craig_gillette

<p>The issue is always going to be an "operator" issue. Operators are going to have to learn what is and isn't acceptable behavior. Laws and regulations and common sense will only go so far. Part of the problem is that this does run from the sub $1K hobbiest models down to cheap toys and up through serious purpose made remote controlled UAVs. One size federal regulation won't work well.</p> <p>And I think we all really know how well "people" do in a regulated environment. The prisons are full of people who can't or won't adjust to social norms. </p>

<p>Of course it's an operator problem. Just like kiddy porn is not a camera problem. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the shotgun approach (JK, sort of). Sure it has it's difficulties. But consider what the other solutions require. These puppies are selling by the thousands. From simple relatively cheap consumer/hobbyist models to big, expensive professional models. </p> <p>How do you intend/expect to identify the operator of a drone that is "trespassing?" It flies in, does it's thing, flies away. Register them and apply common sense drone controls and background checks on the owners? Require waiting periods? Drone operators will learn to be responsible just like the papparazzi are in following celebrities? Seriously? </p> <p>OTOH, shotgunning them. as satisfying as it might be, isn't going to be that easy. They'll fly higher and faster and do a little jinking and get away anyways.</p>

<p>A late friend was a docent at Piedras Blancas with the elephant seals. At one time he saw a parent sitting a child on a large elephant seal. Fortunately everyone survived. An animal that size will squash you just by rolling over to see what's going on. Lord what mortals these fools be.</p>

<p>If you mean commercial in the sense that one usually uses it when discussing the need for model releases, then probably not. But that's a general answer to a general question. It all really depends on the specifcs of the images, the intended uses and the laws that might apply.</p>

<p>Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Corona del Mar would be close for beach type shots as already mentioned. Bolsa Chica is just north of Huntington Beach for birding. Also San Joaquin Wildlife preserve (name?) is in Costa Mesa and might be a possibility. And as mentioned, traffic is likely to be heavy in the evening rush hour if you try to go too far.</p> <p>In the Anaheim area, besides the Disney resorts and Downtown Disney (they are cranky about tripods in the Downtown Disney zone these days and have banned selfie sticks in the parks) which are interesting and can be photogenic but probably not too different from the Disney resorts in Florida as to style, etc. There is a new transit center Artic? in Anaheim adjacent to Angels Stadium/Honda Arena that is an interesting domish/egg shaped facility with multicolored lighting displays. I haven't tried to shoot it yet and parking could be chancey if there are games/concerts. Don't know of any restrictions in or near the center if you use tripods or aren't a "passenger" but I think the best shots I've seen have been looking in from the northern side.</p> <p>With luck the weather will improve it's been hot and muggy and even intermittent rain and storms but should be clearing up some, although there is still the risk of June gloom lasting longer into the day. Since you are only going to be here during the work week, it doesn't seem likely that a try at Griffith Observatory will be practical and I'm not familiar with any similar spots overlooking the greater L.A. Basin except maybe Signal Hills near Long Beach (iffy at best) and if you can get to San Pedro, then there are locations near the Korean Peace Bell on Gaffey that would give good views of city lights, just that the drive time could be long. "Googling" any of these place names will give more details, of course. Likewise, El Segundo of Imperial Highway for airport viewing but again probably not drive time practical. Not sure if any similar viewing spots are available for John Wayne there in Costa Mesa</p>

<p>As one might expect, lodging prices go up depending on proximity to the valley and quality of the accommodations. Check a map and look at Mariposa, Wawona and El Portal for the closest communities outside the main valley area. Mariposa is a small town but full services, as it's the county seat. Wawona and El Portal areas are more limited. The drive from Mariposa is probably about the same time as the drive from Wawona but is an easier drive, much of it in the Merced River Valley whereas the Wawona Road is essentially a twisty mountain road. El Portal has several motel sorts of lodgings and is very convenient to the valley. Highway 120 west is a possibility but IIRC it's a longer, slower drive when compared to the others. </p> <p>Check for construction work (including the closures in/around Mariposa Grove) when in the area because it can impact travel times. The free shuttles in the valley only cover the east end and don't get down to the Bridalveil Fall, Gates of the Valley/Valley View area (unless things have changed since my last trip) although there are some other bus/tour options that do.</p> <p>I'd suggest making reservations as soon as you can because things that are close or less pricey fill up quickly. Check Rec.gov if interested in making camping reservations, it covers the Yosemite situation pretty well as to times and other options. I've camped off main season in the valley (got lucky on the reservations as I was pretty late making them) and late September in Wawona before it went off reservations. It's a pleasant camp but it is a drive to get to the valley. There are some services and supplies in Wawona, like a gas station.</p>

<p>Not sure but she might write and sing a song badmouthing Apple. If her songs about ex-boyfriends are any predictor, anyways.</p>

<p>I used the 28-105 on a Maxxum. It worked well as I recall, probably 400 print film at the time, for pass around pics. I got the open frame door seat she got the middle. Incidentally, because I was apparently the only passenger with an SLR, in addition to the open window, he made passes on my side, banked steep along the crater on my side, etc., to the extent he could in the tour flight patterns. My wife used all of the paper bags they carried and saw nothing after we zoomed over the ridge and dropped into Waimea Canyon. I can say with absolute certainty that "we" will never, ever take another helicopter sight seeing flight. </p>

<p>I think you could have two issues. One is the "rights" issue where the use might be infringing. In the US, there are very few ways to do that without some sort of added context issues.This could include shooting from an area that wasn't public as such and was of protected, hidden, proprietary, trademarked, copyrighted material or presented in a way that seemed an endorsement. You need competent local advice as even between states, let alone countries, there can be variations in the law/rights.</p> <p>The other is the need for a permit or restrictions on commercial photography. That might mean the end result will be a commercial use (like advertising) or it might be that you are being paid to take the pictures - like shooting wedding or engagement packages. In that case you are doing business on "public" property so perhaps a license is needed, or a permit, or practices in ways that the business operations don't interfere with other legitimate users of the location or enjoyment of the public facility. Maybe resulting in/from extra gear, keeping others from the space used, hazards like lighting gear, special access, etc. Again this all really local in what might apply or how you approach it. In some places the local governments see the advantages of encouraging business activity for revenue generation in others they are inundated by complaints from local businesses or taxpayers that "their" use of the public facilities is being impeded by out of control businesses in the parks.</p> <p>So a permit might well make it okay to shoot the pictures in that spot but it has nothing to do with the issues that may result from the way the resulting images are used.</p>

<p>I have the 16-50 on my NEX6. It's ok but fr a walk-around, the bigger problem I have is that as a power zoom, when it sleeps or is turned off, it retracts and is slow to wake up, needs to be reset to previous focal length, etc. Not sure I wouldn't replace it with the 18-55 depending on what I had at either end. The 18-55 is not expensive on the used market so it's something I keep thinking about.</p>

<p>I don't disagree that you most likely would do most of your shooting with the 18-55. I also think you would find the 10-18 useful and not just for interiors. The long zoom will come in handy for details, it's also covering more traditional portrait ranges. I'd suggest doing some practice with the special modes the camera offers like Multi Shot Noise Reduction, Handheld Night Scene, etc. Get a feel for what you can get with them and think about a sturdy support of some sort, like a table top tripod, etc. You may or may not have opportunities to use one on interiors but may get evening or night opportunities where a tripod might come in handy. Kind of depends on venues and schedules, of course. It might be that the 'pod ends up being part of your evening and night kit and doesn't get into your day carry everywhere kit bag.</p> <p>I wouldn't skimp on batteries or memory cards, rotating cards even with backups being done, keeping them handy but separate from gear, in a safe second interior pocket/case, "just in case."</p>

<p>Photography was never banned. The rest of the discussion is still building sandcastles. </p>

<p>Read more than your own posts Tim. There are plenty of them out there (and here). That's why I have references that are 5 years old and more. Right up there with suggesting that photography is banned. Photography is not banned. That's simplistic, too. </p> <p> </p>

<p>I'd suggest leaning towards lighter, more convenient choices. Note that all-in-one travel lenses may trade off both image quality and aperture. A car trip in the US may just postpone the inevitable when you decide to get more serious about paring things down.</p> <p>As to Italy? My daughter was there for a year for school and we visited during the winter months. Didn't run into too much rain and my wife and daughter weren't interested in wandering around in the rain so really weather resistance wasn't too big an issue. A small bag did it for a small kit and tucking the camera into my jacket was fine. You might be traveling with a hardier group or alone or have different interests. We did do a lot of walking. There are some restrictions in some places on what you can bring in to venues, not all have lockers, etc., so the less you carry with you, the more convenient it is from that point as well.</p> <p>She was in Florence, we visited Rome and several other locations. My suggestion would be that you can't see everything and that maybe spending several days in Rome and Florence both, a day or so in Venice (as well as some relaxed food/wine time in, say, Tuscany?) might work better than some of the tours or too fast an itinerary which doesn't allow enough time in any given location. You might be staying in an area with good train or bus access so that can allow for day trips as well. Another point in favor of lighter gear is that there are opportunities to tour domes and towers of various sorts. Few, if any, were built with elevators or have had them added in, so those great views out over the cities lend themselves to lighter kit as well.</p> <p>Flash? Like tripods, not often allowed in interiors. Maybe on a car trip, probably not on a trip with a lot of walking, especially if you have some fill flash capability in the camera. Tripods? Smaller cameras can work off smaller or at least lighter tripods. But that's going to have limited usefulness and depends on how many twilight/night shots you want to make and the hassle of dealing with carrying it, etc.</p>

<p>Terrorists have gone to jail a number of time with evidence including photos and videos they shot. The idea that this hasn't happened because some one never heard about it simplistic. It's not that hard to find out at least some examples. The Headley example being one of them.</p> <p>Here's a rather old sample from CNN. It's old because this idea that terrorists don't take or use photos is an old but firmly held fairy tale.<br> http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/08/05/terror.info.flow/index.html?_s=PM:WORLD </p> <p>Go take your pictures. Everybody else does.</p>

<p>Certainly within at least some circle of acquaintance people could say, "Oh look, that's the "Smith" house in that ad." and make some connection to use with permission. It may turn on the level of celebrity of the "owner" or perhaps on the use. Using a picture of a home commercially might be different than using the same picture in an article on prostitution, urban drug running, etc. I think interiors are different from exteriors. There is an expectation of privacy inside one's home that one doesn't have outside in public view. And an interior shot suggests permission to be there so getting a release may be a hurdle but much less of one than getting one for an exterior that might have been shot from a public place with no contact at all with the owners.</p> <p> </p>

<p>One of the interesting things is that in the US, you can use the image to sell itself and IIRC, in DiCorcia, the sales of the "catalog" were very lucrative. On a less exotic and expensive note, that allows a wedding photographer, for example, to use an on-line gallery from a wedding to offer sales to the attendees. State laws vary so use of that same image to drive customers to your business by display in a window or on-line might not be.</p> <p>But it really does depend on local laws. </p>

<p>What rights of the owners would/could the use of the image infringe? This might be interesting and might apply. Of course situations, locations and circumstances change: </p> <p>http://www.photoattorney.com/is-a-property-release-required-for-use-of-photo-of-house-for-an-advertisement/</p> <p>I think it's asking too much by the stock agency. Not that there aren't some times where portfolio building works for the agent, the photographer and even the home owner. But as a seller, I'm not sure I'd want to be bothered by the agent asking me to release the property for generic and unspecified uses that might gum up disclosures and escrow.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Yeah, why didn't they protect non-citizens? Otherwise, I'm not sure this says what the ASMP suggests it does. May need to read it a few more times. How does this compare to current Arkansas privacy/publicity legislation?</p>

<p>It's simply a guess on my part that that weight difference didn't damage the tripod. It's being sold not just tossed out. It may be that it was used for quite a while and it's just being replaced with maybe a lighter and/or more current model, etc. It seems to have worked above it's rating (although compared to some other brands, Manfrotto seems fairly conservative in that regard, especially as you get to somewhat higher ratings. A person using that heavy a large format camera would seem to be into photography enough to have been using a suitable tripod (I'd think). I"d think less likely to simply break as opposed to being a bit light for the job and maybe springy. Many tripods are set up to have weight added, hung via hooks, etc., to add to stability, etc., and I would guess that often exceeds the rated capacity.</p> <p>But as others have suggested, if the price seems reasonable, and you have the opportunity to examine and return the tripod if not to your liking, why not give it a look.</p>

<p>Really? The question, or at least part of the question, is the selection of the distance being arbitrary or not. One can easily try this out at home. The Tueller discussions are completely applicable. Simply find a point 20-25 feet away and see how quickly a person can close that distance. For those of you unicorn and skittles sorts, I'd suggest looking up slungshot and see if it stretches your imagination to see what similarity that offers to a camera on a strap. I suppose it's up to you but I wouldn't run across the room and smash my camera against a tree or anything like that for the sake of determining if a camera might be weaponized. </p> <p>As it is, laws are much more easily enforced (and obeyed) when there is a discrete or objective measure at work. The problem is, many situations don't lend themselves readily to objective rules and it's hard not to be at least a little arbitrary. One size usually doesn't fit all. </p>

<p>It's not about prohibiting photography, it's about controlling interferences with the officers at work. As Matt pointed out arbitrary limits often don't work because there can be a wide range of distances that might make sense and it's really situational. Unlike prohibiting parking near fire hydrants, where an appropriate distance can be worked out.</p> <p>It's not uncommon to consider what a reasonable person might do under the circumstances but that gets into the problem that often the cops are working in an environment where many of the actors are either not reasonable or they are not trying to act as a reasonable person might. FWIW, the distance suggested may have evolved out of the "Tueller rule" (which is not really a rule as such) but as might be expected, the closer someone is to another person, the easier it is to attack them faster than they can respond. So a typical photographer might think that that is generally too far away as a guideline and a cop might not think it's necessarily far enough.</p>

<p>Cash the check and say, "Thank you." Don't know the Canadian laws that might apply but in the US, states typically cover the use of a person's image commercially - as in endorsing businesses, goods, services, etc., as either a a part of the privacy laws or as "right of publicity" or similar language. You might try searching those terms for Canada. That would give you the basic legal position. As you can see, backing into legal coverage might be harder than planning for it in advance and having attendees properly "released" before shooting the event. If Canada does not have similar provisions and not all countries do, it still might be a questionable business move if customers are surprised by use in publicity/advertisements.</p>

<p>I used only a 24-75mm equivalent lens on a trip mostly to Florence and Rome. Most of the time that was sufficient. I think I would have used wider and longer lenses if I had them and on previous trips to other places, the majority of shooting still would have fallen within the same range, however, there were times I used both wider and longer.</p> <p>I didn't feel that I missed the wider range too often in longer exterior shots (a few times the streets or squares were too narrow to allow getting what I wanted) but it would have been useful a number of times in interiors. Sometimes you can deal with wider angles with stitching. That can be an issue or not depending on the pace of your trip. Longer is different, you can do some cropping but only so much.</p> <p>One thing to consider is that lenses tend to have problems at their widest and/or longest settings so if you have some overlap, one or the other may perform better, less distortion, vignetting, etc. For example, in my Nikon kit, the Tokina 12-24 does better over much of it's overlap with my 18-70.</p> <p>Aside from the photographic range, there is the considerations of the pace of the trip, how other people on the trip may respond to photo stops and the whole thing on weight, bulk, convenience of a simple or more complex kit.</p>

<p>I can suggest checking with the lodging in the area of the various locations/parks. A few thoughts, Easter is April 5th this year so that adds at least some added potential that the most popular and/or most easily reached destination areas will possibly have more school vacation/Spring Break travel impact although more school systems are basing Spring Breaks on fixed calendar dates.</p> <p>And I can second the warnings on weather being a possible problem. We traveled to Williams and Flagstaff one year the first week of April in order to see the Grand Canyon, Oak Creek Canyon, etc, and a snowstorm moved in over night and for 4 days dumped anywhere from one to two feet of snow over night each night. That pretty well shut down the interstates let alone the other highways in the highest country. They got them open again late in the day each day but for the most part, I-40 and I-17 were closed most of that time and the highways north to the rim and north from Flagstaff to Page, etc., were closed even longer. That was an unusually severe and slow moving storm but flexibility in planning is a good idea.</p>