Photography in Britain (and people)
Discussion
To be honest, I don't think there is - apparently if you kind of 'lock' your leg around it (wedge into inside of foot and then ram knee against it) it can get really very steady. Also minimum shutter speed is a function of focal length.
I use a manfrotto carbon-fibre monopod and ball head for our motorsports work, and then I really only use it as a rest in between shots, picking the whole lot up when taking pictures. Only certain situations warrant panning on the monopod - most people I know use them as a rest. When you are there for hours with the 100-400L or bigger on the front of your camera, having it able to rest in a 'ready' position is very handy...
I use a manfrotto carbon-fibre monopod and ball head for our motorsports work, and then I really only use it as a rest in between shots, picking the whole lot up when taking pictures. Only certain situations warrant panning on the monopod - most people I know use them as a rest. When you are there for hours with the 100-400L or bigger on the front of your camera, having it able to rest in a 'ready' position is very handy...
Mentioned on here before - this makes good reading and I always carry a couple of copies with me in my bag - useful to remind you (and other 'interested parties') of the guidelines...
UK Photographer's rights: www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php
UK Photographer's rights: www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php
Bee_Jay said:I read the doc yesterday, its quite informative.
Mentioned on here before - this makes good reading and I always carry a couple of copies with me in my bag - useful to remind you (and other 'interested parties') of the guidelines...
UK Photographer's rights: www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php
My photography group were shooting at night in London, by Tower Bridge a few months ago and I was asked to move on by a security guard at St. Catherine's Dock. There's a subtle change in the paving and they were hovering by the edge - the second I stepped over onto their side they could legally ask me to move on. But I could set my tripod up on the edge of the other paving and I was fine. Their reason - if anyone trips up they can sue St Catherine's Dock. 
simpo two said:
the only copyright on a property is the designer. the owner of the house (unless the designer) has no legal right to stop you photography it. places like police stations, MOD land, hospitals etc are the exception.
Add shopping centres. I've directed video a few times in those and the security guards arrive like sharks to blood.
Copyright does not exist in buildings - you can take whatever pictures you want of them, from a public place. They are specifically excluded in the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, which is the current copyright law.
Shopping centres are privately owned so the owners can impose whatever conditions of entry they want. With any privately owned property (eg the south bank in London, Trafalgar Square, hospitals, etc) to which the public has access, if you breach the conditions under which access is being permitted (be it by taking photographs, selling ice-cream cones, or whatever) then you become a trespasser. The general rule is that you can take any picture you want if you are in a public place. There are exceptions as to what you can photograph that are covered in the Official Secrets Act (which includes any railway property), court precincts are not permitted under contempt of court legislation, and children obviously are a bit of a dodgy area these days, although I don't think just taking pictures is actually illegal. In addition, no one, including a police officer, has the right to take any film, memory card or equipment from you under any circumstances - it is theft, and possibly an assault, if they force you to hand it over. Remember that basic trespass is a civil offence, only if you refuse to leave when asked does it become aggravated trespass which is a criminal offence.
Property releases are neccessary for certain commercial uses, especially advertising, but you could, for example, take a picture of a pretty cottage from a public place and turn it into postcards, or sell it to a magazine or newspaper for publication, without any releases being needed. Only if an endorsement of a product is implied will you get into trouble (it is a libel basically).
(I do know more or less what I'm talking about, but this is not legal advice obviously)
Useful info Tog!
Last month a man went to his Tax Office to make sure they got his Return in time, and took a photo of himself handing it in, as proof that they got it. The staff saw the flash and forced him to delete the file on 'security' grounds. How does that stand? (15 points)
tog said:
In addition, no one, including a police officer, has the right to take any film, memory card or equipment from you under any circumstances - it is theft, and possibly an assault, if they force you to hand it over.
Last month a man went to his Tax Office to make sure they got his Return in time, and took a photo of himself handing it in, as proof that they got it. The staff saw the flash and forced him to delete the file on 'security' grounds. How does that stand? (15 points)
simpo two said:I wonder if cameras erase the file, or more likely delete the record of the file (you can retrieve any data which has been deleted, with the right program)
Useful info Tog!
tog said:
In addition, no one, including a police officer, has the right to take any film, memory card or equipment from you under any circumstances - it is theft, and possibly an assault, if they force you to hand it over.
Last month a man went to his Tax Office to make sure they got his Return in time, and took a photo of himself handing it in, as proof that they got it. The staff saw the flash and forced him to delete the file on 'security' grounds. How does that stand? (15 points)
406tm said:By restoring files on the HD, or from a memory card
wonder if cameras erase the file, or more likely delete the record of the file (you can retrieve any data which has been deleted, with the right program)
Don't panic springs to mind. Saved my big white ass many a time
UKBob said:
I wonder if cameras erase the file, or more likely delete the record of the file (you can retrieve any data which has been deleted, with the right program)
My old Canon/Kodak DCS520 (2 megapixels for about £10k - those were the days!) had a great 'restore card' function built in. It meant if you took a picture to which someone objected you could delete it for them, then just go straight back and restore it from the card again, no special software needed. Got me out of several sticky situations
tog said:Nifty feature to have.
I wonder if cameras erase the file, or more likely delete the record of the file (you can retrieve any data which has been deleted, with the right program)
My old Canon/Kodak DCS520 (2 megapixels for about £10k - those were the days!) had a great 'restore card' function built in. It meant if you took a picture to which someone objected you could delete it for them, then just go straight back and restore it from the card again, no special software needed. Got me out of several sticky situations
What were those sticky situations though, if you dont mind explaining?
UKBob said:
wonder if cameras erase the file, or more likely delete the record of the file (you can retrieve any data which has been deleted, with the right program)
Don't panic springs to mind. Saved my big white ass many a time
Bob
Both. Dont Panic lets you choose the source you want to recover. It's cheap too.
www.digital-cameras.com/accessories/digital-cameras/software/image-recall.html
Dave
406tm
406tm said:Cool, looks good. Im not going to buy it as I dont need it, but if a random stranger decided to email me a cracked version... well, obviously I wouldnt install it
Dont Panic lets you choose the source you want to recover. It's cheap too.
www.digital-cameras.com/accessories/digital-cameras/software/image-recall.html
Dave
406tm
UKBob said:
What were those sticky situations though, if you dont mind explaining?
In a previous job I was a photographer for a national press agency and covering court cases was a stock in trade. I spent many a happy day loitering outside both crown and magistrates' courts covering the newsworthy cases, photographing the significant characters in the case as they leave court. Sometimes they would object, sometimes with some force! It was easier to delete and recover pics rather than get into an argument about how I was in fact allowed to take their picture, even if they didn't want me to. Fair game though - if they're in court then it can be reported. It is still a free press in this country, thankfully.
tog said:Sounds like a handy feature to have for the PJ!
What were those sticky situations though, if you dont mind explaining?
In a previous job I was a photographer for a national press agency and covering court cases was a stock in trade. I spent many a happy day loitering outside both crown and magistrates' courts covering the newsworthy cases, photographing the significant characters in the case as they leave court. Sometimes they would object, sometimes with some force! It was easier to delete and recover pics rather than get into an argument about how I was in fact allowed to take their picture, even if they didn't want me to. Fair game though - if they're in court then it can be reported. It is still a free press in this country, thankfully.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff