-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney Security Tough on Photographers
- Thread starter I_heart_Tigger
- Start date
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
Just sayin....
these conversations would never happen if we were all still shooting film.
I have a whole mess of CHEAP 35mm cameras that when paired up with professional grade (FUJI VELVIA) is insane in the quality department. But today, it's all about megapixels and tilting LCD screens... the image quality, pushed aside
rant over
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
I guess if you have no self-respect or interest in the product you create...
then by all means, have fun uploading instagram "photographs" onto Facebook. But don't call yourself a photographer.
To start an argument with someone, then post the old "well, not everyone is Ansel Adams" argument is pretty weak man. It pretty much defeats every post you made in this thread.
G00fyDad
Well-Known Member
I get what you're saying.
I am with you on this. Honestly. I think flynnibus should calm down a bit. You're not being snobbish. Hell, I really don't know the first thing about cameras and even I think that using a tripod, every time, might be a little extreme. I use one to just hold my PaS for videos and self shots. That's it. I don't see the point in using one all the time for normal picture taking. As little as I know about cameras I can ask some stupid questions here and I have never had any photographer in this forum get snobby with me. :wave:And btw, that picture is of an "off road" model Ferrari that they make. I was actually trying to show flynnibus that he ought to choose his arguments a little better. After all, taking a Ferrari off road isn't really that stupid now.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Way to solidify that image there buddy... putting down people for having the nerve of taking photos for reasons other than art or 'product'. Wake up man.. photography isn't the same to all people. For some it's just a way to capture a moment in time. Know when to be critical and know when to just have fun. Sheez
Or maybe you've just never left what YOU thought the posts were about the entire thread instead of actually reading them. Tripods serve a purpose for all camera types. Fact. Not opinion, not a quality argument, not a whose got the biggest lens contest. It's straight up fact. Just like a camera bag serves a purpose, a lens cover, a flash... all regardless of the type of camera used. No one needs to have wet dreams about large image photography or be willing to invest 10hrs to get a one time shot to be 'worthy' of using a tripod, nor does anyone need to be interested in getting the highest possible image out of every shot to be 'worthy' to take the photo in the first place.
Seriously - get over yourself.
The posts were never about image quality - yet you insist on trying to make it so because you feel the need to project YOUR impression of photography on everyone.
It's sad that the reality is the comments here stemmed from people who feel the need to mock people because they don't aspire to their same level of camera geekdom.
It's this type of behavior that makes photogs look bad in the first place.
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
Actually the OP was about the potential danger/harassment photographers faced in Disney... NEITHER tripods or image quality was every an original discussion. This thread sort of morphed into this.
Sure, call me a snob all you want... doesn't change anything.
Another member here pointed out the tripods being parked in the middle of the way, and I'll be as blunt as I can here...
If the opportunity for those of us who create REAL work is ruined because of someone blatantly ruining it for the rest of us all in an effort to bang out crap images than yes... I'LL BE REALLY ANGRY. I'd also never interfere with ANYONE to get a shot, any potential experience ruining act is not worth it. So yes, you're posting in a photography thread and if you don't take the craft seriously then don't take offense when people who do chime in and call you on things.
I guess I should have been more clear here... I didn't want to come off as a snob but if that's what it takes then so be it.
flynnibus
Premium Member
and shoot video... and do lots more. Let's not forget PaS cameras were far ahead of the video and effects angles of the digital processing than the DSLRs were for a long long time.
I must be a sinner.. since I take both my DSLR and a point and shoot when I travel. And OMG.. I've been known to take photos with my phone too. I sure hope my Nikon doesn't look down upon me when I pick it back up to use the best tool for the job at hand.
What it really means is.. unless you want someone treating you by the gear or methods you use.. why not put down the camera snob attitudes and focus on the true problem. People's behaviors and consideration of others and the space around them. A person with a micro 4/3s, PaS, camcorder, or even entry level DSLR is just as much in their right to use a tripod as someone who feels they need to have the best possible camera body possible. Both are using the tripod for the same exact reasons.
The fact someone paid more for a camera doesn't entitle them to anything more than a person who is using a different tool. Both need to be conscious of their actions and impacts on the guests around them if you want to avoid Disney clamping down further on the leeway photographers have today.
Timekeeper
Well-Known Member
When I encounter a "stupid rule," I simply come up with a smart (or equally stupid) solution. For example, there was a rule that tripods were not allowed in Central Park. But that did not deter the use of monopods, bipods, or - you guessed it - quadpods. Stupid rule? Maybe. Stupid solution? You bet. But since we - and NYPD - all know what a "tripod" is, a table (with four legs) does not constitute the prohibited three-legged item. And in this case, bringing a table into the park is actually worse than a tripod, but hey, I didn't make the stupid rule. If Disney bans the use of tripods, that would even include those 6-inch tripods used for point and shoot cameras. I use those all the time with the camera's timer for group photos. But even though they are the size of 3 Bic pens bundled together, I suppose that they would still be prohibited (unless Disney were to specify an exact height/leg length for prohibited tripods).
There are plenty of camera-steadying options available that are not three-legged offenders. Some are more convenient than tripods, and some are bulkier and less convenient. But there are options out there. Clamps, beanbags, 1-2-or-4 legged pods, etc.
If and when confronted with such a stupid rule, I'd like to go into the park and set up one of these non-offending (non-tripod) structures:
:lookaroun
And whatever the heck this thing is - it's not a tripod:
The only reasonable explanations for why a theme park would prohibit tripods are (1) they could be disguises for more menacing instrumentalities such as weapons, or (2) they could "get in the way" and interrupt guest traffic, or pose as risks that other guests might trip over, etc.
Well, we all know how [un]thorough security bag checks have become, and security checks only relate to bags (and not what is on the person), and tripods have become much smaller and lightweight, so I doubt it's the "potential menacing instrumentality" reason. There's nothing that a would-be-problem-causer would need to carry inside of a disguised tripod that couldn't be placed inside of a pocket, or pants, or jacket, etc. I suppose someone could machine the hollow legs into flasks, but then again, that's what flasks are for.
As for "getting in the way," most guests don't want to carry bulky tripods around all day, and tripods have become very small and lightweight compared to the good ol' days of over-the-shoulder VHS cameras. They don't "get in the way" any more than a single person does; unless the photographer is getting really creative with angles or has such a large camera that a larger footprint is required. Brazilian tour groups permitted, but tripods prohibited? Maybe if we paid separate admission for our tripods... :hammer:
Okay, class, just to review:
The following item is technically a tripod, and thus it would be a prohibited item:
The following item is technically not a tripod, and thus it would not be a prohibited item in the event that tripods are scheduled as prohibited items:
Stupid? Exactly.
:brick:
There are plenty of camera-steadying options available that are not three-legged offenders. Some are more convenient than tripods, and some are bulkier and less convenient. But there are options out there. Clamps, beanbags, 1-2-or-4 legged pods, etc.
If and when confronted with such a stupid rule, I'd like to go into the park and set up one of these non-offending (non-tripod) structures:
:lookaroun
And whatever the heck this thing is - it's not a tripod:
The only reasonable explanations for why a theme park would prohibit tripods are (1) they could be disguises for more menacing instrumentalities such as weapons, or (2) they could "get in the way" and interrupt guest traffic, or pose as risks that other guests might trip over, etc.
Well, we all know how [un]thorough security bag checks have become, and security checks only relate to bags (and not what is on the person), and tripods have become much smaller and lightweight, so I doubt it's the "potential menacing instrumentality" reason. There's nothing that a would-be-problem-causer would need to carry inside of a disguised tripod that couldn't be placed inside of a pocket, or pants, or jacket, etc. I suppose someone could machine the hollow legs into flasks, but then again, that's what flasks are for.
As for "getting in the way," most guests don't want to carry bulky tripods around all day, and tripods have become very small and lightweight compared to the good ol' days of over-the-shoulder VHS cameras. They don't "get in the way" any more than a single person does; unless the photographer is getting really creative with angles or has such a large camera that a larger footprint is required. Brazilian tour groups permitted, but tripods prohibited? Maybe if we paid separate admission for our tripods... :hammer:
Okay, class, just to review:
The following item is technically a tripod, and thus it would be a prohibited item:
The following item is technically not a tripod, and thus it would not be a prohibited item in the event that tripods are scheduled as prohibited items:
Stupid? Exactly.
:brick:
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
yeah, it would likely be something like a "separate photographic or video stabilization device of any manner any larger than X x X"
because even though we've seen smaller and smaller tripods, they are really useless when extended... the strongest is when they are used without extending their primary legs (esp with any kind of weight on it... as in a DSLR with battery grip and wide angle lens)
Timekeeper
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't asking for an articulated definition potentially create more problems than solutions? For example, the above proposed definition begs the question, what is a "stabilization device"? There are a lot of unique and creative "stabilization devices" on the market that only photo enthusiasts might be familiar with (clamps, bags, flexible arms, etc.), many of which are relatively new and not things that were even contemplated (invented) years ago.
There are also many items that might not be created or even intended to be used as stabilization devices - but may in fact be used as such by the creative photographer. Any photographer worth her salt has had experience improvising with utilizing available items already present in the environment for stabilization. Who among us has never placed their camera on a Disney trash can? (Hopefully not the one that would start talking and then roll away, while interacting with guests :lookaroun) Would I be prohibited from using my camera bag, or EVC, for camera stabilization ...even though they both have footprints larger than a small tripod? I would hope not.
This (sufficient articulation) is one of the problems that legislators face every day, and we see plenty of poorly written laws as a result. If Disney even finds itself at odds with photographers and their equipment, the better approach might be for Disney to reserve discretion (which is automatically does anyway) and maybe provide a friendly reminder to photographers may be asked to stop using any equipment that interferes with other guests, cast members, or park operations.
I wouldn't want 100 tripods all set up in the middle of the street during the Festival of Lights. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be prohibited from setting up a tripod on the street at the end of the night when almost everyone has left, or during the off season when certain areas of the parks are a ghost town, etc. So maybe the continued practice of CM discretion is sufficient ...at least until we start seeing any evidence of abuse of that discretion, in which case we might want more terms articulated in writing.
NowInc
Well-Known Member
This also presents a huge missed opportunity for Disney that the Zoo here in Miami has capitalized on. Basically..they have a special "Photographer" pass that allows people early/late access to take pictures without as many people around.
Now..IF disney were to put a ban on all "stabilization" devices, I personally wouldn't mind spending an extra..say..80 bucks a year (thats what the zoo charges on top of your annual pass) to get an hour either early or late (or just access to EMH) to be able to use a tripod and take pics of the parks with far less people at those designated times.
Do I see them actually saying no to tripods? No. Not any time in the near future at least. But if it happens, they would have options to still keep people semi-happy.
Now..IF disney were to put a ban on all "stabilization" devices, I personally wouldn't mind spending an extra..say..80 bucks a year (thats what the zoo charges on top of your annual pass) to get an hour either early or late (or just access to EMH) to be able to use a tripod and take pics of the parks with far less people at those designated times.
Do I see them actually saying no to tripods? No. Not any time in the near future at least. But if it happens, they would have options to still keep people semi-happy.
Timekeeper
Well-Known Member
I like that idea! It seems that early admission would make more sense, though, because most of the WDW parks take quite some time to empty out; long after posted closing hours. Anyone who wants a vacant evening shot of the park is best served lingering around after closing and being the last guest to (politely) leave the area(s) of the park. I don't think that obtaining additional "admission" would benefit a photographer-guest in this respect, unless that admission were to last for a substantial amount of time after posted closing and/or EM hours.
As for daytime shots, on the other hand, a pass providing for early morning admission may be more desirable. Not only would this offer a direct benefit of access to a vacant park, but it would also allow for photos to be taken during better natural light conditions.
Either way, I think that it's a fun idea.
Timekeeper
Well-Known Member
Well, if it was ticketed admission, then it would - by its own definition - not constitute "roaming the parks during off hours." Rather, they would be "on" hours, for a specific purpose. Just like how EMH, MNSSHP, extra day of magic, and other special events are "on" despite limited attraction operation.
In the past, I've left the MK 2 hours after the park's official closing time (with no subsequent events or EMH). I suppose that 2 hours after the posted closing time might be considered to be "off hours," but as long as I follow the directions of CMs and security, it's "on hours" enough for me
flynnibus
Premium Member
The difference is the environment and expectations of the park. If you just let people in 2hrs early before any park day.. you've effectively have reduced the 3rd shift's time window to do work by 2hrs. That's not realistic for the park to do all the time. There are safety, security, and insurance implications to allowing non-employees move through the park when the park is not being maintained, staffed, and monitored as if it were in operational mode.
That is why it's 'off hours'. That's why its not really realistic to say 'do it any time' - but you could escort people to do it. But then you are forcing people to all stay together, not take as long as they may want before moving to next area, etc because they need to stay with the escort. So that's not desirable either. But if you fixed the 'when' this happened to a limited number of occasions or predictable.. then you could have the park adapt so those hours are no longer just off hours, but simply not fully staffed, operational hours (just like they do with EMH, etc). But since now you are operating on a fixed schedule anyways.. it would be more advantageous to operate that like a paid tour opportunity.. instead of a flat fee for a year.
To make something like this work.. you couldn't impinge all the time on what the park needs to get done prior to opening. The requirements of something like the MK are far greater than a zoo.
