Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Photography General Interest

Photography General Interest Neat Photo stuff NOT particularly about Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 03-29-2019   #41
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,942
For what its worth, the official policy of Simon-owned malls (there are a lot of them where I live) reads as follows:

"No photographs or video recordings of any kind for commercial use. Video is acceptable for non-commercial and non-disruptive purposes."
__________________
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 03-29-2019   #42
olifaunt
Registered User
 
olifaunt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova View Post
No need to argue with the poor security guy. He's just doing his job. Just say "My apology, officer!" and move on. It happens to me so often (being escorted out of a shopping center, a public park, police pulling over my car and asking me to leave the neighborhood when I took pictures of trees!) that I'm not even spending a minutes of my thoughts on it anymore. The worst experience I ever had was at the National Mall in DC: I took pictures of trees and monuments at the National Mall in DC when armed military police on ATVs surrounded me and asked me to leave. I once passed by the White House -- on a public street and not even taking pictures! -- when a sniper in full camouflage came out of the bushes, pointed a sniper rifle at me and asked me to leave. Not to mention all the paranoid mothers in parks who shouted at me, thinking their kids are in grave danger because there was a camera dangling around my neck!
In all of these situations except the mall it sounds like you were doing something completely legal (in U.S. law) and their orders for you to leave were actually a violation of your civil rights.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-29-2019   #43
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Daniel View Post
Malls are private property and can set their own policies on photography on the site...
...
This applies. Unless there is signage, photograph until a mall employee tells you to stop. By the way, they can not take your camera nor touch you. If you refuse to stop, they can – and will – call the police and have you arrested for trespassing. In rare cases they can permanently ban you. This also applies to outdoor areas that are technically private property.

I read a hearsay where a restaurant in mall permitted photography in their dining area. Supposedly this was after mall security told the photographer to stop outside of the restaurant.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-29-2019   #44
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
 
Pherdinand's Avatar
 
Pherdinand is offline
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: by the river called the Gender
Age: 42
Posts: 7,825
what's a "mall"?
__________________
Happy New Year, Happy New Continent!
eye contact eye
My RFF Foolery
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-29-2019   #45
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,942
Some malls don't really have any security at all...
















__________________
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 03-29-2019   #46
View Range
Registered User
 
View Range is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 271
I was stopped taking pictures of the architecture inside the Getty museum in Los Angeles. The guard politely explained that they feared the visible security equipment would be compromised by details in the images. They had no problem with me taking as many pictures as I wanted outside or of the artwork inside.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-29-2019   #47
olifaunt
Registered User
 
olifaunt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by View Range View Post
I was stopped taking pictures of the architecture inside the Getty museum in Los Angeles. The guard politely explained that they feared the visible security equipment would be compromised by details in the images.
What? Did they really think infinite recursion of images within images would cause the security cameras to explode?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-29-2019   #48
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
Harrased? Since then asking not to take pictures of business property became harassment?
he told me if i wanted to take pics to use my phone. did u miss that part?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-29-2019   #49
markjwyatt
Registered User
 
markjwyatt's Avatar
 
markjwyatt is offline
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Southern California
Posts: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by View Range View Post
I was stopped taking pictures of the architecture inside the Getty museum in Los Angeles. The guard politely explained that they feared the visible security equipment would be compromised by details in the images. They had no problem with me taking as many pictures as I wanted outside or of the artwork inside.
Probably because people are doing things like this (Getty Village entrance). The funny thing is I did not intend to capture the camera. I just found the vine (color, layout) intriguing so made the shot. As I post-processed it I discovered the camera (which they tried to hide with the intriguing vine).


Vine On Wall by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
__________________
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/markjwyatt/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-29-2019   #50
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 70
Posts: 5,899
It's a camera, not a gun!

But I cannot understand why very oft it is allowed to take pictures with a phone and not with a camera...which logic?

robert
__________________
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 03-29-2019   #51
markjwyatt
Registered User
 
markjwyatt's Avatar
 
markjwyatt is offline
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Southern California
Posts: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pherdinand View Post
what's a "mall"?

It's a set where they make movies like "Mall Cop".
__________________
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/markjwyatt/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-29-2019   #52
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,678
Of course many respondents here have missed the point that the security guard told me it was ok to take pics with my iphone...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-29-2019   #53
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Of course many respondents here have missed the point that the security guard told me it was ok to take pics with my iphone...

With a thread title "Harrassed by security guard...", I think most people are going to figure that's the main point, not the phone thing.
__________________
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 03-29-2019   #54
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by kuuan View Post
agreed! Yes, though of course, because I don't want to spoil my time, nor that of the poor security guy, I'd try not to be very confrontational and for a buddy like conversation, but certainly I'd also try to make my point explaining why he effectively is discriminating against a few without any logic and real basis that would justify that. Injustice should not be simply accepted out of laziness, justice always should and must be fought for.

Although some other folks here got bent out of shape at the idea of being "pushed about" (and I have to admit that if the security guy was all officious and pompous that would be an issue for me too) I indicated that my preference is to do what you have said Kuuan - not be confrontational whenever possible.


I see this approach as not being one of weakly giving in to unreasonable officialdom. But rather I see it as using my Emotional Intelligence to try to manipulate the guy into doing what I want and getting what I want out of the encounter if possible.

In any event it is not a bad first approach to try remembering that most people in those jobs are more than likely just poorly trained, poorly paid working stiffs who are afraid of losing their jobs and are doing what they are doing because they think it is expected of them. If approached in the right way they may be willing to be more reasonable - but if approached confrontationally they are more likely to "dig their heels in". At least I find this approach works more often than not here in Australia where the culture is somewhat laid back. It might not work quite so well in USA where there seems to be a more confrontational culture between men, or in Europe where in some countries "rules MUST be followed" no matter how dumb those rules are in the specific circumstances. For example such rules may have been devised to following incidents where sleazy guys have tried to photograph up women's skirts on escalators etc and the mall owners find it easier to implement a blanket ban on photography. Though if this is so, I have to admit it boggles my mind that the same malls have exceptions for iphone photography.
  Reply With Quote

Know the rules
Old 03-29-2019   #55
KenR
Registered User
 
KenR is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 694
Know the rules

I once tried to use a tripod in Rockefeller Center in NYC and was told by the security guard who magically appeared that tripods are forbidden on their property. Knowing that they don't control the public sidewalk, I politely asked where their property ends and where the public sidewalk began. He pointed to a marker on the ground - I moved my setup a few feet over the imaginary line and took a few shots. He stood there watching me, so I smiled and thanked him as I left. So-so shot.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-29-2019   #56
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
What's with the sexist generalisations about 'bored women' ... it's 2019 people!
Exactly. Thanks.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-29-2019   #57
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Of course many respondents here have missed the point that the security guard told me it was ok to take pics with my iphone...
There is an illogicality there but that is seldom the point in these situations. In a way the smartphone may end up being the get out of jail free card, hopefully not literally, for us more serious photographers.

But I once had the whole of the shaded wading pool at the municipal pool to myself and my two children. I had my Coolpix, and my Leicina Super 8 loaded with Kodachrome. A nice young man came over and told me that I could not film or take photographs unless every person in shot gave their written permission. I told him that's fair, but the only people in shot will be my two children, for whom I am the legal guardian, equal with my wife, not present. Still he insisted, the rules are the rules. So I signed the forms on behalf of my two children and made a very nice little movie.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-29-2019   #58
PRJ
Another Day in Paradise
 
PRJ's Avatar
 
PRJ is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 323
Me being the smartass that I am, I would have whipped out my IPhone and started taking pictures through the eyepiece of my camera. That probably would have annoyed him....
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2019   #59
Brian Atherton
Registered User
 
Brian Atherton's Avatar
 
Brian Atherton is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Based in Blighty
Posts: 540
I have experienced similar issues here, in my home, London. Sometimes the security staff are borderline psychopaths, aggressive and obnoxious, sometimes they are decent and friendly, and one can have a conversation with them.

The issue, increasingly in London (and other cities and towns in the UK), is the privatisation of previously public spaces, often without any consultation prior to the redevelopment. Many areas one would assume are still public, have been bought and extensively remodelled, becoming privately owned space while allowing the public access ‘at the owner’s discretion’ and under the owner's rules, which invariably don’t allow photography.

Also, often I am amazed that people object to the use of a ‘proper’ camera but take no notice of someone using a mobile phone; it’s almost as if the mobile phone has become invisible.
__________________
Brian

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

Old 03-30-2019   #60
Dan Daniel
Registered User
 
Dan Daniel is online now
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,559
I've been finding that carrying acamera in hand, rather than on a strap around my neck, leads to much less attention. And if you can get over using a viewfinder, so much the better.



  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2019   #61
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,063
So many years ago I was taking a stroll with my two nephews and son to a store to buy ice cream. A short-cut was to cut through this outdoor area of a nearby hospital that separated two of the hospital's buildings (for lack of a better phrase). There was a bench there. I asked the kids to set on the bench and I took their picture. I think I was using an old folder at the time. Some nasty old lady security guard comes over giving me grief.

What are you doing?
I'm taking a picture of my son and nephews setting on a bench, obviously.
That's weird (she says)
I replied, it's quite normal ma'am, but I'm sure it seems weird to you as I doubt anyone wanted to take any pictures of you growing up.

I was in a local diner owned by Asians. I took a picture of their cook in their kitchen with my new-to-me Yashica Electro CC who was visible through a service window. The owner -- a small but feisty Korean lady who owned the joint, was "displeased" and started yelling at me 1/2 in English, 1/2 in Korean. I gave her the roll of film to calm her down. That was rather a scene.

Finally, I took a pic of a street vendor's wares who chased my down the block. Another semi-scene. She was ranting about posting her designs online. Didn't have time to explain it was an old film camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2019   #62
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
 
p.giannakis's Avatar
 
p.giannakis is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Stafford - UK
Posts: 2,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ko.Fe. View Post
Harrased? Since then asking not to take pictures of business property became harassment?
It depends where you stand. Inside their business like in a mall, they have a legal basis. Outside of it taking pictures of it, it is harassment.
__________________
Regards,
Pan


The Monochrome Archives
Instagram



  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2019   #63
Dan Daniel
Registered User
 
Dan Daniel is online now
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
So many years ago I was taking a stroll with my two nephews and son to a store to buy ice cream. A short-cut was to cut through this outdoor area of a nearby hospital that separated two of the hospital's buildings (for lack of a better phrase). There was a bench there. I asked the kids to set on the bench and I took their picture. I think I was using an old folder at the time. Some nasty old lady security guard comes over giving me grief.

In the US, hospitals have serious concerns for patient privacy rights. Some related to HIPPA regulations, some other legal obligations. I've had a couple of very pleasant encounters with hospital security staff who explained their concerns and issues. They even gave me phone numbers to call if I wanted to get permission. Sounds like you were dealing with someone either poorly trained or simply an a***ole.



And for reasons I do not understand, many people seem to see a "real" camera as 'official.' So, say, a restaurant owner can be worried that you are an inspector gathering evidence of code violations or a journalist doing the same.



Again and again I've had Asian restaurant owners object to me doing photography even near their places. Finally one day someone was yelling, Why do you photograph this?? Go photograph something pretty!!! Which snapped me into realizing that there was a serious cultural difference at work. To many people, the only reason to photograph something like a restaurant kitchen is to record something wrong. The idea of wasting time and/or film on such places for 'art' or whatever makes no sense to many people, so the reason you would photograph a kitchen is only to file a complaint.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2019   #64
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 70
Posts: 5,899
Many answers here but not much about the logic of "photos not allowed if taken with a camera but allowed if taken with a phone"

robert

PS: I just heard by the radio an advertising of a known phone manufacturer advertising his phone with 4 (you imagine the brand!) cameras inside...things get 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 03-30-2019   #65
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Daniel View Post
In the US, hospitals have serious concerns for patient privacy rights. Some related to HIPPA regulations, some other legal obligations. I've had a couple of very pleasant encounters with hospital security staff who explained their concerns and issues. They even gave me phone numbers to call if I wanted to get permission. Sounds like you were dealing with someone either poorly trained or simply an a***ole.



And for reasons I do not understand, many people seem to see a "real" camera as 'official.' So, say, a restaurant owner can be worried that you are an inspector gathering evidence of code violations or a journalist doing the same.



Again and again I've had Asian restaurant owners object to me doing photography even near their places. Finally one day someone was yelling, Why do you photograph this?? Go photograph something pretty!!! Which snapped me into realizing that there was a serious cultural difference at work. To many people, the only reason to photograph something like a restaurant kitchen is to record something wrong. The idea of wasting time and/or film on such places for 'art' or whatever makes no sense to many people, so the reason you would photograph a kitchen is only to file a complaint.
All fair points I hadn't considered. In the case of the hospital grounds, there was an area between two building that had a little outdoor waiting area with a bench. Wasn't in the hospital itself. But the person was probably not trained properly. And an a-hole.

I hadn't considered your point about the restraunt owner thinking I wanted to record something... good point.

Yes -- using a "strange" professional camera does give the impression to the uninformed that you're doing something official. Who walks around with these things anymore?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2019   #66
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
he told me if i wanted to take pics to use my phone. did u miss that part?
This is common. I have been to several events where DSLR's with large lenses were forbidden. All bags were inspected by security when you entered the venues. I was allowed to attend with a Zeiss Ikon M at one and FUJIFILM X-Pro 1 or 2 cameras (no zoom lenses) at the others.

I assumed the security staff was trained to look for pentaprisms and large zoom lenses. I also think a local photography business had obtained rights to photograph these events. There would be one person with an event badge using a huge Canon DSLR kit. I haven't attended these for the past 8 years. But even back then I felt cell phones destroyed any pretense of exclusivity. People making cell-phone photos of friends and family participating in the events would not be buying any images from the phtographers' web sites.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2019   #67
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRJ View Post
Me being the smartass that I am, I would have whipped out my IPhone and started taking pictures through the eyepiece of my camera. That probably would have annoyed him....
Or, provided them with the satisfaction of ordering you to leave their property immediately or be charged with trespassing.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2019   #68
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,319
I worked at The Washington University Medical Center. I always had a camera with me. The HIPPA regulations were vigorously enforced.

Every so often I would find a pair of latex lab gloves on an outdoors sidewalks that had fallen off a lab cart used to transport experimental materials between labs. I always made a photograph of these abandoned gloves. One evening when I stepped outside the lab building there was a pair of gloves laying on the sidewalk of a public street. I took a couple of photos. A hospital security guard told be to stop. I knew I was on public property. So, I politely told the guard I was within my rights; made one more photograph and went on my way. He made a radio call. But that was the end of it.

I worked in an imaging research center. Occasionally there were famous patients such as Christopher Reeves (Superman), members of Middle Eastern Royal families, etc. We always knew when one of these was on site because every elevator and stair well access point was manned by a security guard to ward off paparazzi.

The campus had a lot of public art work. One summer day I was photographing on campus when a surprise shower popped up. I took shelter in the lobby of the nearest building – St. Louis Children's Hospital lobby. The receptionist saw my camera and immediately told me to leave unless I had an ID. I did. She said you can stay but you can't use your camera. Of course I agreed.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2019   #69
kuuan
loves old lenses
 
kuuan's Avatar
 
kuuan is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by p.giannakis View Post
It depends where you stand. Inside their business like in a mall, they have a legal basis. Outside of it taking pictures of it, it is harassment.
Happened to me a few years ago in Osaka, Japan. A "designer" store sure thing did make their shopfront very attractive, so I took out my camera, right out there on the pedestrian way, on the street. Immediately 2 staff rushed towards me from the inside, frantically doing their "crossing of their arms in front of their chest", Japanese sign language to say, rather to shout "You can’t do that”, “Stop whatever you are doing".

They ran up to me all the way outside their store and, for Japan very surprisingly aggressively told me that photography was forbidden. I smiled at them friendly and told them rather resolutely that it was my right to take as many photos out there on the street as I wished, that they had no way of prohibiting me and if they did not wish their shop front to be taken photo of from the street they better covered it. To demonstrate, to their utter horror, I again raised up my camera and took a few photos.
__________________
my photos on flickr: : https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2019   #70
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by robert blu View Post
Many answers here but not much about the logic of "photos not allowed if taken with a camera but allowed if taken with a phone"

robert
Hi Robert,

Generally, the current crop of rules don’t allow for any kind of photography, whether cell phone camera or dedicated camera. As noted before, security forces are more likely to go after people with camera cameras than people with cell phones simply because people walking around with their cell phones out are ubiquitous and it’s too hard to tell if they are taking pictures or just....whatever. People with camera cameras in malls, on the other hand, are singled out for selective rule enforcement simply because they are low hanging fruit.
So, it’s not about the logic of the rule, but the illogic of the enforcement regime.

But here’s something which Paul Harvey might have called “the rest of the story”: I was in a small, local, family owned jewelry store a couple of years ago, having walked in there with a camera around my neck. It’s a place that specializes in Native America jewelry, one off creations by local artists and artists in Arizona and New Mexico, some pieces of which are highly elaborate and original, all of it very expensive. I’ve been in there many times, but this time I noticed a new sign by the front desk which said simply “no cameras allowed”. I know the owner, and pointed to my camera with a questioning expression. She said, “You’re okay”, and explained that they had started having problems with men from mainland China who walked into her store and others on the block, methodically walking from display counter to display counter taking photos of all the jewelry, then leaving without a word. She said that 6 to 9 months later exact copies of these one off pieces began showing up online, made in China. She’s had the same exact thing happen more than once, as have others here, apparently. Then she pulled out a notebook of photos of her pieces next to the Chinese knockoffs on alibaba. So, sometimes, there are specific, valid reasons for the policy.
And, no, she won’t let people pull out their cell phones either
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2019   #71
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 70
Posts: 5,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
...
And, no, she won’t let people pull out their cell phones either
Thanks for your words Larry, yes I fully agree there can be many reasons to forbid photography in some places, as to prevent to copy specific pieces of work. Or at least to make it more difficult.

But in this case photography should be forbidden regardless of the tool, camera or phone.

It happened once to me and when the owner of the shop ask me not to photograph his shop window (the colors in it were beautiful!) I simply said ok, no problem, I don't.
He was kind to me, not rude or aggressive and I tried to be kind. I only said going on "but I have a photographic memory!" and we both laughed about!

Another story about a friend of mine whose passion was to photograph shop windows of fashion stop. He had a beautiful collection of various shops in the years and you could see how fashion evolved in the time. Interesting.

One afternoon he was in the most famous high fashion shopping street downtown Milan in front of the Moschino shop with his camera fixed on the tripod. Franco Moschino himself was arranging the final details of the window, going out and inside the shop. Of course he noticed my friend and had a short chat with him asking why he was photographing that window and before re-entering the shop gently asked my friend to wait "please at least" when the shop window was finished and perfect! No objection at all about the photo! But these was many years ago and the were different times!

robert

PS: sometimes I still like to take photo of some shop window but I always ask the owner if I am allowed to do it or not. Most of times they say yes, sometimes no.
__________________
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 03-30-2019   #72
John Lawrence
Registered User
 
John Lawrence is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Of course many respondents here have missed the point that the security guard told me it was ok to take pics with my iphone...
To me, this is the most interesting part.

I'd hazard a guess that the iphone has become more socially acceptable than a conventional looking SLR camera, and that the security guard may have been more concerned with people reporting you to him for using it than the actual act of taking pictures. He probably thought that there would be less interest, consternation and reports to him if you just used your iphone for pictures - that seems to be what people expect these days.

Here photographing was not the problem - your choice of camera was!

John
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2019   #73
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by robert blu View Post
But these was many years ago and the were different times!

robert
That’s the complete answer explaining all of this, right there. Malls as an original, innovative and, in some ways, Disneyland-like concept, had no such rules.
They were different times.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2019   #74
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Lawrence View Post

Here photographing was not the problem - your choice of camera was!

John
Indeed. I think he had a bone to pick with Leica.
Perhaps he had an M9 that took 9 months for sensor replacement.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2019   #75
John Lawrence
Registered User
 
John Lawrence is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Indeed. I think he had a bone to pick with Leica.
Perhaps he had an M9 that took 9 months for sensor replacement.
... these Leica haters are everywhere !

Seriously though, it's getting quite weird shooting film and using 'traditional cameras' these days. I've heard of people being detained by security at airports because those checking their bags had never seen film before......



John
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2019   #76
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 70
Posts: 5,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Lawrence View Post
... I've heard of people being detained by security at airports because those checking their bags had never seen film before......

John
And a camera without batteries is ...suspicious...maybe a fake just too hide something...

robert
__________________
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 03-30-2019   #77
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,745
I have in mind to bring with me my M3 with the Hologon on it. Is this a "suspicious looking set"?
__________________
- Raid

________________


http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2019   #78
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
 
p.giannakis's Avatar
 
p.giannakis is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Stafford - UK
Posts: 2,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid View Post
I have in mind to bring with me my M3 with the Hologon on it. Is this a "suspicious looking set"?
My IIc with an Elmar was, so...
__________________
Regards,
Pan


The Monochrome Archives
Instagram



  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2019   #79
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,678
This is one pic I took at the mall, just before Paul Blart swooped in.

Leica R-E, Summicron 50 ROM, Fuji C200, Nikon Z7 scan, negativelabpro.com



Apparently, Barbie, you can't be a film photographer..
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-30-2019   #80
David Murphy
Registered User
 
David Murphy's Avatar
 
David Murphy is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: California
Age: 63
Posts: 2,457
I was taking photos of my 3 y/o son riding the little mechanical "Choo-Choo train" at the Victoria Gardens outdoor mall in Southern California about two years ago. The camera was a Canon rangefinder (L3 or L1 I forgot). A security guard approached me and started questioning me. I asked him why and he told me he was worried that I would "take photos of buildings". He did not tell me to leave or stop taking photos, but he was clearly highly suspicious of me!

Later, while walking with my wife and son, I noticed I was being "tailed" by at least two security guards as if I was a major threat of some sort. I left shortly thereafter.

Victoria Gardens is a privately owned facility, but it blends in with with public streets and was developed in a close partnership with the city of Rancho Cucagamonga. The local police have a station there as well.

Another time I was confronted by the angry manager at a Baskin-and-Robbins Ice Cream Parlor for the crime of wearing a film camera around my neck (also a Canon rangefinder!). I was not taking pictures, I was waiting in line to buy ice cream with my older son at the time.

So maybe photography with film cameras is a crime!
__________________
Canon L1, Leotax S, Bessa R2C, Konica Autoreflex, Canon FX, Pentax Spotmatic, Minolta SRT-101, Nikon F, Exakta VX, Miranda Automex II, Leotax K3, Yashica Mat LM, Leotax S, Pen FT, Rollei 35S, Ricoh Singlex TLS, Kowa Six, Pentax K1000, Canonflex, Praktina, Voigtlander R2C

http://legacycamera.wordpress.com
  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 18:20.


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.