Sanford Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Two interesting items from a page of rules for photographing at a PGA tour event (that's golf). "Professional grade cameras and lenses must be used and may be use only by accrediated media representatives who have been issued photo credentials..." and "Noise-free equipment must be used at all times". I guess that means an M6 with a 400mm lens! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Obviously, the rules weren't drafted by photographers- though photographers could supress camera noise with sound-deadening "blimps." Apparently, PGA officials are not photographers' main worry: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279769/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leon chang Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 We all know that in reportage and sports photgraphy digital is the way to go. I can only hope that if Leica brings out the Leica M Digital, it will also be used by reportage and sports photographers, like in the old days. It will have a quiet shutter and you'll be able to shoot in RAW. Why wouldn't a photojournalist want to use it? Many magazine and newspaper shots were once shot with these magnificent small cameras, only to be replaced by digital slr's because that meant faster transmission to newsdesks. If Leica comes with a digital M, I can only hope that Leica's old glory in this field will be restored and celebrated. It would be great to see professional reporters carry M's again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug grosjean Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Related 01:I attended a Mark Twain impersonator's performance in my small Ohio town in November 2005. Rules were no photos. I had a Rollei TLR and fast film, sat in the front row, and could have easily shot with nobody's knowledge with the camera in my lap, but obeyed the rules. Actor told me afterwards I should 've taken the shot, it's just flash and loud shutters that are outlawed, due to being distracting and annoying. Related 02:Viewed "Art of the Motorcycle" at Wonders Museum, in Memphis TN. Cameras were allowed, with the purchase of a permit, and so was flash - but no tripods. I guess the concern was with a tripod falling over onto a $100,000 motorcycle, instead of with cumulative flash exposures fading the paint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william_john_smith Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 If Tiger's caddy can hear it then you are in trouble, he already broke one camera on tour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_moravec1 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Rangefinders have fallen out of favor because PJ`s are not allowed to be as close to subjects as they were in the past. The M will not come back as celebrity/politician camera even if digital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huw_finney Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 But it will have a small sensor, making all your lenses seem longer so you can be further away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 In general the press is being kept a greater distance from the celebs these days. When the celebs are the clients it's a whole 'nuther ball of wax. In political situations it helps if you dress like them and not like a typical PJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jean_. Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 The rules are fine, the main point is if the event actually is an event, or if the media (e.g. the paparazzi) are the event. Example: a play at a theatre. i'd kick everyone out of the audience who dares to fire his MG like SLR shutter and flash the devil out of the stage. This is a real event, it's about what is happening, and any attempt of some dumb photographer to take control over the event and become himself the center of attention is an outrage. Example: some meaningless politicians or other irrelevant celebs gather to celebrate their celebrity status. Nothing noteworthy happens, probably nobody would care. Here the opposite is true - since there is no real event it's the photographers who "make" the event. Rightfully are they shouting, running to and fro, firing away like artillery in D-Day, because its them, the media, who all is really about. It's right that today PJ don't get as close to the celebs as before. Today celebs want to be in control of their public image, and every time they rear their heads is an inscenation of themselves. A PJ moving among them snapping silently away would be out of control, and might create images the celebs are not interested in - look at the excellent coverage of politics until the 70s, and the meaningless pics we get today. Politicians were less conscious of their image, and more about their work. Therefore they allowed PJ to be present and document things that today would be out of the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike-images Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Pity we think that photojournalism is about "celebs" and photographers. What about ordinary people going about their lives? What about documenting the "human condition". I live in a house that chooses to be free of television because our family feel like they live in the real reality, not the fairy story that passes for TV reality. Fantasy becomes reality. Don't get me started...suffice to say that the people who are what this life is really about are not hard to get close to...the problem is the people who think they are important. grumpy at 8:00am Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanford Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 Mike - maybe you should get rid of the computer too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 << inscenation >> - Good word, Jean. Easy does it, Mike H. Many of us have sustained injuries climbing upon -- or down from -- the soapbox. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nels Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Mike H. - How do you like the Sopranos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barefoot Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Doug, I wish you'd taken some pics of the Mark Twain Impersonation Show- it sounds fun. Can anyone have a go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_r._fulton_jr. Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I use to work for an editor who said, "I hate golf. You know what I hate more than golf? Golfers."<P> What little golf I've ever shot (I hate <I>photographing</I> golf) the general rule was not to shoot a picture before the swing. Once the golfer had swung it was okay to shoot. Also getting directly "in the sight" of the golfer when lining up a putt was a no-no. When I was at the San Jose Mercury News I sent a sound blimp with one of the photographers to the "Crosby" as it was called. He was practically laughed off the course. We never bothered again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanford Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 John - you're right, there are few things more boring to watch or photograph than golf. When the marshalls raise their arms for silence before a shot it's like some wierd science fiction movie watching 10,000 people become frozen in mid-step and mid-sentence. What can you say about a sport where Justin Timberlake is now considered a celeb player in the pro-am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike-images Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Yeah guys I've regained my good humour and I didn't sustain a rupture getting down off the soapboax ;-) Sanford you might be right, maybe I should stop being inconsistent and get rid of the computer. Nels I really like sopranos - particularly Joan Sutherland and Kiri te Kanawa. Regards Happy Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_brookes5 Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 "We all know that in reportage and sports photgraphy digital is the way to go" Do we ? I thought all digital cameras had an exposure delay which meant only a camcorder mode could guarantee a spot on pic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 And that's why pro sports photographers never use digital cameras, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_brookes5 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Do sports photographers use ordinary digital cameras ? I thought they used the most expensive digitals. Anyway Bert Hardy took pictures with a box camera - professional ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 What are pro shooters using now? Cameras with 'camcorder mode' or film? Is that what you're really claiming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now