| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/17/2014 10:15:04 PM · #1 |
Yep, it even gives me a lightheaded feeling...
Photos here |
|
|
|
08/17/2014 10:17:11 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
08/17/2014 10:29:36 PM · #3 |
Breathtaking collection. Thank you. (Wonder when the next from above challenge is?)
|
|
|
|
08/17/2014 11:03:27 PM · #4 |
| Dangerous but very cool pics. I used to work on tall buildings doing construction, but nothing like as high as some of these places. |
|
|
|
08/17/2014 11:34:19 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
Dangerous but very cool pics. |
Very cool, but totally illegal, every one of them :-( |
|
|
|
08/18/2014 07:39:18 AM · #6 |
| sometimes you have to break the rules to get that amazing shot(s) |
|
|
|
08/18/2014 08:19:16 AM · #7 |
|
|
|
08/18/2014 08:31:09 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Mike:
sometimes you have to break the rules to get that amazing shot(s) |
True enough... and on occasion, some other folks have to risk their lives to save that of some moronic risk taker who had not factored in certain factors in their equation.
Want to take a risk... by all means, but before you do, if there is a cost factor related to someone having to rescue you... then maybe you might consider leaving a deposit to cover some of the rescue operation.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/18/2014 09:54:55 AM · #9 |
| is it not the case that if charges are filed that rescue efforts get billed to the offending party? if not it should be. |
|
|
|
08/18/2014 10:24:53 AM · #10 |
Geez, I understand the drive to 'get the shot' but that is taking it to new heights...and unsafe extremes. I think in this case I would be more supportive if they just used a camera attached to one of those flying machines and only if they got permission as that having a dozen of those buzzing flying cameras would cause other issues.
Oh, do want to point out - the selfie taken at the Christ the Redeemer Statue in Rio de Janiero is NOT illegal as the guy sought and was granted permission to scale the statue (or so he states on his blog and website). I remember seeing the story on CNN news feed. I am sure that they made him sign a waiver and prove he could pay for damages and/or rescue if it was needed.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2014 11:21:57 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Mike:
sometimes you have to break the rules to get that amazing shot(s) |
True enough... and on occasion, some other folks have to risk their lives to save that of some moronic risk taker who had not factored in certain factors in their equation.
Want to take a risk... by all means, but before you do, if there is a cost factor related to someone having to rescue you... then maybe you might consider leaving a deposit to cover some of the rescue operation.
Ray |
What do you suppose the deposit would be to cover the life of a rescuer? |
|
|
|
08/18/2014 12:56:49 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by aliqui:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Mike:
sometimes you have to break the rules to get that amazing shot(s) |
True enough... and on occasion, some other folks have to risk their lives to save that of some moronic risk taker who had not factored in certain factors in their equation.
Want to take a risk... by all means, but before you do, if there is a cost factor related to someone having to rescue you... then maybe you might consider leaving a deposit to cover some of the rescue operation.
Ray |
What do you suppose the deposit would be to cover the life of a rescuer? |
If I understood just what it is you are asking I would try to answer it.
Assuming you are talking about the life or injury to a rescuer, and working on the premise that the rescuer washired to do just that, then that person would have insurance coverage provided by the employer.
I hope this helps a tad.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/18/2014 01:20:45 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by CNovack:
Geez, I understand the drive to 'get the shot' but that is taking it to new heights...and unsafe extremes. I think in this case I would be more supportive if they just used a camera attached to one of those flying machines and only if they got permission as that having a dozen of those buzzing flying cameras would cause other issues. |
It's not *about* photography, though. The "sport" is about gaining access to forbidden places and free-climbing them. The photography, for the most part, is just to document the "accomplishment". Apparently I'm turning into a stick-in-the-mud old grouch in my late 60's, because I think this is pretty stupid behavior, LOL. |
|
|
|
08/18/2014 01:24:15 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by aliqui:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Mike:
sometimes you have to break the rules to get that amazing shot(s) |
True enough... and on occasion, some other folks have to risk their lives to save that of some moronic risk taker who had not factored in certain factors in their equation.
Want to take a risk... by all means, but before you do, if there is a cost factor related to someone having to rescue you... then maybe you might consider leaving a deposit to cover some of the rescue operation.
Ray |
What do you suppose the deposit would be to cover the life of a rescuer? |
If I understood just what it is you are asking I would try to answer it.
Assuming you are talking about the life or injury to a rescuer, and working on the premise that the rescuer washired to do just that, then that person would have insurance coverage provided by the employer.
I hope this helps a tad.
Ray |
I think it was more of a statement, in response to your premise that they should have to leave a deposit, noting that if a rescuer dies there is no amount of deposit that can make up for that. Which is of course, aside from being completely and totally obvious, rather a useless statement anyway, considering that there is no chance, none at all, of a person who's into UrbEx leaving a deposit, if only because anyone taking such a deposit would theoretically be endorsing criminal acts, and would then be themselves liable.
People take risks, sometimes those risks have really bad consequences, that's life. At least these particular risk takers shared some pretty darn amazing photos. I'm still far more appreciative of this behavior than a good subset of other risk-taking behavior. Do take a moment tp consider what other activities these types of folks might choose to engage in in order to satisfy their need for this type of stimulation. My guess is that 90% of the choices they have are far more concerning and far less productive. (yes, I just called B&E/Trespassing 'productive')..
Message edited by author 2014-08-18 13:26:11. |
|
|
|
08/18/2014 08:34:02 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Apparently I'm turning into a stick-in-the-mud old grouch in my late 60's, because I think this is pretty stupid behavior, LOL. |
I totally agree...and I am not in my sixties...yet.
Message edited by author 2014-08-18 20:35:15. |
|
|
|
08/19/2014 03:10:59 PM · #16 |
| isn't this what drones are for? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/23/2025 09:09:51 AM EDT.
