RIDICULOUS RESTRICTION IN SINGAPORE FOR LF CAMERA

Hi Simon. I am glad that you are not singling out Singapore. You have your opinion, and I have mine. Let us leave it at that. Let us agree to disagree. BTW, if you had read carefully, I had said right at the beginning that I am NOT a Singaporean. Having live in Singapore for more than 30 years, I think I do understand Singapore a little more than many who merely visited Singapore. There are things I like and there are things I don't like about Singapore. Nonetheless, my opinions are mine, and I will not impose my opinions on others. I wish others will do the same. But of course liberated people have different ways of looking at things. Chong

wah wah wah... you want some cheeze with your whine?

 

-look, a licence is required to drive, to fish, to hunt, to sell hot-dogs from a cart, to sell liquor, etc, etc. Similar arguments could be made about freedom to hunt so you can feed your family, why do i need this licence, etc. So remember that a licence is about regulation (and taxation).

 

Regarding security at certain buildings harrassing you.. You should respect the wishes of the property owners/managers. Even if the location is so-called 'public', certain regulations may be in place. For instance, most museums request that you refrain from using flash photography. -No one would think twice about complaining about that rule. Well you may not think you are causing any harm when photographing the outside of a building.. but if the country, building owners, etc want to regulate who is taking photography, you should respect it.

 

Darin

G'day Chong,

Thanks for your courteous reply. Yes, let's by all means agree to disagree.

 

Best, Simon

I guess the trick is to having the right camera at the right time.

 

For those cases where the tripod seems to be the problem, get one of Peter Gowland's 8x10 TLR's (take a few steroids) and go photograph handheld.

 

For the cop that thinks a Hasssy is movie camera, use large format with big bellows, the bigger the format, the better.

 

James, some of these rules come about by good intentions, but are then applied wrong. For example, in some places all "professional" photographers get lumped together, so a person shooting 35mm is held to the same restrictions as a 30-person film crew. Some of these security/ police type people don't know a telephoto from a bazooka, so anything different must be wrong. Someone mentioned above about the police taking their film away. They probably technically couldn't do that- no law against it, certainly no laws requiring police to confiscate film- but when a person with a gun and bad attitude suggests you do something, it gets a little awkward to argue with them.

The problem with the "law" on tripods is such a grey area in most

places.

 

I have photographed two architecture books on in NYC and the other in

Paris and these are my experiences:

 

In NYC, you need a permit to use tripod on the street. You also need

a permit to use a tripod in the Park. The reason for this is a

liability issue- if someone trips over your tripod the city is

responsible. Yes, almost no policemen say anything-but some will

usually depending where you are. If your on 136th street and Adam

Clayton Powell Blvd. no one will say anything. If you are in front of

the Empire State building someone will. The bottom line is- almost no

one will say anything, and if they do it will be "Please leave." Most

policemen in New York City, are pretty understnading. I usually say

"can you give me 10 minutes???" and usually they say "I am going

around the block, if your still here when I'm back...." then I get the

job done.

 

The law in Paris, is that TRIPODS ARE LEGAL!!!! Long as they don't

block pedistrian access. No permit is needed. The problem, is that

Paris policemen don't listen. We had the law on official "Hotel

Deville" (city hall) letterhead, and they still would say we were

wrong. Again, just leave. Paris policemen will beat the s*it out of

you-I saw it happen twice in broad daylight.

 

The law almost everywhere is that if the building can be seen from the

street, than you can photograph it legally from the street for

EDITORIAL usage only. Since most of us aren't shooting ad work this

isn't a problem. But, again everybody is an expert so I have found out

the hard way that arguing with a guard/policeman/office worker/doorman

just does not work. Just come back later, and you will get the shot.

 

After 9/11 in NYC (and probably the USA in general) everyone makes a

big stink out of taking pictures of anything. Again, just deal with

it-you aren't going to get anywhere arguing. I know I have tried!!!

 

Life is to short to get your equipment confiscated, and remember you

can catch more flies with honey than vinagar.

 

thanks jdjd

Just about a month ago i stopped to take a picture of a very

interesting building , that turned out to be a Courthouse ( it was

in Southern California ) .

I set my tripod and i knew that someone would show up in

uniform to ask question ,

To note that next door to this building there was a police station ,

Sure enough , in a matter of 2 or 3 minutes two guards with a

overly outoritative expression showed up and asked what i was

doing ...

I told them that i was fascinated by the building , ( with an artist

flare ; - ) ) and i told them that if they wanted i would pack my

gear and leave meanwhile offering them my businesscard .

They looked at the card , got back inside , then returned a few

minutes later ( i already got my shot )to say that it was allright .

Life is short , film is expensive , but as long as i have both , I

will use them

Carry a Polaroid 195; and give the guards a few photos of themselves; we did this many times in tough areas.

It's all about setting the right expectation. If you know you have to have a permit, then one can plan ahead, but when you are just slammed unexpectedly as in the original question, and several others posts, then someone needs to answer for the situation. Unfortunately, in government as in most of society, it would be very hard to find anyone who will take responsibility for anything. Things like this are getting worse, not better.

Can anyone tell me what tripod permits or photo permits cost in all these

places you've been talking about.

 

2nd, are there any organizations dedicated to defending photographers

rights?

 

thanks

In NYC, there is no fee for a tripod permit, and it is a relativly

hassle free operation. You must contact the Mayor's Office of Theatre,

Film, and Broadcasting. BUT- you cannot get a "citywide" permit, you

must list specific addresses and/or crossstreets (eg: "57th street

between 8th and 9th avenues")

 

In Paris, there is also no fee but it WILL get tied up for weeks in

redtape. How it works is you must go to the "Marie" in whatever

arrondissmont you wish to photograph a particular building in, and

obtain permission there. The process will take anywhere from a week to

3 months!!!

 

I really would not worry about trying to get a permit, like I said in

my previous post no one will really bother you. Unless it is a picture

of something like the Luxembourg Gardens in Paris, or City Hall in New

York City. To get tripod photos of something of the aformentioned

stature, usually takes alot of sway, and months of badgering civil

servants.

 

It may sound un-ethical, but I have taken to not even asking

permission when photographing what I like to call a "public private

place". What I mean is a hospital, college campus, etc. Everytime I

would try to go through channels, I would hit so much redtape, that I

decided that I would try to get the photo and play dumb if I got

caught. I always got the photo, guards only seem to make a big deal if

your within 20 feet of their respective workspace.

 

The best thing to do, is just use your judgement. If it is a high

profile area, get a permit. If its not, just go ahead and shoot. The

most that ever happened to me, was being told to leave. With the

exception of being threatend with prison once!!!

 

thanks

jd

Thirty years ago I was thrown out of a Safeway supermarket in Los Angeles for attempting to make a quick snapshot of my wife with an Instamatic.

 

Apparently, earlier that year there had been a rash of kids drying and smoking the linings of banana peels. In response, all Safeway stores posted large signs in their produce departments stating, "NO BANANAS WILL BE SOLD TO MINORS".

 

A reporter from the LA Times had taken a photograph of it and ran it in the paper, causing some embarrassment. From that point on, no cameras were allowed in their stores.

A particular "public" garden in the Seattle area requires a tripod permit which entails a million dollar liability policy, a tripod use fee, at least a week's notice of the date you want to photograph (good luck guessing what the weather will be). They do allow you in the garden on the one day of the week it is closed but you have to pay the hourly wage of the gardner who is there with you. Needless to say I haven't taken them up on their offer.

I used to do lots of bird photography in the SF Bay Area wetlands. It's no longer possible to be out there with a big lens like a 600. I quit shooting birds locally about a year ago after constantly being harrassed by local police who thought I was there to spy on something. Of course, if I were there to truly scout for terrorists I wouldn't be carrying a tripod and a big lens. I'd dress like a jogger, stay on trails, and shoot with something that easily slips in a pocket or fanny pack.

 

There's just something strikingly incompetent about suspecting the conspicuous...

"There's just something strikingly incompetent about suspecting the conspicuous..."

 

Ahhh... but if you were a good spy/terrorist, you would know that and would be conspicuous on purpose, in order to be... erm... inconspicuous...

 

 

Bottom line is: it's all rubbish. It's just a bunch of jobsworth idiots in uniform told to act even stupider than their natural inclination by even bigger fools in suits, who are implementing "action plans" created by more expensively suited incompetents, who are acting on advice from stupid, foolish, incompetent AND lazy politicians, who are acting up to the media: trying to look like they are doing something constructive.

 

The other thing is: having established that you are not a terrorist/madbomber/paedeophile/insertwhateverthecurrentfadisinthemediathisweek why continue to insist you go away? Either you are an undesirable and you need to be arrested and shipped of to Cuba, or you are a harmless citizen and can be safely left to continue your hobby/job in peace. But then, logic is also not a strong point of any of the above mentioned individuals....

 

Now, has anyone seen a Steadycam for sale on eBay lately? Might be the answer....

Just to add more kindling to the bonfire: There are no permits required to shoot in National Parks, so long that it isn't a commercial venture(i.e., a Ford Explorer on Half Dome type commercial) That I can understand, but out of courtesy I usually contact the park rangers to inquire about the neccesity of permits when traveling to a park I'm not familiar with( hint to those interested: always ask to talk to the District Ranger & get his/her name---sadly, many 'seasonal' rangers don't have a clue). Now there is a new wrinkle---it seems more and more national historic districts and urban national parks are evident which brings up the question, what if you're shooting in a National Park or National Historic District thats located in a City which requires a tripod permit? Is the Park part of the City or is it a National Park entity within, but not governed by the City hence not subject to city ordinances?

Bob, you have precisely summed up this topic.

 

BTW this apparently is not a new problem. I own a permit that was issued 1905 permitting a photographer to photograph the U. S. Capitol on one specific day and, even then, only during certain hours.

Loosing a good image is a price too high to pay for the stupidity

of the employees who are trying to implement regulations that

display a fundamental lack of elasticity .

I have already been held in a police station twice , but i have

always been able to bring the images home .

Do they ask permits also for painters who set up easels , in the

same way they do for photographers with LF cameras ?

Is there any difference ?

I believe that disregarding a law is unethical or immoral only

insofar it harms somebody in anyway .

If the foundation of a law is total ignorance regarding the object

to which the law is referred i see nothing wrong in disobeing it .

Of course you must be ready to deal with the consequences .

After 9/11; our local sports arena banned "professional" cameras; for about 1 year; now they have lightened up alot. "Professional" means to the "guards" a ; 35mm SLR's with a ZOOM lens; 35mm SLR's with a lens longer than 50mm; or any BIG camera. Point and shoots were ok; or even P&S cameras with zooms!. I got no hassle from using my Leica M3 Rangefinder; and 135mm Nikkor; 105mm Nikkor; 85mm Nikkor; or 50mm Summicron; becuase these are considered NOT a "professional camera". <BR><BR>The lowest priced Walmart Canon Rebel EOS 35mm slr with a short 80mm F4.5 starter zoom was considered to be a pofessional camera; and thus banned as being dangerous. Sometimes the guards seemed only to focus on black cameras of any type; while cute Britney Spears pink cameras are always ok...I wonder if a Pink Canon EOS and Pink zoom would be ok :)<BR><BR>At the local airport last Christmas; the TSA crew got all weirded out when I used my Luna Pro to meter the light; for a Leica shot of a relative. I waited at the reservation area for 1 + houra and grew real bored. The TSA crew here dont know what an exposure meter is; but know an Leica M3 is some sort of camera; since it has a lens. There were about 18 TSA people within the 100 feet. Taking out the camera didnt cause that much of a ruckus; but bringing out the exposure meter did.

I just went to the Esplanade with my Arca swiss 45.

Here is what happened:

 

I set up my tripod (Gitzo 410) and got ready to take the shot at the main entrance.

A policeman came by and asked what I was doing.

Once I explained that I was taking a photo, he was ok with the explanation and told me to go ahead.

 

Later, I went inside, the same policeman approached me and advised me not to take any photos inside with the tripod.

 

So I see that there were no problems with taking photos of the exterior.

 

So I would say this: I do not see the restrictions as overly restrictive - rather, this seems to be just like a lot of other countries.

As photographers, we just have to be polite and follow the rules that the management of a property has decided upon, and write ahead if we want to be exempted from the rules.

Novoflex 640s look like anti-tank rifles, so the press tended not to use them in Northern Ireland during "The Troubles".

 

In the UK you can legally photograph anything you like from public property (or property accesable to the public) without copyright problems.

 

"They" do, of course try to "discourage" flash photography at concerts, Museums, art Galleries etc.

Laws vary from tribe to tribe; stupidity don't.

"Laws vary from tribe to tribe; stupidity don't."

 

This is true.

 

When we finally get to Mars, you can just bet that a Martian in a uniform will pop along, shaking his head(s) saying "You can't park that there" and asking to see the Lander's parking permit...

Four weeks before 9/11 I was harassed my self from security guards at WTC area in New York City. They said that I needed permission but they were not able to indicate me where to get one, so I left saying....well, I'll come back another time...

What a senseless law is that?

My Solution to the problem,

 

I wasnt going to post, but I just had to after reading everyone's comments.

 

I use a Voigtlander Bessa II (6x9) with 400-800 asa film. Along with a small fanny pack and a tiny gossen pilot light meter.

 

I realize (6x9) isn't LF, but its a decent compromise when stelth is important. I've used this combination in my travels to Europe and Asia quite succesfully.

 

No one takes me seriously with this camera and by the time anyone realizes it might actually be a camera, I'm packed up and on my way.

 

The film speed negates the need for a tripod, and the image size keeps the enlargements down to a minimum.

 

It works for me. :)

Rob

Looks like sales of 5x7 and 8x10 Hobo's are going to go up as well as other hand held LF cameras:)