johnbuckley Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share #21 Posted February 25, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) And all I wanted to do was to take my camera into a three-days festival of psychedelic bands and -- while listening -- be free to take pics of all the colorful characters.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Hi johnbuckley, Take a look here Kit To Bring To Festival That Doesn't Allow "Pro Cameras". I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stunsworth Posted February 25, 2015 Share #22 Posted February 25, 2015 ...but they'd have to ban the phones too so it won't happen, unfortunately. The Eagles ban phones at Australian show | General News | Hollywood.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 25, 2015 Share #23 Posted February 25, 2015 And all I wanted to do was to take my camera into a three-days festival of psychedelic bands and -- while listening -- be free to take pics of all the colorful characters.... Do, and I'm sure you'd be absolutely fine with a Leica M - most people will think your into Lomography! Festivals can be great places for candid photography of people around and about, I just find myself ever more irritated by people filming a whole gig/set with their bloody phones/cameras aloft blocking everyone's view with a glare of LCD's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 25, 2015 Share #24 Posted February 25, 2015 The Eagles ban phones at Australian show | General News | Hollywood.com I'm impressed! Good for them. I watched a film of the Queen Wembley gig from the 80's (which I was at) a few months ago - what struck me was how dark the stadium was - no lights apart from the stage. Compare that to the view of most gigs today! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted February 25, 2015 Share #25 Posted February 25, 2015 What about respect for other festival goers who would rather watch/listen to the acts without people pushing in front to get some crappy worthless snap, or worse holding their camera above their head standing in front of you while they click aimlessly away? Even worse is the wall of light of LCD screens at night/inside which makes it even harder to see what's going on onstage. Personally I'd ban all cameras from such events, but they'd have to ban the phones too so it won't happen, unfortunately. Oh, okay - now I understand: The rights of non-photographers trump the rights of photographers at such events, even though the photographer paid just as much for his/her ticket as the non-photographer did. Got it. I would hazard a guess that the real issue with venues, concert promoters and performers is not whether ticket buyers have an enjoyable experience. It is about the fact that a concert goer with a camera might possibly make a photo and end up making a few dollars with it - the venue, concert promoters and performers would be deprived of what they have decided is their right - to wring every last dollar possible out of the concert goers and other music fans. If an enjoyable experience for one and all were the goal, the promoters would ban ALL photographic devices - cameras, iPads and phones. They would toss anyone who violates the policy out on their ass. But they don't. It would piss off too many people, concert/festival attendance would decline and they would not get to make bales of cash. Photographers with cameras are easy targets; concert goers with iPhones are not. Throw photographers with cameras under the bus because doing so does not threaten the venue/promoter/performer cash flow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted February 26, 2015 Share #26 Posted February 26, 2015 Oh, okay - now I understand: The rights of non-photographers trump the rights of photographers at such events, even though the photographer paid just as much for his/her ticket as the non-photographer did. Got it. And rightly so if exercising those rights would mean that the non-photographers have their view significantly impeded. Your complaint, whilst concerning a much less serious matter, is analogous to asserting that it is unreasonable to expect the rights of non-smokers (to enjoy a smoke-free atmosphere) to trump those of smokers (to have a smoke) when both have the same entitlement to be in a particular place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted February 26, 2015 Share #27 Posted February 26, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) So which cameras could be put into the category of NOT (as in never) being used by pros I wonder:rolleyes:. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted February 26, 2015 Share #28 Posted February 26, 2015 So which cameras could be put into the category of NOT (as in never) being used by pros I wonder:rolleyes:. I dislike petty rules, especially if the hidden justification is for commercial reasons, but playing a game of geeky pedantry is tedious and, frankly, deserves all the highhanded jobsworthness that it would hopefully be met with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted February 26, 2015 Share #29 Posted February 26, 2015 And rightly so if exercising those rights would mean that the non-photographers have their view significantly impeded. Your complaint, whilst concerning a much less serious matter, is analogous to asserting that it is unreasonable to expect the rights of non-smokers (to enjoy a smoke-free atmosphere) to trump those of smokers (to have a smoke) when both have the same entitlement to be in a particular place. Your claim is nothing but complete and total bullshit and is a laughable attempt to compare apples and oranges. The term grasping at straws comes to mind. ...I dislike petty rules... Obviously not, since you are perfectly willing to throw photographers who use cameras that are "too big," lenses that are "too long" and equipment that looks "too professional" under the bus in a desperate attempt to win this debate at any cost. Banning supposedly "professional" cameras - which cannot even be objectively defined by the organizers - from an event while allowing camera phones and miniature cameras unrestricted use is an arbitrary, obnoxious and discriminatory policy. It is based not on consideration of festival and concertgoers but on the greed for control and maximum revenue of the organizers of the event. I'm done with this nonsense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted February 26, 2015 Share #30 Posted February 26, 2015 Your claim is nothing but complete and total bullshit and is a laughable attempt to compare apples and oranges. The term grasping at straws comes to mind. I think it is a sound analogy but I am not surprised if you are unable to see that. In any case, whatever happened to people showing a bit of common courtesy? Frankly, if there weren't so many idiots asserting their "rights" to be antisocial and obnoxious (and I am talking generally here, not just about people obsessively filming or photographing their life) there wouldn't need to be so many petty rules. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 26, 2015 Share #31 Posted February 26, 2015 Oh, okay - now I understand: The rights of non-photographers trump the rights of photographers at such events, even though the photographer paid just as much for his/her ticket as the non-photographer did. Got it. I wasn't going to respond to this as I though Ian's smoker analogy was perfect. If I buy a ticket to see a concert I'm paying to see/listen to the performers. In this case yes, I do think the rights of 'non-photographers' take priority. You're not buying a ticket to a photo shoot. Most venues/festivals issue passes to professional photographers who get access to special areas in front of and off stage. If you wish to go to an event primarily to photograph it then you should enquire about obtaining a pass. Yes, I do take cameras to festivals (not usually to indoor gigs), but I like to watch/listen to the performance rather than photograph it. I don't stand in the crowd camera above my head filming the whole thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naper Posted February 27, 2015 Share #32 Posted February 27, 2015 Last year I was denied entry into the Kentucky Derby with my M. I was stopped by a security guard ( I have no idea of his hourly rate ) for an inspecton of my camera. Once determined it had a removable lens I was asked to leave. After a lengthy discussion with the officials it was determined I did not pose a threat and was allowed to enter with my M. Not sure what the issue is with a removable lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 27, 2015 Share #33 Posted February 27, 2015 You might take it off the camera and knock somebody out with it, I guess.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert blu Posted February 27, 2015 Share #34 Posted February 27, 2015 Maybe ...that new famous pre-brassed Leica could do the trick at the entrance gate: it seems an "old poor man camera" from the grand father not a modern high tech professional tool robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted February 27, 2015 Share #35 Posted February 27, 2015 I agree that concert-going photographers can be obnoxious and deprive others of the experience they paid for. Unfortunately it fails as an explanation for why those rules apply only to "pro" cameras. Speaking with people I know in the entertainment business, the real reason is money. The higher the quality of photos, video and audio, the greater threat it poses to the cash flow from "official" photos, video and audio. (Which itself today gets pirated left and right.) So far the quality from P&S and cellphones hasn't quite got up to that point. But it's only a matter of time. My solution for concertgoing is a Panny ZS40 (TZ60 outside the USA). It is barely larger than a typical smartphone, black, has a 25-720mm effective optical zoom with OIS, and an EVF. The LCD can be switched off so it will not blaze in the faces of people behind when I take my eye away from the finder (like my Nex 6 does!). I waltz in with it in my pants pocket and have never been harassed for using it thus far. Sometimes the AF hunts a bit but otherwise the results have been awesome considering I paid $250 for it used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted February 27, 2015 Share #36 Posted February 27, 2015 It seems impossible for many people to go anywhere these days without a smart phone permanently held in front of them like some kind of protective talisman. How do they even know where they are going? Sometimes they don't and they walk slap bang in to you. They can be just as annoying as monster-lens DSLR toting "pro" photogs. Same kind of ban also applies for sports matches. And camera flashes continue to be a pest at big events. Novak Djokovic got distracted by a smart phone's flash in the men's final of the Aussie Open and asked the umpire to tell him to turn it off -- 100m a way or so. But try to enforce any of these rules -- it's nigh on impossible, people just ignore them! I don't think it's very fair blaming the poor old lowly-paid security man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert blu Posted February 28, 2015 Share #37 Posted February 28, 2015 When I was young we went to concerts to enjoy the music, the sound, the event. Now (too many decades later ) last time, a few weeks ago most of young generation where just there with (i)phones to record it and post instantaneously on FB or similar. I spent most of time with one hand on my face because I didn't like to be tagged on somebody's FB ! robert PS: I should add I like to take photo of musicians, mainly jazz. I ask permission to the organizers and when allowed I do it only during the sound check and always careful not to disturb them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted February 28, 2015 Share #38 Posted February 28, 2015 I would put in one pocket an Olympus E-M5 Mark II with a completely quiet shutter and amazing IBIS. In the other a small Leica lens with adapter. IBIS also enables to manually focus with a stabilized image. Of course, one could also use an AF Panasonic/Leica MFT lens instead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenhacker Posted March 2, 2015 Share #39 Posted March 2, 2015 In May, my wife and I are going to the Austin Psych Fest (bands like Tame Impala, The Jesus and Mary Chain, Spiritualized, and literally dozens of others we love.) Here is what their photo/camera policy is stated as: "If you are not an accredited member of the press, please do not bring pro video or photo gear into the festival. NO FLASH PHOTOGRAPHY. Please be respectful of those around you and keep your cameras and cell phones out of the air – they want to see the show! Thanks for understanding." I really want to bring a camera, not for taking long-distance shots of musicians, but close-ups of the crowd. I interpret their policy as being aimed at people coming in with big cameras and long lenses, and think if I go with my M with a 50 on it and a 28 in my backpack, I should be okay. Alternatively, I could bring in an X. But I want to bring an M, even though it is, of course, a pro camera. What do you think? Is this a properly "non pro" kit to the person who searches bags at the entrance? He/she should be clearing in 50,000 people per day. Any advice is welcome. As a professional photographer I face this situation regularly when I am not officially credentialed. The common rule of thumb is to limit the allowable camera to one without exchangeable lens' and a lens of three inches or less in length. This would seem to prohibit the use of your M but keep in mind that most who work security have never seen an M, don't know the lens is removable and are having to process thousands of attendees. My suggestion is to take the M and the X just in case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2015 Share #40 Posted March 2, 2015 Just go buy the new Lenny Kravitz MP Edition and cart that along. It looks a pretty well beat up camera and nothing like someone who wants to pose as a pro' would use…..and at $25K something of a steal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.