Photography in Britain (and people)
Discussion
Im reading a book on photography which mentioned that tripods are banned in some places. Has anyone had this experience in the UK? Ive also read a few comments people have made regarding the use of big or white lenses and the attention they draw, ie people sometimes mistaking you for press and giving you free entry, or worse - everyone staring, and doormen refusing you entry to venues because they think you are press. Id be intersted to hear any thoughts or experiences.
The one aspect of photography Im most looking forward to is candid portraiture. I shot this photo a few years ago (its not great I know) of a man in Romania sitting down, waiting for his train.
When back in Britain, even with a small G5, I must admit I'd be a little aprehensive crouching down in front of someone to take their photo without their permission, especially if I had an SLR with a white lens. We know how negative, unpredictable (or sometimes over protective) the behaviour of Brits can be at times. But if you are into faces, the street is the best place for these shots.
The one aspect of photography Im most looking forward to is candid portraiture. I shot this photo a few years ago (its not great I know) of a man in Romania sitting down, waiting for his train.
When back in Britain, even with a small G5, I must admit I'd be a little aprehensive crouching down in front of someone to take their photo without their permission, especially if I had an SLR with a white lens. We know how negative, unpredictable (or sometimes over protective) the behaviour of Brits can be at times. But if you are into faces, the street is the best place for these shots.
UKBob said:
Im reading a book on photography which mentioned that tripods are banned in some places. Has anyone had this experience in the UK?
Using a tripod is considered 'professional', even if it does make you a loser, and therefore you are taking pics to make money. A lot of property is copyrighted and to use any pictures you would have to get a 'property release' much the same as a 'model release'. The parks in London came under two authorities and you had to apply for permits to take professional pictures. Some years since I did this so may have changed.
Basically, everyone wants to make money. Rather than you take loverly pictures of your visit to..... wherever, they would rather you bought the official guide.
Rob, getting worried about you. With all this posting you seem to have been struck down with photo-itus. You need to get out on that golf course more... cheaper than photography
Bacardi said:
Im reading a book on photography which mentioned that tripods are banned in some places. Has anyone had this experience in the UK?
Using a tripod is considered 'professional', even if it does make you a loser, and therefore you are taking pics to make money. A lot of property is copyrighted and to use any pictures you would have to get a 'property release' much the same as a 'model release'. The parks in London came under two authorities and you had to apply for permits to take professional pictures. Some years since I did this so may have changed.
Basically, everyone wants to make money. Rather than you take loverly pictures of your visit to..... wherever, they would rather you bought the official guide.
Rob, getting worried about you. With all this posting you seem to have been struck down with photo-itus. You need to get out on that golf course more... cheaper than photography
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.
When I was at college (some years ago so the law may have changed), we had a lawyer give us some lessons in Law and photography. One was that you needed the owners permission to photograph a property. Another was that you could photograph anyone you want in public unless you use a flash gun... even though, virtually, all press shots use a flash guns, as it was an invasion of their privacy. Go figure.
The Law is grey in this area but try sticking a 300mm on a tripod and go to Trafalgar Square, Liverpool st station or National Trust properties. Unless you are taking pictures that are 'newsworthy, rather than 'commercial' you will have trouble with security guards and possibly the police. They can nick you under the, one size fits all, prevention of terrorism act. I you want to take pictures, ask permission and get the necessary permits.... or have fun with some stroppy security guards.
The Law is grey in this area but try sticking a 300mm on a tripod and go to Trafalgar Square, Liverpool st station or National Trust properties. Unless you are taking pictures that are 'newsworthy, rather than 'commercial' you will have trouble with security guards and possibly the police. They can nick you under the, one size fits all, prevention of terrorism act. I you want to take pictures, ask permission and get the necessary permits.... or have fun with some stroppy security guards.
Bacardi said:The only time I used a tripod in public (flimsy little thing, got it for free with my G5) some lads drove by and shouted waaaannnnkeerrrrr. Either they had good taste in tripods or thought using one looked a bit OTT
Rob, getting worried about you. With all this posting you seem to have been struck down with photo-itus. You need to get out on that golf course more... cheaper than photography
Photo-itus, moi?
The shutter bug is snapping away at my ankles, I just cant wait to get an SLR 
(and will probably have less to say, and more pics to post when I do) Back to street photography - heres a great photo with a caption:
Old Man - Picture taken with a Nikon 80-200 f2.8 with Provia F as he was walking towards me. As we passed, as total strangers, I said thank you. He said you're welcome. Such a strange encounter. I cranked off about 8 shoots as I approached. Just a grab shot of a great face.
Bacardi said:Im a national trust member - I assume no questions will be asked if I dont use a tripod, and am hand-holding a white lens?
When I was at college (some years ago so the law may have changed), we had a lawyer give us some lessons in Law and photography. One was that you needed the owners permission to photograph a property. Another was that you could photograph anyone you want in public unless you use a flash gun... even though, virtually, all press shots use a flash guns, as it was an invasion of their privacy. Go figure.
The Law is grey in this area but try sticking a 300mm on a tripod and go to Trafalgar Square, Liverpool st station or National Trust properties. Unless you are taking pictures that are 'newsworthy, rather than 'commercial' you will have trouble with security guards and possibly the police. They can nick you under the, one size fits all, prevention of terrorism act. I you want to take pictures, ask permission and get the necessary permits.... or have fun with some stroppy security guards.
poah 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.
The old phrase goes: "It seems everything I like will make me sick, or poor or fat."
It's beginning to appear that some things, once considered harmless, can get you arrested.
The amateur photographic rags are full of it at the moment.
"You can't photograph that building - you must be a terrorist."
"You can't photograph that kids' football game - you must be a paedophile."
"You can't photograph this event...we've sold the photo rights to the press."
How long before..."You can't photograph that hill. You don't have a permit."
then..."Do you have a camera permit citizen?"
then.."I'm afraid we are no longer issuing Camera Licences, Recipient Hughes, it has been deemed - a waste of time."
Hell. Handbasket. The world.
It's beginning to appear that some things, once considered harmless, can get you arrested.
The amateur photographic rags are full of it at the moment.
"You can't photograph that building - you must be a terrorist."
"You can't photograph that kids' football game - you must be a paedophile."
"You can't photograph this event...we've sold the photo rights to the press."
How long before..."You can't photograph that hill. You don't have a permit."
then..."Do you have a camera permit citizen?"
then.."I'm afraid we are no longer issuing Camera Licences, Recipient Hughes, it has been deemed - a waste of time."
Hell. Handbasket. The world.
los angeles said:Its fantastic isnt it. It goes without saying that I did not take it (I do believe I failed to mention that fact)
UK Bob - that's a very fine portrait of the bearded man. Superb. Just look at the experience of life in that grizzled face. You can almost see his soul. Terrific.
Id love to spend a few days walking around a slightly less "first world" european country, where the streets contain people whose faces and dresscode leave a little less to the imagination.
406tm said:
UKBob said:
people whose faces and dresscode leave a little less to the imagination.
Ah, you mean porn!
Bob
So that's what you wanted a photographer in Cambridge for
No, that photo job went to another PHer, Im not that desperate (he says
) PS, thanks for the mail
>> Edited by UKBob on Saturday 11th February 18:57
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.
inside is different though. if your outside and particularly on public land they can do nothing about it lol
just like your free to take pictures of people in the street because there is no law of privacy in public. the only thing that could really be done is breach of the peace if you were harrasing someone
poah said:A good friend of mine is a photo journalist in canada, he shoots polotics and concerts mainly. He was at one protest which became violent, he did what all PJs do... just took pics. He was arrested, they took his camera away and threw him inside a paddy wagon with the grill shut but the door open so he got plenty of fresh tear gas. And spent a day in jail and was released without explanation
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.
inside is different though. if your outside and particularly on public land they can do nothing about it lol
just like your free to take pictures of people in the street because there is no law of privacy in public. the only thing that could really be done is breach of the peace if you were harrasing someone
His arrest made the papers but the bib got away with it. Wasnt there a story on PH last year, also about the bib. I think ive heard/read this a few times: Person takes pics to gather evidence of criminal activities. Like vandals on their property, that kind of thing. BIB not only refuse to accept the evidence, but threaten to arrest the person gathering evidence 'because taking pics without consent is against the law' or some such. Ive heard this more than once.
I've had this in London a couple of yaers ago. Try using a tripod when photgrpaphing the London Eye and security get all heavy on you. They claim that the Embankment around the Eye is owned by London Eye Corporation or whatever it's called and that you have to have a permit because using a tripod "could be dangerous to people walking by".
Given that this was 10:30pm in the middle of winter this arguement didn't really seem to hold water but it's not worth a slanging match with these people. Either they don't care and enjoy telling you to bu**er off, or they simply aren't paid / given enough authority to care. Solution 2 steps back onto the road and recompose, with a little cropping in PS it all came out alright.
Another example is the offshoot of Kew Gradens in Surrey. You're not allowed to use a tripod, as obviously only professionals do that. However if you ask nicely and say the pictures are not being shot for commercial use then they give you a permission sticker for the day and let you use your tripod.
The long and short of it is there are places where you will not be allowed to use a tripod, but often you can get around this with a little creative thinking or asking nicely.
Chris
Given that this was 10:30pm in the middle of winter this arguement didn't really seem to hold water but it's not worth a slanging match with these people. Either they don't care and enjoy telling you to bu**er off, or they simply aren't paid / given enough authority to care. Solution 2 steps back onto the road and recompose, with a little cropping in PS it all came out alright.
Another example is the offshoot of Kew Gradens in Surrey. You're not allowed to use a tripod, as obviously only professionals do that. However if you ask nicely and say the pictures are not being shot for commercial use then they give you a permission sticker for the day and let you use your tripod.
The long and short of it is there are places where you will not be allowed to use a tripod, but often you can get around this with a little creative thinking or asking nicely.
Chris
imperialism2024 said:Theres probably more to it, than dividing the permit price or ask nicely factor by three.
mmm what about monopods?
Whilst on the subject, is there an "agreed" minimum shutter speed with which monopods seem to work(?) ie handheld shots below 30fps without an image stabilisation aid seems to be a hit and miss affair.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff