An interesting encounter!

F

Fordsabroad

Messages
921
Name
Gordon
Edit My Images
Yes
My 10 year old granddaughter was running in a local athletics race today at an outdoor track. I thought that I would go along and photograph her and half expected to be challenged but was surprised by this.
I had my camera Olympus OM1 and 150 - 400 lens out before her race when a "official" (who was carrying a Canon and 70 -200 lens) approached me and said that I couldn't take photographs with that lens as it was too big! I questioned what "too big" meant and the only reply he could give was that he had just completed a safeguarding course and the lens was too big. I said that was fine but in that case could i use a smaller lens? How small was the reply to which I produced the 12 - 100mm after he examined it begrudgingly accepted that it could be used. Fortunately he didn't realize the reach of that lens on the micro 4/3 sensor.
I wasn't put out by the confrontation as I was still going to achieve the result I came for but I did try to have a conversation with him as to why my lens would be any more intrusive than a modern camera phone but all I got was that he had done a safeguarding course. All the while he was launching a drone!
I cannot understand the reason but am happy to obey the, badly thought out rules.
 
Last edited:
This is why I just don't bother and if there are people about usually I put my camera away.

Glad you carried on with a safeguarding compliant setup though :D
 
I wasn't at all surprised or put out by being approached but I couldn't understand the lens logic.
 
I went to Harry Potter Studio Tour a few weeks ago and checked their policy on photography :-
"The use of flashes, tripods and other specialist photographic equipment (including interchangeable lenses) is not permitted"
I took a D600 with 24-120 lens attached and nothing else, fully expecting to be told it was an interchangeable lens and not allowed !
None of the staff batted and eyelid even when I accidentally triggered the flash or moved to the front to get a better shot.
 
Maybe point out as he's singled you out is he aware of discimination,?
 
Compuwight said:
I went to Harry Potter Studio Tour a few weeks ago and checked their policy on photography :-
"The use of flashes, tripods and other specialist photographic equipment (including interchangeable lenses) is not permitted"
I took a D600 with 24-120 lens attached and nothing else, fully expecting to be told it was an interchangeable lens and not allowed !
None of the staff batted and eyelid even when I accidentally triggered the flash or moved to the front to get a better shot.
Click to expand...

Specialist? Interchangeable lenses makes it specialist? What is the world coming to?!

I can appreciate the tripod and the flash bit, but that is all.

The Theatre Royal in Plymouth has a very clear policy -- no photographs or video!!! Even so, there are people who fail to grasp even that simple command but they get singled out quite quickly as the ushers point a bright, flashing torch at them. My local cinema has people that come in on occasions with night vision appliances to see if anyone is videoing the film, if found to be doing so, they are removed.

I shall be going to an Alternative Convention (whatever that is) at Plymouth Guildhall in October, I truly hope they have no restrictions on camera equipment.
 
I do feel sorry for the public now. When my children were small we took many still and movie pics at athletics, Swimming, Scouts and other events. Recently our granddaughter stayed with us and had doubts about some event involving her mother but we showed her the movie. My granddaughter is about to have a new little brother and thought this would be a disaster but we showed a movie of her Mother and her brother playing together and is now not quite as concerned now. Theses records are so valuable so why can normal folks no longer capture these or, if they do, may be called perverts.

Dave
 
Whilst it’s obvious he was talking utter rubbish; if he had a genuine close relationship with the organisers then any challenging of him could have been disastrous.

I’m struggling to think of a better outcome than you experienced. Frustrating as I find that.
 
I took my A7iv & 28-70 to my daughters graduation, I was told I would be refused entry into the venue with it, I ended up taking to the local police station and explained the situation, fortunately they took it for safe keeping. On getting into the venue there was 'togger with a photo-booth taking mug shots at £35 a go!
 
Phil V said:
Whilst it’s obvious he was talking utter rubbish; if he had a genuine close relationship with the organisers then any challenging of him could have been disastrous.

I’m struggling to think of a better outcome than you experienced. Frustrating as I find that.
Click to expand...
Phil V That was exactly my thoughts, challenging may well have exposed the ridiculousness of his statement but would have probably have got me evicted and embarrassed my daughter and granddaughter. Now If I had been there as a professional photographer that would have been a different story.
Still everything worked out well. I got my pictures and have got this week's jobsworth out of the way!!
 
To be fair he may well have had very little knowledge of cameras, as is often the case with security/ushers call them what you like.
Their instructions, training or the venues policy are quite likely to say a maximum of 150mm from the camera body to the end of the lens, or some similar way of telling.
A M43 100-300 at the 100 end would probably have been OK.

Safeguarding is major problem, and the rules have to be fairly simple and easy to enforce, otherwise if something doe go wrong, the organisers could find themselves with a major problem dad they not have taken due care.

It really has become a sorry state of affairs that people can't take photos in public, even of their own kids without finger waving and pointing.
 
Fordsabroad said:
My 10 year old granddaughter was running in a local athletics race today at an outdoor track. I thought that I would go along and photograph her and half expected to be challenged but was surprised by this.
I had my camera Olympus OM1 and 150 - 400 lens out before her race when a "official" (who was carrying a Canon and 70 -200 lens) approached me and said that I couldn't take photographs with that lens as it was too big! I questioned what "too big" meant and the only reply he could give was that he had just completed a safeguarding course and the lens was too big. I said that was fine but in that case could i use a smaller lens? How small was the reply to which I produced the 12 - 100mm after he examined it begrudgingly accepted that it could be used. Fortunately he didn't realize the reach of that lens on the micro 4/3 sensor.
I wasn't put out by the confrontation as I was still going to achieve the result I came for but I did try to have a conversation with him as to why my lens would be any more intrusive than a modern camera phone but all I got was that he had done a safeguarding course. All the while he was launching a drone!
I cannot understand the reason but am happy to obey the, badly thought out rules.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying this is necessarily relevant to the specific situation you found yourself in, but I can remember reading that at some events long lenses were being banned in the public areas to "safeguard" people standing close to people swinging long lenses around.

If that is correct I can imagine this sort of thing trickling down to smaller local (less crowded/packed) events where it has far less justification.
 
myotis said:
I'm not saying this is necessarily relevant to the specific situation you found yourself in, but I can remember reading that at some events long lenses were being banned in the public areas to "safeguard" people standing close to people swinging long lenses around.

If that is correct I can imagine this sort of thing trickling down to smaller local (less crowded/packed) events where it has far less justification.
Click to expand...
Ya know, that just might be. I found doing awards at field trials that people taking photo'scan be terribly inconsiderate. Photography people are quite a bit like all the other group's, as many are inconsiderate and make it hard on other's!
 
ecoleman said:
If I were you that conversation would have started and ended with F^&*% off
Click to expand...
Depending on my mental state it could have been something similar or fair enough if that's the rules.
The former has never done much good in the long run and as I get older common sense often prevails.
 
tijuana taxi said:
Depending on my mental state it could have been something similar or fair enough if that's the rules.
The former has never done much good in the long run and as I get older common sense often prevails.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I'm the type of person who won't employ common sense when the jobs worth and rule makers themselves can't, especially if said jobsworth walked up to me with a camera and 70-200 attached.

The problem is that far too many people just accept the b******t and comply without any challenge.
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
Unfortunately I'm the type of person who won't employ common sense when the jobs worth and rule makers themselves can't, especially if said jobsworth walked up to me with a camera and 70-200 attached.

The problem is that far too many people just accept the b******t and comply without any challenge.
Click to expand...
Have you had much of a positive result with that sort of response?
Had my fair share of confrontations over the years, not done me much good
Standing joke at work that I gave up an anger management course after two sessions because it made me too angry.
 
tijuana taxi said:
Have you had much of a positive result with that sort of response?
Had my fair share of confrontations over the years, not done me much good
Standing joke at work that I gave up an anger management course after two sessions because it made me too angry.
Click to expand...
No, I'm a landscape photographer so generally keep away from people as much as possible.

A few years back though I was a parent who frequently photographed my son's at various school and cadets events and never really had a problem.

Did have an issue at a remembrance Day parade where my son's was in the army cadets. Some woman, I believe the leader of the local brownie or girl guides group approached me and told me I can't be taking photos as they are children.

I just informed her it's was a public place, I wasn't interested in her kids and politely told her to sod off. That was then end of it.
 
mex said:
I took my A7iv & 28-70 to my daughters graduation, I was told I would be refused entry into the venue with it, I ended up taking to the local police station and explained the situation, fortunately they took it for safe keeping. On getting into the venue there was 'togger with a photo-booth taking mug shots at £35 a go!
Click to expand...


That has nothing to do with safeguarding and everything to do with the protection of commercial interests.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mex
I had not thought about the point in Graham's post #19. If that was the reason than I can sort of understand it.

However, if the official had really been on a safeguarding course I'd expect him to know the reason given during the course why a lens would be deemed 'too big' and be able to say, "We don't allow lenses of that size because ......".

Dave
 
Tringa said:
I had not thought about the point in Graham's post #19. If that was the reason than I can sort of understand it.

However, if the official had really been on a safeguarding course I'd expect him to know the reason given during the course why a lens would be deemed 'too big' and be able to say, "We don't allow lenses of that size because ......".

Dave
Click to expand...
So would I !
 
The word 'safeguarding' without context is a bit of a red herring.

While most people have taken it to mean 'don't take pictures of kids' my immediate thought was about the physical size and/or weight of the lens for non-professionals.

I don't know your lens, but if I took my 100-400 Canon (the old bellows type - where the whole lens extends) I can see how that might be problematic taking photos from my seat as a casual observer, whereas it wouldn't be a problem for a pro who's on their feet at the front.

The irony being that my 'fixed lens' camera has a 35mm equivalent of 600mm. So those places that wouldn't allow the bigger lens in because it would allow me to take close-ups would probably* overlook it.

*Or possibly. With a prevailing wind etc.
 
Kell said:
The word 'safeguarding' without context is a bit of a red herring.

While most people have taken it to mean 'don't take pictures of kids' my immediate thought was about the physical size and/or weight of the lens for non-professionals.

I don't know your lens, but if I took my 100-400 Canon (the old bellows type - where the whole lens extends) I can see how that might be problematic taking photos from my seat as a casual observer, whereas it wouldn't be a problem for a pro who's on their feet at the front.

The irony being that my 'fixed lens' camera has a 35mm equivalent of 600mm. So those places that wouldn't allow the bigger lens in because it would allow me to take close-ups would probably* overlook it.

*Or possibly. With a prevailing wind etc.
Click to expand...
This was my first thought as well (post #19)
 
i wonder what he would have said if Ii was there with my camcorder that has a 600mm equivilant reach but a fixed lens?
 
Tringa said:
I had not thought about the point in Graham's post #19. If that was the reason than I can sort of understand it.

However, if the official had really been on a safeguarding course I'd expect him to know the reason given during the course why a lens would be deemed 'too big' and be able to say, "We don't allow lenses of that size because ......".

Dave
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter what the object is, camera or otherwise, people not familar with them are prone to miss handle them. To them it's just an object
 
Fordsabroad said:
My 10 year old granddaughter was running in a local athletics race today at an outdoor track. I thought that I would go along and photograph her and half expected to be challenged but was surprised by this.
I had my camera Olympus OM1 and 150 - 400 lens out before her race when a "official" (who was carrying a Canon and 70 -200 lens) approached me and said that I couldn't take photographs with that lens as it was too big! I questioned what "too big" meant and the only reply he could give was that he had just completed a safeguarding course and the lens was too big. I said that was fine but in that case could i use a smaller lens? How small was the reply to which I produced the 12 - 100mm after he examined it begrudgingly accepted that it could be used. Fortunately he didn't realize the reach of that lens on the micro 4/3 sensor.
I wasn't put out by the confrontation as I was still going to achieve the result I came for but I did try to have a conversation with him as to why my lens would be any more intrusive than a modern camera phone but all I got was that he had done a safeguarding course. All the while he was launching a drone!
I cannot understand the reason but am happy to obey the, badly thought out rules.
Click to expand...
I'm for avoiding any hint of confrontation with any minor "official" irregardless of whether he knows what he's talking about or not. A nice smiley "help me to understand for future reference please... where can I read up on the rules/guidance?" might have kept his sensors inactive and you could have asked why he gets to carry what you can't....

But if your granddaugher is a regular competitor someone at her club should be capable of providing you with "the guidance". But, oh look here, I've done a little research for you; happy reading UK Athletics Safeguarding.

Do I know anything? I just know it saddens me when my neighbour is prevented from taking snaps at her 1yr-old grandchild's 1st birthday party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top