Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Being a Photographer > Travel

Travel This is the place you ask for travel advice, or share your own tips. Topics include destinations, sight seeing, and best / smartest ways for traveling with a camera.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

What's next? No cameras allowed anywhere?
Old 03-21-2017   #1
kkdanamatt
Registered User
 
kkdanamatt's Avatar
 
kkdanamatt is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 285
What's next? No cameras allowed anywhere?

Headline in today's N.Y. Times:
The U.S. has barred devices larger than a cellphone on American-bound foreign flights from 8 majority-Muslim countries.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #2
ruby.monkey
Registered User
 
ruby.monkey is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Garden of England
Age: 49
Posts: 4,555
Why do you think this has anything to do with cameras?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #3
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 3,560
Because it's an electric device, cameras are barred too. Though I wonder if a film camera would be OK?

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:
http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #4
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,594
Link does not work for me.

Ruby, they say electronic devices larger than a smart phone. So it can be interpreted as they will, including cameras.
On the upside, travel with a Leica M3, Nikon F etc. Film is back baby!
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #5
Hatchetman
Registered User
 
Hatchetman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 223
Take a film camera without a battery and you should be good to go.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #6
lynnb
Registered User
 
lynnb's Avatar
 
lynnb is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,459
Ha! Does anyone really think TSA or airline/airport security will actually believe a film camera is not an electronic device - particularly if it has an exposure meter with a switch, e.g. Olympus OM, or a digital readout in the viewfinder? I'm not certain people in those jobs would understand the concept of a mechanical camera, or "film"!
__________________
Lynn
happiest when shooting 35mm and 120 film
RFF Gallery
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #7
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,461
Exactly, look how many people selling cameras by the dozen (one at a time, obviously) don't know these things...

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #8
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 43
Posts: 3,957
If I ever find myself traveling to one of those countries, I'll make sure to take a small handheld light meter and a very large film camera. 4x5 or 8x10, nominally.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #9
daveleo
what?
 
daveleo's Avatar
 
daveleo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: People's Republic of Mass.
Posts: 3,686
I'm feeling a cozy warm rush of safety flowing through me.
__________________
Dave

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #10
kkdanamatt
Registered User
 
kkdanamatt's Avatar
 
kkdanamatt is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruby.monkey View Post
Why do you think this has anything to do with cameras?
The article specifically states that cameras larger than a cell phone fall into the category of electronic equipment that will no longer be allowed as carry on or included in checked baggage.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #11
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 70
Posts: 5,830
Hopefully pencils and watercolours should be allowed...time to learn drawing...

robert
PS: just kidding a little, but the reality is that life is getting more and more complicated...
__________________
Remember: today is the Day !
from Ruth Bernhard recipe for a long and happy life

my quiet photographer's blog

My RFF photos and my albums on RFF
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #12
ruby.monkey
Registered User
 
ruby.monkey is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Garden of England
Age: 49
Posts: 4,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkdanamatt View Post
The article specifically states that cameras larger than a cell phone fall into the category of electronic equipment that will no longer be allowed as carry on or included in checked baggage.
Please link to the article, then, because all the ones I've found state that all electronic devices larger than a cellphone - not just cameras - are banned.

Your title smacks of 'Aw, poor persecuted photographers!', when in reality cameras are only a tiny proportion of the items affected.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #13
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkdanamatt View Post
The article specifically states that cameras larger than a cell phone fall into the category of electronic equipment that will no longer be allowed as carry on or included in checked baggage.
Your link doesn't work (or maybe you didn't intend it to be a link) but the article I saw on another site said the prohibitions were just from carry-ons.... The devices would still be allowed in checked bags.
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #14
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,382
With this White House, every day brings something new. I wasn't aware of this because I finally had to stop reading the newspapers, which worked well! I have no idea what is going on politically anymore and do not much care either, so this was news to me.

As much as I do not like what is going on in D.C., this makes sense though. If it were up to me, I would allow passengers to fly w/ only what they had on, and send their stuff on ahead on a separate unmanned flight. In the end, it would save a fortune because a lot of security people could be let go of, and put a full stop to bombs on planes. As soon as passengers entered the airports, they would hand off all their luggage and possessions to specified people, walk through a metal detector, and they could catch up to their stuff once they landed. This would simplify everything.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #15
kxl
Social Documentary
 
kxl's Avatar
 
kxl is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 2,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
If I ever find myself traveling to one of those countries...

Phil Forrest
Traveling TO one of those countries from he US is not the issue. Coming back FROM one of those countries when flying one of the named airline is.

While putting your devices in checked luggage is an obvious inconvenience to a lot of good people, it doesn't really stop bad actors from going to a neighboring country and flying to the US. Electronics in checked luggage also seems like a huge temptation for would-be thieves who handle your luggage. Note that existing TSA rules do not allow your checked luggage to be locked.

This is going to be a mess...
__________________
Keith
My Flickr Albums
RFF feedback


"... I thought the only way to give us an incentive, to bring hope, is to show the pictures of the pristine planet - to see the innocence. ― Sebastiao Salgado
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #16
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 43
Posts: 3,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by kxl View Post
Traveling TO one of those countries from he US is not the issue.

Coming back FROM one of those countries when flying one of the named airline is.

This is going to be a mess...
Yes, I made my comment knowing that traveling to the country was not an issue but with the understanding that I would be coming back.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #17
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by kxl View Post
Traveling TO one of those countries from he US is not the issue.

Coming back FROM one of those countries when flying one of the named airline is.

This is going to be a mess...
Dear Keith,

Ah: a business opportunity at the airport: Honest Abdul's Used Cameras...

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #18
Brian Atherton
Registered User
 
Brian Atherton's Avatar
 
Brian Atherton is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Based in Blighty
Posts: 529
According to Reuters, this not just a US issue:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-bri...-idUKKBN16S1TM
__________________
Brian

"Maintenant, mon ami !"
http://www.asingulareye.wordpress.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #19
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,290
Attention to the passengers: your travel ban is sponsored by Kodak Alaris.

I'm using no electronics film camera (Leica) and smaller than mobile phone digital camera (old Panasonic compact) on trips for some time already. But for countries in the list, I would ban those cameras to myself and take Smena-8M and ten dollars mobile phone. To match adventure experience.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #20
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
Yes, I made my comment knowing that traveling to the country was not an issue but with the understanding that I would be coming back.

Phil Forrest
Dear Phil,

Alternatively:

A: Go somewhere else

and/or

B: Don't go back...

It's worked for me since 2006, the last time I was in the USA.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #21
Brian Atherton
Registered User
 
Brian Atherton's Avatar
 
Brian Atherton is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Based in Blighty
Posts: 529
The Beeb has announced this is now a UK ban:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39343971
__________________
Brian

"Maintenant, mon ami !"
http://www.asingulareye.wordpress.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #22
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 49,160
i'm sorta glad that canada is not a mostly muslim country...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #23
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 49,160
my little waterproof panasonic is smaller than my iPhone...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #24
kxl
Social Documentary
 
kxl's Avatar
 
kxl is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 2,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Dear Keith,

Ah: a business opportunity at the airport: Honest Abdul's Used Cameras...

Cheers,

R.
And used laptops and used tablets... Definitely a good business model, especially if you can acquire your inventory from other passengers' checked luggage.
__________________
Keith
My Flickr Albums
RFF feedback


"... I thought the only way to give us an incentive, to bring hope, is to show the pictures of the pristine planet - to see the innocence. ― Sebastiao Salgado
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #25
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Atherton View Post
According to Reuters, this not just a US issue:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-bri...-idUKKBN16S1TM
Dear Brian,

Would this have anything to do with the fact that more and more, the English can be astonishingly servile?

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #26
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by kxl View Post
And used laptops and used tablets... Definitely a good business model, especially if you can acquire your inventory from other passengers' checked luggage.
Dear Keith,

Then again, Heathrow used to be known as Thiefrow. I don't know if it's got any better since the 1980s when it acquired that name.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #27
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
 
nikon_sam's Avatar
 
nikon_sam is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Alta Loma, CA
Age: 59
Posts: 4,943
Here are the cities...

The ban was revealed on Monday in statements from Royal Jordanian Airlines and the official news agency of Saudi Arabia. It will apply to non-stop flights to the US from 10 international airports serving the cities of Cairo in Egypt; Amman in Jordan; Kuwait City in Kuwait; Casablanca in Morocco; Doha in Qatar; Riyadh and Jeddah in Saudi Arabia; Istanbul in Turkey; and Abu Dhabi and Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, according to a US official.

If you're not traveling to these places you'll be okay...lets not get all Chicken Little about this...
__________________
Sam
"tongue tied & twisted
just an earthbound misfit...I..."
pf
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #28
Hogarth Ferguson
Registered User
 
Hogarth Ferguson's Avatar
 
Hogarth Ferguson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 637
This is wildly frustrating. My wife was reading this last night, as we have a flight from Doha, Qatar later this year, and she works with her laptop. I figured we would just check a bag (something I have not had to do since I had to check a tripod in Brazil), but this is wildly frustrating.

Say what you will about safety, but this is just bull, if it was not, this would apply to everywhere, not just 10 mostly Muslim countries.

Where did the underwear bomber fly from? Amsterdam. Where did the 9/11 hijackers come from? USA. This is just the grudgemaster-in-chief figuring out another way to inconvenience people who aren't white christians.

"The terrorist boogeyman strikes again, causing far more alarm and concern than, you know, actual terrorists."

This is wildly frustrating. Of course, no problems on planes in the last forever, yet that is where we focus everything. UGHHHHH
__________________
My Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #29
Brian Atherton
Registered User
 
Brian Atherton's Avatar
 
Brian Atherton is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Based in Blighty
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Would this have anything to do with the fact that more and more, the English can be astonishingly servile?

Cheers,

R.
Dear Roger,

Dunno.

Possibly it could be because shared intelligence with the US has thrown up a new security loophole that needs plugging.
__________________
Brian

"Maintenant, mon ami !"
http://www.asingulareye.wordpress.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #30
Hogarth Ferguson
Registered User
 
Hogarth Ferguson's Avatar
 
Hogarth Ferguson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 637
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon_sam View Post
Here are the cities...

The ban was revealed on Monday in statements from Royal Jordanian Airlines and the official news agency of Saudi Arabia. It will apply to non-stop flights to the US from 10 international airports serving the cities of Cairo in Egypt; Amman in Jordan; Kuwait City in Kuwait; Casablanca in Morocco; Doha in Qatar; Riyadh and Jeddah in Saudi Arabia; Istanbul in Turkey; and Abu Dhabi and Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, according to a US official.

If you're not traveling to these places you'll be okay...lets not get all Chicken Little about this...
But that is the issue. some of these places, Qatar and UAE have built up spectacular airlines that are on par with or better than any airline in the world. This is a huge problem for that reason.
__________________
My Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #31
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Atherton View Post
Dear Roger,

Dunno.

Possibly it could be because shared intelligence with the US has thrown up a new security loophole that needs plugging.
Dear Brian,

Nah. Occam's Razor: authoritarian nutter. Explains everything else, including the GO HOME OR FACE ARREST vans (Treese's idea).

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #32
Hogarth Ferguson
Registered User
 
Hogarth Ferguson's Avatar
 
Hogarth Ferguson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 637
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwolf View Post
Wouldn't you think there would be at least some overlap between the travel ban and device ban countries? Yet there is not:

Device ban: Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Morocco, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey

Travel ban: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

If laptops are a threat, why would potential terrorists from the (now overruled) travel ban countries be allowed to carry them?

This is confusing. But what isn't these days?

John
Really though? Do any airlines from those countries fly direct to the usa? No, but Turkish Air, Qatar, Emirates, and others fly from those countries direct to the USA, its a pretty easy thing to see.

No one can fly from DC to Somalia direct, but I can buy a ticket that routes me from DC to Istanbul to Mogadishu on Turkish Air.
__________________
My Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #33
Hogarth Ferguson
Registered User
 
Hogarth Ferguson's Avatar
 
Hogarth Ferguson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 637
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidnewtonguitars View Post
So you are concerned that those from the 8 countries, the list that Obama put together, won't be able to bring their electronic devices?
Yes, I am concerned about people from those countries not being able to fly with their devices. Equally, I am concerned with people from all over the world who fly through those ports, such as myself.
__________________
My Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #34
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 43
Posts: 3,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Dear Phil,
Alternatively:
A: Go somewhere else
and/or
B: Don't go back...
It's worked for me since 2006, the last time I was in the USA.
Cheers,

R.
Roger,
We're working on just that.
My brother did it "right" and went to work in Antacrtica about ten years ago and just never moved back to the US. He now lives in Australia, has permanent residency and owns a business.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #35
Brian Atherton
Registered User
 
Brian Atherton's Avatar
 
Brian Atherton is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Based in Blighty
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Nah. Occam's Razor: authoritarian nutter. Explains everything else, including the GO HOME OR FACE ARREST vans (Treese's idea).

Cheers,

R.
Well, yes. I take your point, Roger.

There’s also the possibility that if one makes enough dumb decisions, by the law of averages, one might turn out to be the correct one.
__________________
Brian

"Maintenant, mon ami !"
http://www.asingulareye.wordpress.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #36
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,559
All of these bans are more or less stupid and pointless posturing, and only seem to be implemented to convince the astonishingly simpleminded among the public that something "is being done". Nobody ever blew anything up with a bottle of shampoo, and yet we can't take a bottle of shampoo on.

Once on my way back from a vintage car show they inspected a small wrench set I had with me, taking the largest wrench and measuring it to make sure it wasn't dangerous. What a load of nonsense. It's all so mind mindbogglingly stupid.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #37
Hogarth Ferguson
Registered User
 
Hogarth Ferguson's Avatar
 
Hogarth Ferguson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 637
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
Yeah but not to anybody who can remember past eight years... nine years ago we had a much more embarrassing president than the guy who's been more or less cleaning up after his mess for the past eight.

But getting back on topic, all of these bans are more or less stupid and pointless posturing, and only seem to be implemented to convince the astonishingly simpleminded among the public that something "is being done". Nobody ever blew anything up with a bottle of shampoo, and yet we can't take a bottle of shampoo on.

Once on my way back from a vintage car show they inspected a small wrench set I had with me, taking the largest wrench and measuring it to make sure it wasn't dangerous. What a load of nonsense. It's all so mind mindbogglingly stupid.

I feel like there are two kinds of embarrassed. One is your parents embarrassing you because they are your parents, you grow up and realize they were doing things to help you and you realize you were wrong.That is Obama

One is your drunk friend puking on a taxi driver and then yelling racist nonsene at him. This is trump.


Flying has become such a hassle. I fly all the time, and i look forward to the day I can travel overland. No liquid bombs, EVER, yet we cannot bring liquids on the plane. Take shoes off. Take laptop out. scan my entire body. blah blah. I feel like it is just a sense of security.

Reminds me of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGGQWfLzkeE
__________________
My Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #38
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,594
The baggage handlers are going to love this. They steal stuff all the time, and now will steal even more knowing there will be a bounty of valuables just waiting for their picking.
Which leads to another question, how is it that baggage handlers are given a carte blanche to steal? Right there is a massive security hole. They should be checked going into work to make sure nothing is put into luggage by them - not sure if this is done - and they should be checked leaving work to make sure they aren't taking property with them.

I wouldn't be smug as a film user - they may next insist to pack it with regular luggage and then it will be toast from the high level xrays. And even if cameras weren't the issue (which obviously is the main interest here as a photography website), the way luggage is handled your laptop may not make it through due to damage. Assuming it is not stolen.
And anyone else think that this will not be an opportunity for 'them' to make a copy of your hard drive while it is out of your sight? Or upload snooping software?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #39
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,478
I thought Lithium Ion batteries (the stuff that keeps cameras, iPads, etc., running) were not to be carried in checked bags.

But then I haven't flown in a few years.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2017   #40
frank-grumman
Registered User
 
frank-grumman is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: SoCal/PA
Posts: 257
Ah yes, like laptops in checked-baggage cannot be outfitted with explosives that defy detection by HI x-rays. This is an utter joke, security theatre at its best. I don't know if those departure countries incorporate the newly devised, TSA's (here in the US), "hey baby, let me get a free feel or two whilst checking out your ***** for explosives, so the electronics ban may well only rank as #2 on the theatre list.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:43.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.