Olympics photo crackdown !

[astral]

<p><a href="http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/538998/olympics-bosses-crack-down-on-spectator-camera-gear">Olympics organisers "crackdown" on types of cameras permitted at venues . . . (link). </a><br /> And an update<br /> <a href="http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/539002/olympic-photography-rules-were-a-typo">Here. . . </a><br /> Total disarray!</p>

<p> </p>

[carbon_dragon]

It's a travesty. I'd be for banning all corporate sponsors from the olympics permanently. They can be held in some quiet

place and televised across the world by any station that wants to carry the signal, but no exclusivity. Is this an amateur

event or not. Of course that's never going to happen but we can only hope that the sponsors who perpetrated this

shambles will live to regret it. Visa apparently demanded all the cash machines which didn't use VISA be ripped out of all

olympic venues. McDonalds demanded no chips (french fries) be sold in the venues unless accompanied by fish. Other

sponsors demanded that any spectators be turned away if they had a logo of a non sponsor on their clothes.

 

 

This stuff makes politics in America look clean and fair. I can only hope England doesn't benefit from these practices

either. Corporations should stay out of politics, religion and sport. Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to go eat ice cream from

someone other than Chick Fil A.

[astral]

<p>Of course, it is the sponsors' money that allows Olympics organisers to indulge in hubris.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Is this an amateur event or not</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

No. Not any more.<br>

<br>

It used to be and I think it should be again.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>There is no "quiet place" to house that many athletes and the supporting staff, and to house the facilities needed for that much (summer-wise, never mind winter events) swimming, track, gymnastics, rowing, archery, basketball, soccer, baseball, etc. That requires enormous physical spaces with security protecting all of it. The investment in wiring all of that up so that it can be shown to the world is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. <br /><br />The nice thing about business sponsorship is that no company is forced to pay for it, and no audience member is forced to watch it.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

Ditch the need for onsite spectators and you can hold it in the middle of nowhere, which the Brits say would be much

easier.

[JDMvW]

<p>Now that that's all been settled.</p>

<p>Am I the only one who could not figure out what the heck that jagged thingie they call an Olympic symbol was? Now that they tell me, I can sorta see that it is a "2012". I guess we can be happy it's not some cartoon animal.</p>

<p>As far as the location goes, remember that the suggestion was made some time ago that the (summer) games be permanently located in Greece. Once you built it, they would come (wouldn't they?).</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>What's the big deal? It's not like any photographer from the stands is going to be able to capture a photo of an athlete that will bring serious cash anyway.</p>

<p>The only problem I see with the rules, is that they are leaving it to individual event interpretation. I'd prefer to see them say "The limit is 30 cm and ONE Lens (attached) " instead of leaving things up to the venues. </p>

<p>I used to haul my Nikon to baseball games with me... and I actually got some really good shots - when my seats where in the first base box section (5th row) - but 99% of the time - I'm in the skydeck - so this year for both games I had tickets to - my camera stayed home. After the initial shock wore off - I realized I didn't miss having a camera around my neck and having 50 - 100 photos to go through to find the keepers. In fact I actually enjoyed the games more. And when (if) I get those box seats again - I'm going to have some serious debating to do with myself.</p>

<p>The organizers have the right to limit photography - period. It is as they say, "Their Show". It's not up to us to sit and say - it's not fair - It's up to the ticket buying public. If they think the camera policy is not fair - they can speak volumes by not buying tickets and not going to the events. As a person watching a game or event - I know how annoying some people with cameras can be. Thus the deeds of a few, spoil things for all. My daughter was in a dance recitial earlier this year - at the beginning of the program it was announced, very loudly over the PA, NO FLASH PHOTOGRAPHY and NO RECORDING of the performance. It took exacly 30 seconds into the opening number when I saw a flash go off. Then it was about another 10 -15 seconds when I saw the first parent with a camcorder. My guess is that next year the organizer will not allow any camera or electronic device. And I don't blame her one bit.</p>

<p> </p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>And what's the result of all those kinky rules?</p>

<p>Just saw it in the news today:</p>

<p>Tourists in London during Olympic Games: -30%<br>

Tourists in London attractions during Olympic Games: -30%<br>

People in London streets during Olympic Games: -20%<br>

Now even the five star hotels offer substantial discounts, some offer rooms for 100 Euro/night - that's a bargain for London!</p>

<p>Many people have been scared off. Some day the organization committees will notice that they have made something wrong.</p>

<p>This is another situation that reveals how the 'big players' want to keep control of us 'folks'. They don't like it, if we shoot our own pictures, if we make our own news and broadcast them...</p>

<p>It will be the same decline as with the huge exhibitions for industries: people prefer to stay at home and spend their money on other activities. The Internet delivered the product news faster than any exhibition or trade fair could ever do.</p>

<p>The positive aspect: They don't have to waste billions on buildings for the next Olympic games, just plain grounds and a couple of towers for TV stations.</p>

<p>For me the decision is simple:<br>

[The professional] If I can't take my camera, I won't go or attend. Period.<br>

[The hobbyist] I don't want to take my camera, I just want to enjoy it. Period.</p>

 

[mike dixon]

"Many people have been scared off. Some day the organization committees will notice that they have made something wrong."

 

People were scared off by warnings of traffic problems and fully-booked hotels. It's completely absurd to claim that restrictions on photography at the Olympic events have stopped tourists from coming into London.

[daverhaas]

<p>plus 1 to Mike - banning or being inconsistent on the allowing of photography during events has zero to do with attendance and tourism - If anything it is more of a factor of the necessary ticket prices to pay for the construction of the venues and the world economy in general. </p>

<p>Maybe it is time to name a permanent host city or a 3 - 4 city rotation for the summer and winter games - that way the investment in infrastructure, stadiums, and other venues is not a one time use. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[carbon_dragon]

I have to disagree. I like taking my camera along wherever I go. When that is prohibited I don't go. Maybe it's the pro/am

thing. I'm a software engineer and I don't like programming at home. But Photography is a hobby so it's how I enjoy

myself. And those are the very persons prohibited.

 

 

I don't travel much either, though I've been to England once years ago. I'd like to go back sometime, but I'd never do it

during an event like this.

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>Mike, the photography issue is just one snippet of the whole set of instruments they use to scare potential visitors.</p>

<p>Excessive prices for hotels, dining, peak season pricing, fear of terrorism, guards everywhere, traffic problems, rip-off at every corner (the tourist trap principle) - this is something people with a brain don't want to deal with anymore. A simple and lousy sandwich for 8 Euro and more, a pack of cigarettes for almost 10 Euro, the prohibitive ticket prices...</p>

<p>Have you seen the large, empty spaces in the stadiums, where the seats have been reserved for the promotional tickets? Even when people don't have to pay for the tickets, they don't show up. This is something the organization committee should be concerned about, really.</p>

<p>The world needs a change.</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>2512 New London: News crackdown: "Excavations have shown that London in 2012 had a law firm so big that they had their own sport stadiums"<br>

Nowadays at big events you can't buy your own brand of beer, you're not permitted to take a decent picture, etc. The only way to change that is to stop attending these and start looking at local events, provided these are not so big and are not sponsored by law firms or financial institutions.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>JDM, the London 2012 Logo was roundly criticised right from the moment it was revealed. Several newspapers here ran their own competitions to find a better logo and came up with some really excellent ideas, none of which were taken up. Iran decided that the logo spelled 'ZION' and announced they were not coming. They have actually arrived.</p>

<p>The atmosphere among Londoners as sampled by me since the start of the games has been very cheerful. Everyone enjoying the games and the atmosphere and also the roads which are in general as clear as they get at weekends. Not bothered about lack of tourists etc - London is one of the most visited places in the world and with all the exposure I expect the tourists will come flocking in 2013 onwards. Fingers crossed nothing arises to wreck the atmosphere here.</p>

<p>OK, the Stratford site now has (I am told) the world's biggest McDonalds (official Games Restaurant). Can you class McDonalds as a restaurant? and the strange ticketing seems to be a real issue. But apart from that I have to report wide grins on most faces here. Great to see some of the world's top athletes in action. Did anyone catch Tirunesh Dibaba of Ethipoia destroying the rest of the field in the 10000m? Most common conversation opeing 'Did you see...?' Unexpected success among our GB lads and lassies and all round good feeling. Probably get a games hangover afterwards but at the moment.....:-))</p>

[astral]

<p>I have very little interest in the Olympics, but I am astonished by some aspects of the organisation and the draconian terms and conditions that have applied to ticket sales and, now, to photography.</p>

<p>In regard to photography, the IOC clearly want to 'own' or control everything about the Olympics experience, right down to when and where spectators can break wind. The obsession about "banning" people from sharing their photos (they must only be for "<em>private use</em>" and taken only with a 'simple' camera) means that, ostensibly, the only photographs that will exist in the public's shared experience of the 2012 Olympics will be the official ones. That seems more like the climate one would imagine to have surrounded the Berlin 1936 Olympics, not those in London in 2012. I just find it very distasteful.</p>

<p> </p>

[charedan]

+1 to what Alan said.

[colin carron]

<p>Just been watching on TV the first of the 100m mens' heats with Usain Bolt appearing for the first time. As the athletes warmed up the TV camera panned around the stadium and gave a (fairly close) close-up of some of the crowd. The commentator said,'All cameras pointing at Usain Bolt'. The shot showed most of that section of the crowd had cameras,and most of the cameras were P&S but some were definitely SLRs. Several appeared to have (at a guess) telephotos in the 50-250 or 70-300 ranges. No white bazookas or tripods.</p>

[randrew1]

<p>It is possible to get decent shots from the stands at baseball and football games, but only if you are close to the front row. At the olympics today, if you can afford seats like that, you can afford to hire someone else to take the pictures for you. The pictures below were shot in Buffalo and Pittsburgh where it was possible to get these close-up seats (but no longer in Pittsburgh since they have returned to competitiveness). </p>

<p><img src="http://photos.randrews4.com/Sports/Sports-Portfolio/DSC0165/612563456_7fvoE-M-2.jpg" alt="" width="360" height="450" /></p>

<p><img src="http://photos.randrews4.com/Sports/Sports-Portfolio/i-cbh7r59/0/M/20110718Pirates4772b-M.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>

[andrew_gardiner]

<blockquote>

<p>Am I the only one who could not figure out what the heck that jagged thingie they call an Olympic symbol was? Now that they tell me, I can sorta see that it is a "2012". I guess we can be happy it's not some cartoon animal.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I quite agree, its horrible isn't it, particularly when compared to the simple beauty and good design of the five rings . There was a bit of an outcry here in the UK when it was first shown, but they went ahead with it anyway, along with that nasty, jagged font and the unpleasant colour palette that appears everywhere ( a kind of dark fuschia pink seems to predominate).</p>

[starvy]

<p>If you are not attending the events and keep off the underground at crucial times or avoid various parts of Central London when cycling or '-athlon' events are taking place, London is great. I was there the weekend before it would start, on the first Wednesday for the day and shall be there next weekend. Hotel prices are lower than usual which is really nice. I have had good deals on 4 start hotels close to London. This is August and one would normally expect everywhere to be busy. This is not the case though. Locals are generally it would seem. I hate the armed Police presence everywhere though. The cost alone would keep my taxes high for the next twenty years.</p>

[tony_leinster]

<p>I am watching the Olympics every day and have seen plenty of big lenses (including many "great whites") in the crowds. Also the Underground system, the Docklands Light Railway and the Barclays Bike Hire scheme have all set new records for the numbers using them. Many people are reporting that hotel prices are lower than usual and that moving around London is no problem.<br>

Perhaps, as often, we are seeing a few things being slightly blown up out of proportion? Whilst I do hate being told not to use my camera I have encountered this in some far more innocuous places than the Olympic stadium.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>Tony, 'Great whites' sighted, eh,? I shall have to keep a look out for them. Agree about the 'blown up out of proportion' bit.</p>

<p>Starvy, thee armed police presence has been in evidence around Westminster, Heathrow etc for a few years now. I think they have extended it temporarily. A sign of the times, I am afraid.<br /> <br /> But really enjoying it all so far. The sailing from Weymouth looks beautiful.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>we are seeing a few things being slightly blown up out of proportion?</em>>>></p>

<p>On the Internet? On PN? Can it possibly be? LOL.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Am I the only one who could not figure out what the heck that jagged thingie they call an Olympic symbol was?<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />No. Everyone here wondered what it was supposed to be as soon as it was revealed.</p>