Today i was told off

I have noticed in Europe that using my phone for street shots was accepted by people around me but that using my M10 with a 50mm lens was frowned upon if I dared to point the camera at a scene which included people. I get more encouraged to use my phone then.
 
wlewisiii said:
This makes me wonder what the rules are at the USAF museum in Dayton. Hrm. I should probably check before I get there in August.

Edit: THAT was easy. Bottom of every page is the photography notice:

Notice: Visitors may be filmed, photographed or recorded by the U.S. Air Force for educational and promotional uses, including for posting on public websites and social media.
Individuals are permitted to take their own photographs or videos while touring the museum.
Click to expand...
A great place, can be overwhelming. I recommend scheduling two days to see everything.
 
wlewisiii said:
This makes me wonder what the rules are at the USAF museum in Dayton. Hrm. I should probably check before I get there in August.

Edit: THAT was easy. Bottom of every page is the photography notice:

Notice: Visitors may be filmed, photographed or recorded by the U.S. Air Force for educational and promotional uses, including for posting on public websites and social media.
Individuals are permitted to take their own photographs or videos while touring the museum.
Click to expand...

It is taxpayer funded. That affects policy. Not in secure areas, of course, but being a taxpayer still has some weight in some places. And the armed forces want to show the public a good face and have you leave with a smile. These are factors.
 
raid said:
I have noticed in Europe that using my phone for street shots was accepted by people around me but that using my M10 with a 50mm lens was frowned upon if I dared to point the camera at a scene which included people. I get more encouraged to use my phone then.
Click to expand...
Ricoh GR or similar compact pocket camera is the solution here. Anything that you raise to your eye is suspect.

The irony is that phones allow instant uploading and dissemination of images and video for potentially nefarious purposes, which is exactly what the 'no cameras' rule is usually supposed to prevent. The woman at the event was an utter twat.

One time I was in a cinema, and after the movie was over, I took a photo of the stairs with their interesting guide lights. A young usher came and said 'you can't use a camera in the cinema' and tried to block the camera. The spirit of the rule is to prevent people from pirating the movie, not from appreciating the cinema design, but this doofus either didn't understand, or was a stickler for technicality. I just smiled and said of course, you're right, and kept taking photos before leaving.

As for museums and galleries, some exhibitions have a no photography rule because the works are copyright. Others rightly prohibit flash photography because exposure to light, no matter how miniscule, contributes to the art fading and degrading over time. The no photography rule also can be intended to prevent people from clogging the gallery space and interfering with the experience of others, hence the no tripod and no selfie stick rules. Interestingly, the National Gallery of Victoria used to have a no photography policy for major exhibitions, but this is no longer the case. Perhaps they understand how people will post on social media and give extra awareness to the gallery and its exhibitions, who knows.
 
p.giannakis said:
Well, nothing new, I am very often been told off for taking pictures but usually I approach people, have a conversation with them and talk some sense to them.

I took my little daughter to an event - there was a Victorian School re-enactment. The school started, parents took their phones out and started taking pictures and recording the event.

I took my OM-2n out and tried to take a picture. The teacher stopped the event and told me that "surely this camera did not exist in 1890s and to please put it back in my bag and wait until it is over".

Surely I did and the event continued. At the end I approached the lady and asked why I couldn't take pictures with the camera but people could record with the phones. I was told that the Trust has a very strict policy regarding photographing children and cameras are not allowed. Mind you, I was trying to photograph my daughter.

Oh well. It looks like people become less and less familiar with cameras and find them more sinister that a mobile phone.
Click to expand...
And that person is teaching kids?
 
stephen_lumsden said:
I was once told off taking a picture of knaresborough viaduct with my yashica-d. They thought I was focusing on some young girls swimming in the river, although in fairness they did apologise when I showed them the camera and told them what I was photographing.
Click to expand...
Today's social climate is such that you can't risk taking photos of kids without the parent/guardian's express permission. Even taking photos in kids' directions can be risky, as you have found.
 
stephen_lumsden said:
I was once told off taking a picture of knaresborough viaduct with my yashica-d. They thought I was focusing on some young girls swimming in the river, although in fairness they did apologise when I showed them the camera and told them what I was photographing.
Click to expand...

My wife was asked to take some pictures down from our local FB Community page of a kid who was on the street whilst the Manchester Marathon was going past were we live, the person was going on about 'Safeguarding' blah blah but I told her not to as it's perfectly legal to take pics of kids in public, other peoples ignorance and paranoia is usually what gets in the way of a perfectly innocent situation.
 
Your house, your rules is something I will abide by. Post a message or tell me when I walk in. But don't tell me I can't use my Nikon when others are snapping away with their iPhones and Galaxies. And please don't tell me it's against the rules or the law to take pictures when it's not. The paranoia that grips the world today is much like the paranoia spread in the McCarthy era. I was a child during the last of those years and I recall the suspicion of people toward anything and anyone they were unfamiliar with.

I'm respectful of others but I won't be bullied.

...........................................
 
This is really nothing new. In the 1970s, I was physically assaulted twice - once when a truck driver tried to take my camera; the other was when a bystander kicked me from behind and knocked me to the ground. Both times, fellow firefighters put a quick stop to it. On another occasion, a parent strongly objected after her child appeared in a published photo of a group cross country run for elementary students. People think they can decide what may, and may not, be photographed. If you are emotionally brave enough, you can explain that you may photograph anything seen from a public space - sidewalk, street, etc. Unfortunately, we now live in a confrontational society and the prospect of physical assault or worse is very real.
 
Dogman said:
Your house, your rules is something I will abide by. Post a message or tell me when I walk in. But don't tell me I can't use my Nikon when others are snapping away with their iPhones and Galaxies. And please don't tell me it's against the rules or the law to take pictures when it's not. The paranoia that grips the world today is much like the paranoia spread in the McCarthy era. I was a child during the last of those years and I recall the suspicion of people toward anything and anyone they were unfamiliar with.

I'm respectful of others but I won't be bullied.

...........................................
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, with the introduction of the GDPR regulations, they might have a (legal) leg to stand on.

According to law we do not need to seek consent to photograph in public. But the moment we upload the picture on the internet or publish it otherwise, the picture is considered data and ourselves "data controlers". If the person is recognisable in the picture, we might be breaking the law in terms of unlawfully processing personal identifiable data.

The interesting thing is that every country has its own terms and conditions and they interpret this differently (!). In UK, if they can prove that you made some sort of gain from publishing the picture, you are probably going down.
 
Last edited:
Who knows how many times our images have been captured daily with the now ubiquitous presence of business and municipal surveillance, security, door bell, phone-cam, dash-cam cameras (and who knows what else) are everywhere and these same people seem to not be too concerned about that. 😁
 
Last edited:
raydm6 said:
Who knows how many times our images have been captured daily with the now ubiquitous presence of business and municipal surveillance, security, door bell, phone-cam, dash-cam cameras (and who knows what else) are everywhere and these same people seem to no be too concerned about that. 😁
Click to expand...
I gave up worrying about that a long long time ago. There's nothing that I can do about it, by myself, and it would take a major societal collaboration to change it which I have no energy to deal with. My take is that there are so many bazillions of photos being made and published every second nowadays that, unless I'm doing something stupidly illegal, no one is going to care. And doing something stupid and embarassing in the public eye ... well, shit happens and you either cringe or ignore it.

G
 
I'm all for personal rights, photographers AND subjects. Unfortunately confrontation has become fashionable.
Street shooting doesn't really interest me, but I do like to include a person in my photos for interest and scale.
I don't own one but a Rolleiflex or the like usually doesn't register as being a camera with potential subjects.

Chris
 
That's a very frustrating situation. I would not have been happy to be told I can't take photos of my own child because I have a camera that looks different than the ones other parents are using. The control-freaks make life harder for everyone.

I "open carry" a camera with me just about everywhere and have very seldom had any issues. Occasionally a shop owner (usually the artsy types) point out their "No Photography Please" signs, which I observe. When taking pics in public places I'm fairly conspicuous, so maybe people just shrug and assume I'm supposed to be there.
 
Have you been threatened at gunpoint to give up your film inside your camera or you get shot?
when: around 45 years ago
where: Tripoli, Libya
who: threatened me: an old veteran with a rifle guarding the harbor. Gaddafi gave vets guns and let them parade around Tripoli. It was a time during which Libya declared war on Tunisia. I had the misfortune of having booked a flight from Tunis to Tripoli on Tunisian Airlines! DUH!

In the end, I refused to give that guy my film and he let me go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Godfrey
A pleasant few moments today ...
Replies
3
Views
333
chuckroast
C
C
New York Annual NYC Camera Beauty Contest 2026 (early 2026)
Replies
14
Views
528
Calzone
C
A
Burning Kodachrome slides and erasing history
Replies
8
Views
494
Dogman
Dogman
peterm1
A night time walk with a Leica Summarit 50mm f1.5
Replies
1
Views
224
Richard G
Richard G
caila77
Which camera made you fall in love with photography?
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
5K
38Deardorff
38Deardorff
Back
Top Bottom