DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> What is so threatening about a tripod?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 40, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/06/2010 11:09:48 AM · #1
So the security guard outside the Natural History museum was fine with my camera until I put it on a tripod, then he went totally ballistic ... it wasn't a health and safety thing either the whole subjective experience for him seemed to scale up to something sinister for him.

I've been stopped before by police asking what I was doing taking photos in London on a tripod before now too. I kinda understand in a manner but really I haven't heard any evidence that terrorists pre-fix an outrage with a photography trip.... now a theodolite and a manual from the dynamite company I'd understand .....
 01/06/2010 11:13:48 AM · #2
He was upset that you spilled the beans on his little known secret about how to get sharper pictures indoors without boosting ISO. If he allowed you to set up your tripod then he would no longer have the advantage and everyone would know.
 01/06/2010 11:14:54 AM · #3
MacGyver can make a triple barreled shotgun with a tripod and some chewing gum. This security guard probably watches a little too much TV.
 01/06/2010 11:26:44 AM · #4
Originally posted by yakatme:
MacGyver can make a triple barreled shotgun with a tripod and some chewing gum. This security guard probably watches a little too much TV.

You saw that episode too? :-)
 01/06/2010 11:29:11 AM · #5
They often claim it's about sidewalk or pedestrian safety, but in some cases it's really about photo rights. They don't want anyone creating professional images that compete with an institution's own photo sales.
 01/06/2010 11:40:01 AM · #6
In general, I think it's a psychological issue, a turf issue, really. To set up a tripod is to "take possession" of a patch of real estate, to claim it as your own for the duration. And cops/security guards are chosen for their territorial instincts, just like guard dogs are.

R.
 01/06/2010 02:05:03 PM · #7
I believe that setting up your tripod is considered to constitute a tripping hazard and for this reason here in the UK you are allowed to take pictures at London Underground stations but you may not setup a tripod. Of course shopping bags that are far more hazardous are perfectly acceptible... H&S gone mad as usual.
 01/06/2010 02:45:22 PM · #8
Originally posted by yakatme:
MacGyver can make a triple barreled shotgun with a tripod and some chewing gum. This security guard probably watches a little too much TV.


MacGyver didn't like guns- until he went into the witness relocation program, changed his name to Jack O'Neil, and joined the air force.
 01/06/2010 02:52:33 PM · #9
I have been harrased by security in a train station for using a tripod but it wasn't for health hazzard reasons. They suspected me of being a professional photographer who could be making money from their site. The funny thing was there are no signs that say no photography & there was also a poster of a Japanese girl taking a photograph of a train. I was rather taken aback by their attitude towards me. After going on their website, I found that they actually do charge a fee for taking photographs there if you are a pro but it is free if your not so I suppose they consider only pro photographers with SLR's use tripods.

My advice would be if your going to be using a tripod in a public place especially a mueseum or any other building, go onto their website & just check their policy towards photography or talk so someone in management that can give you an answer as to whether or not you can use a tripod.
 01/06/2010 03:01:21 PM · #10
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
I believe that setting up your tripod is considered to constitute a tripping hazard and for this reason here in the UK you are allowed to take pictures at London Underground stations but you may not setup a tripod. Of course shopping bags that are far more hazardous are perfectly acceptible... H&S gone mad as usual.

I was stopped by police when taking pics in an Underground station without a tripod. They were friendly and ok with it but they were still suspicious. I did use a tripod once and the station staff came running - they informed me I needed permission to shoot, even if not a pro.
 01/06/2010 03:20:00 PM · #11
Inferiority complex along with an over important sense of turf and a complex lack of common sense - both the rent a pigs and the self important idiots that make the "rules". Common sense would indicate that real terrorists would use google earth, public webcams e.t.c. and publicly or professionally available building plans - I know I would.
 01/06/2010 04:35:31 PM · #12
Tripods are a pita to have in public spaces if you're anyone but the photographer. I'm glad there are rules against them and I wish they'd implement the same for SUV-sized strollers.
 01/06/2010 04:48:43 PM · #13
I agree with MK. There are multiple reasons to be hassled if using a tripod in public spaces especially those with limited space. Am wondering if anyone has had similar experiences with a mono-pod? Should think that would eliminate a number of issues.
 01/06/2010 04:52:15 PM · #14
Originally posted by Nuzzer:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
I believe that setting up your tripod is considered to constitute a tripping hazard and for this reason here in the UK you are allowed to take pictures at London Underground stations but you may not setup a tripod. Of course shopping bags that are far more hazardous are perfectly acceptible... H&S gone mad as usual.

I was stopped by police when taking pics in an Underground station without a tripod. They were friendly and ok with it but they were still suspicious. I did use a tripod once and the station staff came running - they informed me I needed permission to shoot, even if not a pro.


I believe that in the UK you can shoot at Underground Stations without any problems as long as you don't use flash or cause an obstruction to passengers. However, as usual, my approach is always to seek permission. You explain that the sort of shot you want requires a tripod. I don't have many problems wherever I shoot as I either respect site privacy or gain permission. Tomorrow I am going onto a security restricted site and have permission to roam at will, as I do at work which is also security sensitive. It is down to respect and keeping to the rules.

Before anyone bites back, I actually chat with security guards and explain what I am trying to do. Surprisingly they are often interested and of course, I show them the resulting shots. And, yes, I also use a monopod regularly.

Message edited by author 2010-01-06 16:55:01.
 01/06/2010 05:16:01 PM · #15
*scratching head* Waitaminute, all this started with an incident OUTSIDE a museum?! Not long ago we shot inside a museum in Ottawa, and were told to show the guards at the Security desk our tripods. They looked at them, said 'You're fine', and we shot unhassled for a good 3-4 hours. The museum wasn't super-busy, but it still had a fairly steady trickle of people coming through as we shot. And we shot everywhere. I'm sure we could have shot outside, too, if it hadn't been so damned cold that day.

Like you're going to walk away and leave gawd knows how many $$ in gear balanced atop three spindly legs, with any number of ignorant tourists and schoolchildren swarming around, ready to knock it over? Yeahhh...
 01/06/2010 06:41:26 PM · #16
I used to work for the NMT Mineral Museum. Not only did we allow cameras, but I would usually switch off the lights in the room, leaving the case lights on-- for those who looked like they might have some idea what they were doing, so they wouldn't have distracting glass reflections..

Our policy was simple, -- Shoot away, let us know if we can help. That's how it should be.
 01/06/2010 10:08:51 PM · #17
Originally posted by citymars:
They often claim it's about sidewalk or pedestrian safety, but in some cases it's really about photo rights. They don't want anyone creating professional images that compete with an institution's own photo sales.


I think this may be true some places, but not all. There's a tropical butterfly center near me that prohibits tripods due to some sort of fire code (I asked). Further, each month they have photographer friendly days wherein you can come in before the place normally opens, specifically for the use of tripods and to have less crowds at no extra cost. They also make these days pretty well known in their pamphlets. So my point here is that it's perfectly likely there are legal restrictions in any number of places as well.
 01/07/2010 04:16:10 AM · #18
Originally posted by snaffles:
*scratching head* Waitaminute, all this started with an incident OUTSIDE a museum?!


Yup, admittidly on the concourse to the entrance but it was very wide and definitely no more a trip hazard than the odd little child running about and any number of school parties.

Its a funny old world, I think we are driven by deeply embedded emotional reactions more than we like to think.

Take home point I guess is that it is best to discuss in some detail with officials what one wants to do and how one is going to do it if the shot is anything more than a tourist snapshot. I'm coming to the conculsion that good photography is equally about relationship as it is about correct exposure, iso and so forth...
 01/07/2010 04:18:14 AM · #19
Originally posted by yakatme:
MacGyver can make a triple barreled shotgun with a tripod and some chewing gum. This security guard probably watches a little too much TV.


I was going to visit the Ghanain Embassy to sort a visa out for a forth coming trip, I jolly well made sure my tripod was not in the bag for that one :-)
 01/07/2010 07:34:51 AM · #20
Well other than setting up my tripod to contact the mother ship to beam me up i cant really see the threat it possesses. ;P

nevertheless I wish there was some sort of internationally recognized organization that we (as in amateur to professional photographers) can join and just wave our membership card and they would know we mean well...

I really loose my enthusiasm when some dork comes up to me and says "HEY YOU WHATS YOUR BUSINESS HERE?!" especially when we have an over protective secret police here in Jordan.

reminds me when i wanted to take a an up close picture of the Late King Hussein mosque

the guard came over and told me I wasn't allowed to take pictures with my SLR but a camera phone is okay -,- , i almost dropped my SLR to face-palm with both hands (exaggerating). on the other hand im glad i got my zoom lens now i don't have to deal with those retards anymore :D

Message edited by author 2010-01-07 07:35:33.
 01/07/2010 08:21:35 AM · #21
Originally posted by robs:
Inferiority complex along with an over important sense of turf and a complex lack of common sense - both the rent a pigs and the self important idiots that make the "rules".


I would assume that you have undertaken an in-depth study of this matter and have all the relevant empirical data to back up this random generalization.

There exist countless examples of rules and regulations that I may not agree with, but that in itself is no reason for me to engage in character assassination and cast aspersions on the motives and mental acuity of the security personnel.

Doing a bit of leg work and establishing exactly what the "Ground Rules" are would enable anyone to be prepared and greatly reduce what seems (at first glance) to be a distinct dislike on your part for authority figures.

Just a thought,

Ray

Message edited by author 2010-01-07 09:18:09.
 01/07/2010 08:54:30 AM · #22
Originally posted by mk:
Tripods are a pita to have in public spaces if you're anyone but the photographer. I'm glad there are rules against them and I wish they'd implement the same for SUV-sized strollers.

Agreed. I was at the zoo in Prague and nobody could see one of the bugs in an indoor space because someone had set up their camera on a tripod right in front of it (a few inches) and was using something like a 20 second shutter. People were lining up behind him blocking the whole "aisle" and he was in his own little world, not even saying sorry when he finally (after about 2 minutes*) left.

*No, I didn't stand there for two minutes. I saw a few other things, then went back just as he picked up the tripod. He just left while people were staring at him waiting for him to say something.

You're probably expecting a slightly shorter shutter, farther shooting distance, and more space in a big museum though. If it was a Saturday afternoon, it might've been packed and could've been a trip/fire hazard and a big annoyance to others.
 01/07/2010 10:39:32 AM · #23
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I would assume that you have undertaken an in-depth study of this matter and have all the relevant empirical data to back up this random generalization.


I am generalised as a criminal, terrorist and pervert using a camera so if the ones making & enforcing the "rules" are allowed to generalise irrationally so am I.
 01/07/2010 10:51:43 AM · #24
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by citymars:
They often claim it's about sidewalk or pedestrian safety, but in some cases it's really about photo rights. They don't want anyone creating professional images that compete with an institution's own photo sales.


I think this may be true some places, but not all. There's a tropical butterfly center near me that prohibits tripods due to some sort of fire code (I asked). Further, each month they have photographer friendly days wherein you can come in before the place normally opens, specifically for the use of tripods and to have less crowds at no extra cost. They also make these days pretty well known in their pamphlets. So my point here is that it's perfectly likely there are legal restrictions in any number of places as well.


The botanical joint by my house (Longwood Gardens in Pennsylvania) has a similar deal, where they have tripod friendly hours.
 01/07/2010 10:58:08 AM · #25
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I would assume that you have undertaken an in-depth study of this matter and have all the relevant empirical data to back up this random generalization.


I am generalised as a criminal, terrorist and pervert using a camera so if the ones making & enforcing the "rules" are allowed to generalise irrationally so am I.


Yes indeed... attempt to substantiate the points of an apparently flawed argument by utilizing more generalizations... gotta love it.

I would contend that you are making assumptions at best and truly have no verifiable facts to substantiate your claim.

Ray

Message edited by author 2010-01-07 12:08:52.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 09:29:48 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 04/25/2024 09:29:48 AM EDT.