't know about this *one* particular cafe. maybe the
owner is doing it solely to **** off customers because as a child, his
parents ****ed him off because they didn't buy him a fancy slr and now
he wants to get back at the world.

meanwhile, everywhere else that has these types of restrictions is
about commercial use of the photos, and the way they determine if the
photographer is pro or not is if it's an slr or p&s, or if a tripod is
used. as i said, it's not a perfect method but it's simple.

You are not presenting facts.

i've presented facts which is a lot more than i can say about you.

It's like your ridiculous
assertions about laptop market share as observed in coach on an
airplane flight. You project things that have no basis in fact as if
they do.

it's just another data point and it matches what's going on in the rest
of the industry. you're just sorry you didn't think of it first.

actually, i got the idea from peter lynch, the very famous fidelity
mutual fund manager. apparently you must think his management skills
have no basis in fact either. just think how successful he could have
been if he knew what he was doing.

just because you've never encountered it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I don't think it doesn't exist. I just don't think it necessarily
exists in this particular situation.

i definitely do.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I ran into that same rule at a racetrack in PA. It seems the local track
pro doesn't want competition. I thought about making a deal with the
pro, but decided the photo ops wasn't worth the effort.

that's another reason. they have a deal with a particular photographer
who wants to sell the photos to the patrons. this is common at sports
events, such as at high school and college.

On 8/17/2012 11:20 AM, tony cooper wrote:


snip


All photographers seem to think that any rule that impedes them is
wrong, but don't think that other people impose these rules because
not having the rule causes them a problem.

Most places are friendly to photographers, until one or more of them
abuses the privilege through rude behavior.
e.g
Intruding on the privacy of others;
Flash interference;
pushing non-photographers out of the way;
blocking areas, etc.


--
Peter

On 2012-08-17 10:37:13 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:07:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-08-17 09:56:45 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:16:12 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , tony cooper
says...
It could be that the man Alford says is there to turn away dslr
photographers is there because so many non-customers come up just to
photograph. Why should a business owner want that? How much did
Alford spend at the cafe the day he was turned down?

Here are some shots of this cafe I took with the smartphone:
http://www.molon.de/images/Jakarta_cafe_1.jpg
http://www.molon.de/images/Jakarta_cafe_2.jpg

The cafe had a big terrace with a view and many people were posing with
the skyline background. Lots of people were actually taking pictures,
most were using smartphones or tablets.

I bought a drink and a dessert for a total of 103000 IDR (= 9 Euro/ USD
11). I could have left after taking some photos with the smartphone,
without ordering anything but I was hungry and wanted to see the sunset
from the terrace.
The view was not so great due to the heavy haze which there is in
Jakarta right now (it's a tropical country, but it hasn't rained for two
weeks and there is a lot of pollution).

Without knowing the layout of the premises, it's possible that going
to the window for photography intrudes on the people at nearby tables.
Or, if there is a space between tables and window, that's fewer tables
generating revenue.

It was actually a large terrace, with ample space for posing or shooting
photos.

The view from this place is actually not too impressive, so I doubt
large number of professionals would come to this place to get a skyline
shot.

You've added things, not in your first post, that kinda change the
situation. That the layout is an outside terrace, and not at the
window, changes the situation.

You got a bargain. I don't think you could buy a drink and a dessert
anywhere in the US with a city view for $11 unless the city was Enid,
Oklahoma or similar. Of course, in the US, the amount would include a
tip.

Why do you feel dslrs are not allowed?

From what I understand of Alfred's OP, the the "professional Type
Camera monitor" decreed his DSLR to be a "professional type" camera,
and advised him that he was not permitted to use it.

From the OP:
"Took a shot with a DSLR and was
immediately approached by some clerk who told me that DSLRs are not
allowed and pointed to board where it was written that "professional
cameras are not allowed..."."

Yes, but the question is about why "professional cameras" are not
allowed. The question is not about professional photographers, but
the camera. Anyone can own a "professional camera", but everyone
owning one is not a professional.

I don't know the training program that the cafe employee went through,
but I sincerely doubt if the training included the difference between
an entry level dslr and the model of camera that a professional would
use.

I also doubt if the person who decided what the sign says makes that
distinction. It is most probable that both the person who decided the
wording of the sign, and the employee who guards against the use of
particular cameras, mentally separates point and shoots from dslrs,
and includes dslr-look-alike cameras with non-interchangeable lenses
as "professional cameras". The distinction is probably "big cameras,
no" and "little cameras, yes".

Agreed. The restaurant and the "Professional Camera Monitor" probably
have no idea of the photography credentials of any individual shooting
photos from their terrace. All they know is that cameras that look like
DSLRs are used by professional photographers, and for whatever reason,
they are not going to allow professional photographers to shoot in
their restaurant.

I ask Alfred, again, why he thinks the rule is in effect.

Just as I have no idea what you might be thinking at any given time, I
doubt that Alfred has any special insights into the motives, or
thinking of the restaurant management, or the "Professional Camera
Monitor".




--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 8/17/2012 12:47 PM, RichA wrote:
On Aug 17, 10:27 am, otter wrote:
On Aug 17, 1:43 pm, Alfred Molon wrote:

I need to get a good compact for use in places where "professional"
cameras are not allowed. Happened to me today in a cafe on the 56th
floor of a skyscraper in Jakarta, Indonesia (the Skye cafe in case you
are interested). There was a view of Jakarta, not a great one, but at
least some view not through glass. Took a shot with a DSLR and was
immediately approached by some clerk who told me that DSLRs are not
allowed and pointed to board where it was written that "professional
cameras are not allowed...".

In other words you were not allowed to take a photo of the view of
Jakarta from this cafe if you were using a professional camera.

That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?

They may. If someone puts up a huge building in front of them, they
could sue because of the lost view, "enjoyment of their property" or
loss of "patron's enjoyment." It's been done before. But today,
businesses are ravenous to protect any possible form of income stream,
physical, intellectual, etc.


Wrong. At least in NY there is no such thing as an easement for light
and air. I think, but do not know, as you seem to, there are similar
laws on most States.

--
Peter

On 2012-08-17 10:57:44 -0700, Joe Kotroczo said:

On 17/08/2012 18:37, tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:07:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

(...)
Yes, but the question is about why "professional cameras" are not
allowed. The question is not about professional photographers, but
the camera. Anyone can own a "professional camera", but everyone
owning one is not a professional.

I don't know the training program that the cafe employee went through,
but I sincerely doubt if the training included the difference between
an entry level dslr and the model of camera that a professional would
use.

Do you think the G4S security guards or the soldiers guarding the
Olympics are qualified to make the distinction between a "professional
camera" and a hobbyist camera?

And yet "professional cameras" were prohibited.

Not for credentialed professional photographers they weren't. All the
security guard or soldier had to do was check the credential hanging
from the photog's neck, and it doesn't matter what he brings into the
stadium.


He

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/538956/olympic-chiefs-don-t-bring-any-detachable-lens-camera-to-wembley-update

"That's

the stark message from Olympics chiefs who have today warned spectators
not to bring 'any' cameras with detachable lenses into Wembley Stadium
in case they breach rules by looking ‘professional'. "

and

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2191402/london-2012-olympic-games-organisers-refuse-to-clarify-photography-rules-in-advance

So

they don't get that tourists and photo-hobbyists also use DSLR's and
cameras with detachable lenses. I guess that makes them just as
ignorant regarding photographic equipment as the average
non-photographer.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-08-17 16:17:20 -0700, tony cooper said:

Le Snip

I take photos like this at the track:
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animal...1-30-09-X2.jpg

What

is this? Tony playing with effects!!
Nice capture regardless.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animal...8_5f4WL-X2.jpg

....and this is a great capture. Good work.
I think this one might have great B&W potential.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

This about "any" situation. You are making assertions as if they are
based on fact about a specific situation at a cafe in Jakarta,
Indonesia.

ok fine, we don't know about this *one* particular cafe. maybe the
owner is doing it solely to **** off customers because as a child, his
parents ****ed him off because they didn't buy him a fancy slr and now
he wants to get back at the world.

So, in other words, you admit you don't know a damned thing about the
place under discussion, that you are straying far afield saying things
that everyone already knows and agrees with, that your comments have
nothing to do with this thread, and you're just babbling.

talking about yourself again?

what i'm saying is that this particular cafe does not appear to be any
different than any other place that has restrictions on pro cameras.

do you have any evidence at all that this one lone cafe in indonesia is
the only place that bans slrs for some *other* reason than why they're
banned elsewhere?? didn't think so.

you're arguing for the sake of arguing, as always.

On 2012-08-17 17:46:17 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:20:10 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-08-17 16:17:20 -0700, tony cooper said:

Le Snip

I take photos like this at the track:
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animal...1-30-09-X2.jpg

What

is this? Tony playing with effects!!

Of course I do. Photoshop is my playground. No plug-ins, though.
Nice capture regardless.


http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animal...8_5f4WL-X2.jpg

...and this is a great capture. Good work.
I think this one might have great B&W potential.

Thanks.

I do do some b&w track shots:

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Animal...1-30-04-X2.jpg

Aah!

The Cooper target bench. ;-)


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:46:40 -0400, tony cooper wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:25:57 -0700, Irwell wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:11:24 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

On 2012-08-17 07:55:12 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:27:48 -0700 (PDT), otter
wrote:

On Aug 17, 1:43*pm, Alfred Molon wrote:
I need to get a good compact for use in places where "professional"
cameras are not allowed. Happened to me today in a cafe on the 56th
floor of a skyscraper in Jakarta, Indonesia (the Skye cafe in case you
are interested). There was a view of Jakarta, not a great one, but at
least some view not through glass. Took a shot with a DSLR and was
immediately approached by some clerk who told me that DSLRs are not
allowed and pointed to board where it was written that "professional
cameras are not allowed...".

In other words you were not allowed to take a photo of the view of
Jakarta from this cafe if you were using a professional camera.

That's amazing. It would be interesting to know where this rule came
from. Maybe they think they own the rights to the view?

They certainly own the rights to what you do when you are standing in
their property.

I think what they want you to do when you are standing in their
property is, leave money.

Which is what they do at the Tour Montparnasse in Paris,
the restaurant/coffee bar is on a level with the Eiffel tower
about 2/3 miles away. To go to the observation deck a person
has to take the elevator and pay a hefty fee, but they can go to
the restaurant for free, but are obliged to buy an expensive meal
or an equally expensive cup of coffee. Taking a photgraph is free?

Is this wrong, in your opinion?
No.

Should you be able to go to the observation deck for free, or to the
restaurant without ordering anything, in order to take a photograph?
No.

If the owner of the Jakarta cafe decided to set aside an area for
photographers to take photographs of the city view with any type of
camera, but charged an admission fee to that area, would that be
wrong?
No.