Restrictions on "professional" camera usage in India (Rajasthan)?

<p>I'm in the middle of organising an 18 day trip to Rajasthan for early 2012. The company I'm using to organise hotels, Car/driver and guides has started to make the occasional noise about "professional" cameras not being allowed in some locations. I'm aware that I won't be able to use a tripod in monuments, and aware that some places will want to make a charge for using a camera, and even aware that a small number of religious sites would ban photography inside the site at all. <br>

But I wasn't thinking till now that anyone might look at my 5D mkii and 3 zooms and say "you can't bring that in here because its a professional camera." Obviously I'm a photographer. I'm going to India to take photographs and if I can't take photographs fairly unrestricted then I don't want to go. I have friends who have been round Rajasthan with dslrs and didn't mention any problems. I visited India in 2001 and had no problems with a Mamiya 7 and Bronica, albeit that the Bronica wasn't a whole lot of use without a tripod. <br>

So, my question is whether my Travel Agent (based in Delhi) is right to raise this as an issue, or is it something that happens very rarely and most of the time I'll be OK? I'd appreciate the views of those in India, or who have photographed there with a dslr recently.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>I was in India (throughout Rajasthan) last year and I faced no problems carrying a couple of D3s with me with 4-5 lenses. Nobody batted an eyelid. Admittedly, there were some places (I think the Taj was one of them, but I distinctly remember at least one other place for sure, maybe two) where professional photographers need to get a "camera" licence, which is basically a way they get to charge more to foreigners who obviously have more money!</p>

<p>True, tripods are a no-no in some monuments (and in fact, they are more of a hassle than anything) but carrying a camera with you should not be a problem.</p>

<p>HOWEVER, having said that, carrying everything in a massive backpack (a HUGE mistake in India!) then you're simply inviting "problems" - you will be immediately "branded" as a "rich tourist/money source who obviously does not know better than to display his 20,000 USD worth of gear in a country with average annual income of about 1/10th of that" and let me tell you, you might be charged even in places which normally do not. I have seen that happen! Me and this other British professional photographer, me with my Domke and he with his Billingham, simply walked through the entrance of a temple without any payment or hassle while a Japanese tourist with a massive Lowepro backpack was stopped THREE times for payment... we were even carrying our cameras out in the open...!</p>

<p>So, you will be called upon to pay sometimes, but NOT making yourself too obvious is the way to avoid massive problems...;-) As for the charges, they are relatively low...</p>

<p>Agree with the above. Just carry your stuff in an unassuming bag and act normally and you shouldn't have a problem.<br>

I've <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=906524">shot in India</a> for both fun and work and have never had a single issue, but I stay away from areas with tourists. That's where 99.9% of your headaches will occur.</p>

<p>Since you'll be paying 10 times the entry fee as that for an Indian national at nearly every place, simply hold your ticket and shout at anyone that tries to fleece you. The photography/videography fee will often cost more than the entry fee, but not always. While some places used to have a distinction between SLR and non SLR fees, I've not seen a distinction between amateur and professional based on the gear being carried at any place. Most places will screen bags for security reasons, and a shoulder bag is much simpler to get checked. Most places that do not allow tripods will not object to a pocket tripod (I carry the manfrotto with extension; and call it a "stand", not a tripod).</p>

<p>(Most likely, your travel agent is indirectly asking for more $$$, I'd be wary.)</p>

<p>While there is, to my knowledge, no distinction made between different types of camera, you may encounter policemen and other officials who invent rules which do not exist. They are of course after money. Delivering a kick in the arse is tempting but not recommended. Some places have, or are said to have, absurd rules. Once when I was walking into a station of the Delhi Metro carrying a digital SLR, a policeman told me that photography was strictly prohibited. He said nothing to the dozens of commuters whose cell phones will have had cameras built in.</p>

<p>All of these (alleged) rules, in India or in my native Italy or anywhere else, have (when they do exist) a single basic purpose: to protect the business of local professional photographers, who produce pictures to be sold to magazines, books, travel agencies etc. etc.<br>

This said, in theory anything that is not very likely to produce sellable material (and you ought to be a top class photographer with top class equipment, to produce something that would outsell the zillion photos of Rajastham that are already available) should go in without troubles. The real problem lies with policemen/warden and so on who would want to make a quick additional buck, or who simply got off on the wrong side of the bed and are in a mood to show who is in charge. In most circumstances this just translated in some little extra money (it is not even worth the hassle of a discussion), but in a very few extreme cases it can lead to a stalled situation.<br>

I do agree that keeping a low profile is key. Say, if you come in with an assistant carrying a 4x5" plate camera, another one a massive tripod, two or three more with the reflecting screens etc. then you are likely to get in trouble. Otherwise, it will be at worst a case of having to cough off an additional dollar or two.<br>

As regards your travel agency: if things stand as they are, you can be reassured that they simply want to protect you and ensure that you are aware of all possible hickups. But if they start asking for some extra money to "prevent" such possible problem, in your pants I'll change agency.</p>

<p>---and there has been no suggestion from the travel agency that the issue can be resolved by money, and indeed they ran backwards very quickly when I intimated that if this was going to be a real problem then there are other parts of the world I'd like to see. </p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses which have certainly been reassuring. I'll be carrying a shoulder bag with one dslr camera and two or three lenses. No assistant, no lighting gear, no tripod, no video ( though my 5d Mk 2 is capable of it.) </p>

<p>I so completely disagree with Ezio that I don't know where to begin!</p>

<p>First of all, I don't know about Italy (even though I've travelled through it extensively back in my film days), but in any other country, any attempts by "officials" to "restrict" photography in return for "fees" is nothing more than a fleecing attempt without any legal backing whatsoever. That is why, 90% of the time, there are no written rules, why one policeman will tell you something completely different from another, etc, etc. NOBODY cares about protecting the local photographer "who produce pictures to be sold to magazines, books, travel agencies etc. etc", simply because 95% of international publications DO NOT use images from local photographers, but rather from their own photographers on assignment or image banks. I AM one of those assignment photographer, so I know...</p>

<p>Second, travel agencies which come up with non-existent problems should not be trusted. They are most likely trying to grab some more money from the traveller, exploiting their lack of knowledge of local deals. Unfortunately for them, they are mostly not aware of how powerful the internet is these days, so fail to see that any crap they come up with (and I HAVE been forced to change travel agencies because of their attempts to fleece me) can easily be verified.</p>

<p>You do not need to be Steve McCurry to sell images of India. You do not even need to be a professional with 20,000 euros worth of gear! All you need is a bit of luck in terms of timing (so you can grab an interesting frame), good knowledge of your equipment, patience and perseverance. I've had images I shot with my ancient D50 and the kit lens outsell images I've shot with my D3s and my 70-200 VRII and I've had images from Rajasthan sell for more than enough money to justify my trip there...;-)</p>

<p>Saying that the bribes crooked officials require are not important simply because they mean nothing to us due to the exchange rates is the reason these people can still try to pull this off. Yes, it IS worth it standing up to them and it IS worth spending some time setting them right because you're helping, not only yourself but also everyone who comes after you. Standing up to them and insisting they, for example, take you to their superior or to the office or even to the police station, to resolve the situation will clip their wings on 99.5% of the cases...so NO Ezio, it is NOT nothing...it is everything!</p>

<p>Finally, I have yet to find a place that restricts photography, even with a massive 8x10 camera. It might require an advance permit, but that's all. True, if you want to shoot the Taj with a massive camera on a huge wooden tripod, you cannot just show up at the door, but if you contact the offices in advance (WELL in advance), you can obtain the required permissions.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have no intention of engaging into a discussion, which is of marginal interest in relation to the original request, but: I cannot start to begin understanding how it could be stated, that there are no official rules preventing the use of professional equipment (or anyway equipment, that would allow for high quality results).<br>

Just to stay in Italy and several other European countries, tripods and flashes are nearly invariably forbidden indoor - even when there is not the slightest risk of causing damage to the floor or the exhibits. In some cases (e.g., Saint Peter's square) tripods are forbidden even outdoor, while in others (e.g., the Cappella Sistina) you are not supposed to take ANY photo, period. All of these restrictions are presented very prominently in several languages, and there are wardens tasked with enforcing them.<br>

If Marios says based on his experience this is not done in order to protect the local photographers, I'll take his word. But then it is done to protect the sale of postcards, books and DVDs. From the point of view of the photographers, it doesn't change that much.<br>

The difference is, of course, that in Europe I never but never meet someone, who would offer to help me around the problem for a bakshish. Of course anyone doing so is a crook, and he should not only be resisted, but indeed reported to his/her superiors and to Police. But, in India...? With all due respect for those who are prepared to fight for principles and what they perceive their rights, I tend to feel that the attitude as suggested by Marios would not carry one much along. But, this is just me.</p>

 

<p>In my experience, prevention of flash and tripod photography in "the western world" is NOT to protect postcard sales, it is because (a) flash photography IS damaging to artwork (and do not judge based on a professional using a softbox or whatever professional light and/or modifier - think random tourists, thousands of them, using their bare flashes a couple of dozen times per minute at a distance of 30cm from the artwork!), (b) tripods ARE (and I have seen that happen a number of times) a danger of tripping and knocking down items (even though, increasingly, museums and similar spaces do issue, subject to approval and sufficient advance notice, special tripod licences, usually only applicable VERY early in the morning or 30mins prior to closing) and © the local photographers DO NOT make money from the sales of EACH postcard or anything. They have long sold the rights to those images (albeit for good money)...if the person who shot the Cappella Sistina was getting royalties from every postcard sold, he'd be the richest man in the world!</p>

<p>Most of the time you will be okay. Some places do restrict the use of tripods, flashes or cameras entirely. Some places sell a separate "license", sometimes only for video, sometimes for camera. This is listed in the ticket sales booth with a price next to the prices for adult/child tickets. They give a piece of paper as proof of paying this money. In some places, a security guard might ask for this receipt inside when he sees you taking pictures. I was once asked to buy two tickets because I had two cameras but I thought that was a bit too much and I just put one of them in my pocket and that was fine. Still, it is hot and often crowded in India. I would not want to carry too much equipment on a long trip. Last time I was in India (four weeks ago) I carried a DSLR with one zoom lens. My next trip to India will be in December.</p>

<p>hii i am pravin, professional from India, only you need to pay some more fees for SLRs which we Indians also need to pay in India, and particularly in rajsthan, baggage check up is only for security reason, and yes there are some photography restriction near Army and government establishments for security reasons, and they are there all over the world. at most places you will receive warm welcome as we have "atithi devo bhava" means we respect our guests as god. and as ILkka said there are places, do restrict the use of tripods, flashes or cameras entirely</p>