| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/22/2009 12:13:59 PM · #1 |
interesting conversation. sounds like the school messed up and made a promise they couldn't keep. Sounds like they promised this photog exclusivity in exchange for most likely not paying an hourly or shooting fee. One of those "you can sell prints and will be the only photog" kind of deals.
I understand why they tried to not have parents shooting, most people are completely oblivious to anything other than what they are shooting. It happens at weddings all the time. Every family member w/ a camera thinks they have the right to stand in front of anyone. Ive had family members ask me to move when Im the hired photog.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2009 06:47:04 AM · #2 |
you have to realize that any camera bigger than a cigarette pack is going to draw attention, and that any lens larger than a 50mm is REALLY going to draw attention. those poor people enforcing the rules (like the ushers and ticket takers) are hardly trained beyond "if it doesn't fit in the palm of your hand, it's not allowed."
it doesn't help the event staff's frame of mind when people with the gear are hell-bent on getting to use it...
the main thing is to try to find out ahead of time if there are any restrictions that need to be dealt with, rather than finding out when you are trying to get in the door.
i'm glad the OP was able to resolve that situation; that was pretty whacked.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2009 01:48:53 AM · #3 |
| This situation is a farce. For the past 3 years I have shot high school, college, law, and master's degree graduation ceremonies for everyone from Duke University to high schools in Virginia through a company and this is simply ridiculous. When I am shooting a "big graduation" Duke Law would be the best example you shoot 250+ graduates with 3 photographers. 1 for hood, one for diploma, and one for off stage shot. Parents can't use my background if I am shot 3 because it will slow us down and mess up the graduation, but I could care less what parents use or where they are in the first 2 positions. I have shot graduations alone up on a step ladder with parents crawling all around me. I could care less. My job is to outshoot them. They could have a 1Ds for all I care. I have the best angle, I have preset my manual flash, and I have blazed away thousands of shots. If you want to stand right next to me good luck perfectly exposing in the 3 seconds you have as they move across the stage. :) No true pro should be intimidated by an SLR. This can be taken care of by simply explaining to the kids that they can't slow down. Stop where they are supposed to and keep rolling and all will be well. ARG just annoying. Sorry you had that experience. It just bothers me because for this company I am using their equipment which isn't even as nice as my stuff and I get great results. Parents are using much better equipment than I am and I can and will outshoot them because I have the spot. Irritating that they did that. |
|
|
|
12/16/2009 11:12:49 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by drewbixcube:
I'm a HUGE fan of walking in like you own the place and are supposed to be there. Wear a lanyard around your neck with a work ID or a name badge and you are golden!
-d |
Originally posted by david1707:
Flickr toys has a great tool to make an official looking badge. I made one up that says "Event Photographer" and slid it into one of those clear ID holders with the clip on it. Clip that to my shirt or jacket and I'm in! Act like you belong there and most people think you do. |
Sorry guys but both of these ideas are not only illegal, but also part of the reason that real journalists are coming into such a hard time doing their jobs. I'm disappointed that you threw that out there Drew. you should know better. :( I carry Media Credentials which are paid for each year by my employer so that I can get into places where I am suppose to work. Walking in like you own the place will likely get your camera handed back to you in pieces(then you will start a rant because someone broke your camera) and it causes more restrictions to be put on entry to places so you can start yet another thread complaining about it.
Matt |
I guess I left out my smiley face...(edited original post for future readers)
Sorry...I meant that a little more "tongue 'n cheek" than it came off. I am totally against creating fake credentials. Every event (mostly sporting) that I have shot where the place required credentials, I obtained official copies...by request, through the venue, on the up & up.
I guess I was thinking more along the lines of shooting around a bunch of GWC's. Acting like you own the place (determined, precise) will get the skiddish ones out of your way so you can get a good shot. I am still a fan of acting like you are supposed to be there (don't be the chatty Kathy, or the Nikon snob, etc). And the name badge or work ID is mostly for getting into places while not carrying a camera-carrying official US Government ID's is pretty helpful during a 9-5 shift (Government license plates are great too, you can park ANYWHERE) (joking...but seriously).
The only time I really walked up and crossed any barriers was when I was shooting my SMALL hometown High School football. I had permission from our AD though and provided the pics for free to the paper when their photog couldn't show, so I'm probably less of a bad ass than my story would imply... |
|
|
|
12/15/2009 01:22:59 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by drewbixcube:
I'm a HUGE fan of walking in like you own the place and are supposed to be there. Wear a lanyard around your neck with a work ID or a name badge and you are golden!
-d |
Originally posted by david1707:
Flickr toys has a great tool to make an official looking badge. I made one up that says "Event Photographer" and slid it into one of those clear ID holders with the clip on it. Clip that to my shirt or jacket and I'm in! Act like you belong there and most people think you do. |
Sorry guys but both of these ideas are not only illegal, but also part of the reason that real journalists are coming into such a hard time doing their jobs. I'm disappointed that you threw that out there Drew. you should know better. :( I carry Media Credentials which are paid for each year by my employer so that I can get into places where I am suppose to work. Walking in like you own the place will likely get your camera handed back to you in pieces(then you will start a rant because someone broke your camera) and it causes more restrictions to be put on entry to places so you can start yet another thread complaining about it.
Matt
Message edited by author 2009-12-15 13:25:27. |
|
|
|
12/15/2009 10:56:18 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Interesting story, Jose. I'm glad you found a compromise. Was the "no flash" request so you wouldn't blind the students and public, or so you wouldn't over-expose the pros' work? It makes me wonder how pro paparazzi (sp?) deal with multiple flashes going off at the same time.
As for Craig's (Citadel)'s hockey game experience, it makes me laugh that the usher mentioned a 40mm limit to a lens, without taking into account how close or far the photographer is from the rink. If you really wanted to confuse them, you could have started a discussion about the effect of sensor size. |
The flash issue wasn´t a request. It was my proposal to get less atention over me (avoiding the "periscope" on the audience, as  vawendy mentioned) and also because I said that the camera "would behave as a P&S", delivering lower quality images (so the pros could offer their pictures to my sister)... something like that. It wasn´t some techincal issue, but more as something I gave them on the negotiation to be able to take the pictures. |
|
|
|
12/15/2009 09:03:31 AM · #7 |
Interesting story, Jose. I'm glad you found a compromise. Was the "no flash" request so you wouldn't blind the students and public, or so you wouldn't over-expose the pros' work? It makes me wonder how pro paparazzi (sp?) deal with multiple flashes going off at the same time.
As for Craig's (Citadel)'s hockey game experience, it makes me laugh that the usher mentioned a 40mm limit to a lens, without taking into account how close or far the photographer is from the rink. If you really wanted to confuse them, you could have started a discussion about the effect of sensor size. |
|
|
|
12/15/2009 06:59:50 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by drewbixcube:
|
I'm a HUGE fan of walking in like you own the place and are supposed to be there. Wear a lanyard around your neck with a work ID or a name badge and you are golden!
-d [/quote]
Flickr toys has a great tool to make an official looking badge. I made one up that says "Event Photographer" and slid it into one of those clear ID holders with the clip on it. Clip that to my shirt or jacket and I'm in! Act like you belong there and most people think you do. |
|
|
|
12/14/2009 09:54:54 AM · #9 |
Aaargh. That would really make me mad. I took pictures of my son's law school graduation with my 40D and the 70-300mm. I was about half a block away and crouched in the aisle while he walked across the stage. I also got a couple of his friends who were near him in the line. I used the "burst" mode and managed to get a decent shot of everyone. The "pro" was right up on the stage, and must have allotted one shot per person, because the proof that came to my son had his eyes closed and a horrible expression on the presenter's face. Mine had everyone with his/her eyes open and not a grimace in the group.
I processed things in CS3 and even with a pretty hard crop (because of my distance from the stage), I got some really nice pictures (if I do say so 8)).
As for the p&s only rule, this was in LA and there were proud parents with pro video set-ups taking videos of the whole ceremony, but that's a whole different world. |
|
|
|
12/14/2009 12:27:44 AM · #10 |
Although I haven't had this happen to me yet, im irratated when this comes up. Its not the first forum thats had this kind of response or problem. Like everyone has been saying:
Let everyone take pictures, or no one at all.
Im pretty sure that as an up and coming grad that I want Jason ( smardaz) to take pictures while i walk. Also, if i was a parent (And i better not become one any time soon because that will be news to me!) I would want to get some pictures as they walk during graduation!
Some people are really irratating to say the least! =]
|
|
|
|
12/13/2009 11:50:40 PM · #11 |
The last time I got the "you can't take a picture because that's a pro camera" bullcrap I was at a hockey game. Specifically the poor usher said that I couldn't picture with "that" camera and I asked why not. She said that because the lens was too big. I asked her what the limitation was. She said she thought it was 40 mm. Now that doesn't say whether its lens diameter or focal length (in fact she didn't even say millimeters she just said 40). The lens I had on was my Sigma 70-300 mm f4/5.6. Telephoto? Yes. Pro? Certainly not. So I proceeded to confuse the hell out of her until she game up and left. :)
As for the original posting? Yeah I totally disagree with preventing you from shooting especially at something so personal as a graduation. Considering that DSLRs are quite accessible to the general market (i.e. not just pros but to everyday GWACs too) I really can't see making a distinction based on the camera. As stated previously: if you have an exclusive contract with a pro for this event? Give him the prime pick of spots to shoot from. Everyone else can shoot from their chairs.
Message edited by author 2009-12-13 23:55:48. |
|
|
|
12/13/2009 11:27:10 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by houstonian:
This year they banned DSLR's at football games (Mississippi State) and a lot of people were pissed. God forbid anyone take a half decent picture and try to sell it or something. Grr. |
If you are taking and selling photos of NCAA teams you better be very careful. The NCAA is very strict with the use and sale of images taken of their teams.
Matt |
I agree that the sale of the photos is touchy...a group of us who all go there were just irritated because we couldn't take photos for our own use. We all just post pics on Flickr, none of us ever sell our photos. We are not pros =) Just annoying that we are banned from taking pics just because our cameras are better than a P&S. At least they could have us register with them or something so they can hunt someone down if they do find them selling pics. |
|
|
|
12/13/2009 11:20:46 PM · #13 |
Exactly! Which is exactly why I just dropped over $100 for school photos of my 3 year old! :)
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by PGerst:
Ridiculous! |
I tend to agree. If the pro's work is really that good, parents will buy her/his shots If it's not, they will not. The pro obviously has the advantage of the prime spots. I strongly suspect that in this case, the pro paid the school a kick-back to try to gain exclusivity.
As for making a distinction between DLSRs and "P&S" cameras, what bunk. Either they are allowing photography by the guests, or not. |
|
|
|
|
12/13/2009 11:11:32 PM · #14 |
| Was the ceremony at the school? |
|
|
|
12/13/2009 11:11:20 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by houstonian:
This year they banned DSLR's at football games (Mississippi State) and a lot of people were pissed. God forbid anyone take a half decent picture and try to sell it or something. Grr. |
If you are taking and selling photos of NCAA teams you better be very careful. The NCAA is very strict with the use and sale of images taken of their teams.
Matt |
|
|
|
12/13/2009 11:04:39 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by faidoi:
Parents with dslrs = micro stock photographers to the pros. |
Unless those parents obtain written model releases (from the other parents) those pictures are useless for any kind of stock ... |
True. I was trying to point out the reason why photographers would be protective of their potential earnings.
People shouldn't take pictures of other kids in the background or also or there might be trouble :P
Message edited by author 2009-12-13 23:07:14. |
|
|
|
12/13/2009 11:03:55 PM · #17 |
| This year they banned DSLR's at football games (Mississippi State) and a lot of people were pissed. God forbid anyone take a half decent picture and try to sell it or something. Grr. |
|
|
|
12/13/2009 10:58:22 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Parents with dslrs = micro stock photographers to the pros. |
Unless those parents obtain written model releases (from the other parents) those pictures are useless for any kind of stock ... |
|
|
|
12/13/2009 10:42:17 PM · #19 |
| Parents with dslrs = micro stock photographers to the pros. |
|
|
|
12/13/2009 10:21:00 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Skip:
the easiest thing to do in these situations is have a STRONG explanation
Originally posted by guy with a professional camera:
look, i'm not here to photograph the damn graduation. i'm with the forensics lab and i just came from a murder scene. i want to see my nephew graduate, then i'm going back to work. |
Originally posted by another person with a professional camera:
fine, you call my editor and explain why there are no photos from the graduation to run in the paper tomorrow |
Originally posted by yet another person with a pro camera:
just show me where the rest of the staff is! i'm running late!!! |
|
I'm a HUGE fan of walking in like you own the place and are supposed to be there. Wear a lanyard around your neck with a work ID or a name badge and you are golden!
Edit to add:
:-p
;-)
X-D
(and other smiley faces to indicate this was written with a few extra shots of jackassery)
-d
Message edited by author 2009-12-16 23:15:22. |
|
|
|
12/13/2009 09:22:10 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Skip:
the easiest thing to do in these situations is have a STRONG explanation
[quote=guy with a professional camera]look, i'm not here to photograph the damn graduation. i'm with the forensics lab and i just came from a murder scene. i want to see my nephew graduate, then i'm going back to work. |
OMFG, that's HILARIOUS!!!!!
|
|
|
|
12/13/2009 09:15:51 PM · #22 |
| These are the type of situations my wife hates. :) |
|
|
|
12/13/2009 09:06:17 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
If photography is limited, it may just be to ensure that the evening proceeds as quickly as is reasonable. |
It would be nice to believe that, but I would guarantee that the real reason involved a bunch of dollar signs. There's no rational reason for allowing point and shoots, but disallowing "professional" cameras.
I can understand restricting parents to a designated area so you don't have families tripping over each other to get to a spot to shoot their graduate as their names are being announced. But telling them they can only use a certain camera screams, "the photographer is kicking money back to us for the sake of making an unreasonable rule to benefit him." |
|
|
|
12/13/2009 08:57:24 PM · #24 |
the easiest thing to do in these situations is have a STRONG explanation
Originally posted by guy with a professional camera:
look, i'm not here to photograph the damn graduation. i'm with the forensics lab and i just came from a murder scene. i want to see my nephew graduate, then i'm going back to work. |
Originally posted by another person with a professional camera:
fine, you call my editor and explain why there are no photos from the graduation to run in the paper tomorrow |
Originally posted by yet another person with a pro camera:
just show me where the rest of the staff is! i'm running late!!! |
|
|
|
|
12/13/2009 08:14:49 PM · #25 |
| what would they consider to be a "pro" camera? I Canon SX110 isn't what I would consider a "Professional" camera, but it can take pretty good pics. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 07:31:32 PM EDT.
