What's the scoop on bridge photography?

Now that warm weather has returned, I'd like to begin a series of LF

B&W happy-snaps on the highways and byways of my native New England.

 

And yet, I keep hearing about people being arrested for

photographing bridges, as recently happened at Niagara Falls. And

someone recently posted something about his students being stopped

by police for something similar.

 

So in this modern age of exploding moslems, what can I shoot on the

streets of New England and what is a no-no? And whom do I ask: CIA,

FBI or DIY Network? I know you can't fight city hall, but can you

photograph it?

Hi John �

 

I was wondering the same thing. Here in Charleston, there�re building a new bridge across the Cooper River, a Very Large and Expensive Project. I recently parked my car near the foot of the old bridges, and walked to the middle of one of the existing ones. I spent about forty minutes on the bridge with a camera in plain sight in the middle of afternoon rush hour.

 

Several police cruisers drove by during that time. Maybe I don�t look dangerous, but no one seemed to care.

 

Your mileage may vary, as they say.

Is an exploding "moslem" the same as a New England bigot?

 

Have the guts to shoot what you want, and deal with the consequences. It's still an almost free country, even for those who bash others based on their race, heritage or religion.

The "thought" Police will get you!

I too like the NE scenes and bridges but think about what has happened lately

and put it into a different light... to the cops who see a person photographing a

scene of a major artery/building or what have you and you have a person

checking out something for a future bombing... look what is happening around

us and look at it in the eyes of the authorities. We are on high alert and to us

we are looking at something beautiful but to the cops, who are told to look at

things differently, who look at things as a threat, we aren't of the norm and

should be wary and realize that they are doing their jobs keeping us safe. The

world has changed since 9/11 and certainly not for the better.

I'm not familiar with the Niagara incident but I have had to make adjustments

as we all have.

As far as what can and cannot be shot, business as usual but be aware that

you might be approached by the authorities and plan around it... A call the the

locals might not hurt either.

<p>There is no law against photographing bridges (or City Hall) but there have been incidents directed against photographers who have done such things. In my opinion it is high time for photographers to make the point to others that photography is not a precursor to terrorism. For example, let�s assume your purpose was to blow up a bridge. Why would you need to photograph it? If someone stopped you from taking photographs, would that prevent you from blowing it up? The only relevance that photography has to preventing terrorism directed against bridges is that the presence of cameras might deter such acts. In fact, the only mention of photography in the Patriot Act passed after the September 11 attacks is a provision to fund the acquisition of more cameras for the government.

 

<p> Cracking down on photographers will not reduce terrorism. The kinds of recent events in the United States shows this. Think about the September 11 attacks, the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, the murder of James Byrd in Jasper, TX, and so on. All of these events could have been carried out without photographs and to the best of my knowledge did not involve photography at all. Prohibiting photography in airports will not impede hijackers, prohibiting people from taking photographs of government buildings will not prevent them from parking truck bombs, and prohibiting people from photographing people in public places will not stop them from committing murder.

 

<p>A few months ago I developed a flyer called <A HREF="http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm">The Photographer�s Right</A> that describes the general right to photograph material that is in public view. Feel free to download it and carry it with your equipment. It can be used to explain the legal issues to people who don't understand them and assume they have the authority to harass or even detain photographers. Sensitivity to people�s fears and concerns is entirely appropriate and education is good approach to dealing with the issue of photography and security. Most people have not given serious consideration to whether photography is useful to terrorists and have given even less consideration to whether restrictions bolster or detract from security. Explaining that photography is not a threat is a good first step.

A law-enforcement officer may mistake a photographer using 35mm or MF cameras as looking suspicious in terms of 'casing the joint'.

 

But has any LF photographer been identified as such ? If a bad guy wants to take photographs of a potential target, he ain't gonna use a 'dorf 8x10 is he ??

 

So, are we likely to be given the benefit of the doubt because we focus our cameras under the cloth ?

 

On a another note, I did read that it was unlawful to shoot pictures of public transport infrastructure (amongst other things) while the country is at 'high' alert. So I was interested in the Patriot Act reference above ...

Assuming us prophets of doom are correct regarding the dark intents lying latent within the Patriot Act, I doubt that would stop "legitimate media" photographers from getting their shots, regardless of format. Its amazing in this country what access a press pass can gain you, bridge or no bridge.

 

Benito Mousillini (sp?) was quoted as saying (paraphrasing the quote) "The best definition of Fascism is a collusion between state and corporate interests".

 

Its a no-brainer: when you read the Bill of Rights, just assume that the phrase "...We the People..." is actually referring to the rights of corporations to do their business, and not that of individuals. Then you'll have no problem understanding where our present condition is leading.

Oh, one more thing...did I mention the phrase "imbedded journalism"?

 

I thought not.

I'm not familiar with the incident at Niagra Falls. A google search didn't turn up anything much. Was it just that somebody trying to take a LF photo of a bridge was told to stop? By whom was he/she told to stop? Was it in the State Park area? Were there signs saying you couldn't photograph? Did the photographer protest?<br><br>I go to niagra every once in a while, there was no problem taking photos with my LF a year or so ago, but then again, I wasn't taking photos of a bridge. Oooohhh......Things have changed though, and the police are getting a LITTLE too ansy, in my opinion.

"Have the guts to shoot what you want, and deal with the consequences. It's still an almost free country, even for those who bash others based on their race, heritage or religion."

 

Huh? Are you saying that if it were up to you, the freedom speech, which includes non-politically correct "bashing" should be outlawed?

 

And what if certain religions and cultures promote violence as a way to solve problems and make a statement? Should we play "Let's pretend all cultures and values are morally equivalent," simply to avoid hurting somebody's feelings? Apparently so, but I think the 9-11 victims would beg to differ ... if they could.

 

RJ

I have chosen not to push the limits at times when the country is at higher states of alert. That is my choice and how I conduct myself, perhaps others don't wish to follow this same action.

 

On my way into Chicago, I cross a shipping canal that often has interesting ore boats tied up near a drawbridge. On occasion, I park nearby and take my cameras to the bridge for better vantage of the ships. While I have yet to be stopped, as courtesy I don't want people driving over the bridge or city employees to be concerned that some untoward action is taking place. Why tie up authorities and phone lines to investigate just for my selfish wish to get a picture. There is generally another day or opportunity for me to try to get another photo-certainly not the same elements, but another photo none-the-less.

 

It is agreed that 'bad' guys will probably not be using LF cameras and most likely not reading this forum. Personal responsibility, though, means we all must decide our own limits of what is right and what is wrong. To catch a quick shot of a bridge someone wants to damage, one could take much quicker photos with a small digital camera. Then again if you wanted to spend time to stake out bridges or similar installations to learn the cycle and rythem of activities, consider how using the cover of a LF camera to case an area for bad purposes might be the way to do it. Think how much time a 'bad' guy could spend looking at and observing the area near where the camera was stationed. As it was said in the movie The Spanish Prisoner, nobody notices a Japanese tourist with a camera.

 

Based upon 9/11 and the irrational acts of certain groups, I can forego some of my freedoms for the benefit of my neighbors.

 

Regards,

 

John Bailey

Let me jump in here with a few answers:

 

I found a pdf of the law we are discussing:

 

http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/hr_5005_enr.pdf

 

Unfortuneately it's 187 pages long.

 

The Niagara incident was reported on CNN about a month ago. Two men were taken into custody for videotaping the large bridge near the customs stop.

 

I still haven't located the post re: prohibitions about tripods on private property. But the gentleman's reply stated that local police (in Ohio I think) confescated 35mm film being shot of a bridge by his students as a class assignment.

 

Bert Krages' site looks like a goldmine. One of the reasons photo.net is so valuable.

 

Finally, the next time an Episcopalian blows up I'll apologize to O.B.L. for my insensitivity.

If anyone desires photographs of the built environment they can go to the public library and find almost anything they could wish. Often they will be able to find blue prints and other construction documents.

 

I feel that most of the measures enacted in the name of public safety or "antiterrorism" will do little to deter those of evil intent and will mostly hamper ordinary people as they live their daily lives.

 

I don't think it is realistic to assume the police officers and other public safety people will be able to discriminate which kinds of cameras are being used and which would be most useful to terrorists. In fact, I wouldn't know what kind of kit a terrorist would use. Probably the best bet would be a hand held 8 X 10 with a wide angle lens. The ill intentioned person could drive by in a car and snap a couple of images and then crop out the parts relevant to their plans.

 

Cheers?,

 

Joe Stephenson

To John Cook,

 

The last time I checked, the Oklahoma City blast was promulgated by good American Christians. I agree they didn't try to blow themselves up. Is that supposed to make a big difference?

 

In the area I live in, a good American Christian follower of Matthew Hale went around shooting Jews, African Americans and Koreans until he was stopped by the police and he shot himself.

 

If you count deaths, of course 9/11 stands out. But if you count incidents, we have been historically more at risk from American Christian terrorists than we have been from any other group.

My guess: Pigeon

I just take photographs of public places, whether in Europe or elsewhere, and do not worry for consequences.

 

Robert C: �And what if certain religions and cultures promote violence� - how about the Japanese and Vietnamese??? Maybe Israelis???

Joseph -

 

That's what came to mind when I saw the title. I was surprised no one had made the joke, yet, until I came to yours there at the end. :)

Probably helps to be female, but I've been shooting bridges in the heartland with a small digital and a hand-held 6x9 and a view camera on a tripod. No one has asked me wassup.

 

In October 2001 (one month after 9/11) I was shooting a streetscape in Pottsville, PA and set up the tripod across from a US Armory. A very polite man came out of the Armory and wondered if I was photographing it. I showed him on the ground glass that the Armory did not show except at the very edge, said I was doing a book on Main Streets, and he was fine with it.

 

Be humble if someone asks you about it and you should be OK, but I keep pointing my gunlike Pentax spotmeter at people's places of business all over the country (including New England) and no one has yet called the cops on me.

 

Cheers,

Sandy

After 50 years of supporting repressive dictatorships in South America, South East Asia and elsewhere, isn't it nice for Americans to find out first hand what it's like to live in a police state?

 

What goes around, as they say, comes around...<div></div>

Trouble with that, Harvey, is that the average American doesn't directly support dictators. True, we elect the people that do, but we do so from a limited selection. I think you'll find that the people that do directly support those dictators aren't bothered by the police.

 

To get back on topic...

 

I haven't done a lot of bridge photography, but I have a little. I haven't been bothered, either. Maybe being female does have an advantage? I think we look more harmless. :)

I'm sorry, but some of you guys really need to sit back and listen to yourselves some time, whichever side of the bridge you stand...

 

I think it was Socrates (or Aristotle... anyway, one of those old-time guys in Togas) who said that an unconsidered life was one not worth living.

 

Mr Walsh has made by far the most intelligent and considered answer. And all without the aid of a Toga (I admit, I am guessing here, but it seems a safe bet).

Thanks Michelle and Bob,

 

Best wishes,

Joseph (Cogito ergo non toga est)

Here's a recent bridge image. I was at a riverfront park on a Sunday with dozens of people passing by. Most avoided me as if I was a drooling Rottweiler and no one bothered me - hey, maybe that's the thing. Rent a drooling Rottweiler when you're out photographing bridges.<div></div>

Don't photograph any bridges owned by the Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority in NYC (i.e. big suspension bridges). They will arrest you, confiscate your film and develop it.

 

This happened to two bridge engineers that I work with. They were photographing the approaches of the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge for a proposal we were submitting to them. They just had a 35mm camera. Think of how suspicious you would appear pointing your Pentax digital spot meter.

 

This really is their policy. They even armed their "peace officers" to handle "street toughs" like some of the photographers on this list.

 

Pete Roody