London Tripod rules, London

NeilA1975

NeilA1975

Messages
4,999
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
No
I'm going to London tomorrow evening, will be shooting mainly around City hall, Tower Bridge area.
Is there anything I need to be aware of in respect of using a tripod?
 
Depends what time you are going....

If its prime time in the day when its packed then expect to get some hassle.

Personally, I've been around the South Bank, North Bank, Tower, Wheel, Westminster etc either crack of dawn or during the night and I've been fine (along with a few other togs going about their business)

The only time someone came to talk to me was in St. Kats dock - where he basically said "look, the grounds uneven here. I need to tell you that your here at your own risk" aka - Fall in the river its on your shoulders now I've talked to you.

Maybe I'm lucky - I do hear the stories of the Tripod police.

The city is a different story...attempt to stick a tripod up around the Gherkin etc your stuffed. Everything is "private property" Fortunatly for me I only publish for my web blog, so I can get away with high ISO as the images are fairly small.

Cheers,
Ben
 
The pedestrian area from London Bridge towards City Hall is owned by More London (i.e. private land) and there are often security personnel stopping tripod use and photographing their buildings. Less issues going in the opposite direction towards Tate and National Theatre. Good luck
 
I was there last year it was packed, there wasn't room to set up a tripod, pretty much the same all the way to westminister bridge and that was seriously mental. No problems with actually shooing pics with security or anything, even right by the eye, but then with about 28 million people all doing the same thing they had no chance.
 
the888account said:
The city is a different story...attempt to stick a tripod up around the Gherkin etc your stuffed. Everything is "private property"
Click to expand...
The plaza around the Gherkin is private property as it's a circular building built on a square plot of land. The landlords are also very security conscious (hence the explosives sniffer dog) as it's a prime target for terrorists.
However, there is a public footpath outside the private plot where you could set up. you might get some interest from security, but they're used to people taking photos.

There's normally a lot more pavement space on the other side of St Mary Axe, near the church. But your shot maybe hindered by parked vehicles and you'll have to time your shots between passing traffic.
Oh, and don't come on a Thursday, as there's a food market in the plaza which guarantees a sizeable crown if the weather's good.
 
Consider the heavy duty Gorillapod. You'll often find something to sit it on or cling on to. The heavy one (Gorillapod Focus I think it is) will stand up to a bit of punishment and will handle reasonably billy kit.

Much easier to carry about and I've yet to have anyone object to me using mine.
 
Can I ask you a question? I'm new in England - and I am just learning about what you can do or not. Really is the big problem with using tripod in London? For ex. what if I want to make a foto of a .... hmm London Eye or a Gherkin in the late evening (night?). Are there any reason why I cannot do it? In Poland you can make a photo of everything you want (well you cannot publish everything for. ex. military base, etc), and nobody is chasing you with a fine for it? It is stupid to get a fine, because I wanted to make a fine pic :/.
 
its purely luck of the draw ( plus time of day/ night ) ive gone along the whole south bank from westminster to tower bridge shooting with a tripod along the way for over 4-5 hours and not been stopped once ( both day and night time 0, and ive done the same route ( more times than i can count ) and been stopped as many as a dozen times on one occasion ). sometimes they are fine and just want to know what you are shooting, other times they will be jobsworths who have no clue about the law and demand to see/ delete pics, threaten to call the police etc ) St katherines Dock is probably the only place ( and Trafalgar square ) where i have had regular problems both day and night ) though i generally dont bother with trafalgar square anyway and Katherines dock other than getting the fountain/ tower bridge i will try to shoot handheld if im around there.
There are so many places in London you can shoot with tripod without any problems then its no big deal for someone like me who's fairly local but if your a first time visitor it can be frustrating if you want to get certain shots.
my advice is if you do get approached just say your a tourist getting some pics to remember your visit and if they still insist just nod smile and move on 100 yards.
 
I use the 'shoot and scoot' technique. I already know my ISO, aperture and speed. I also know what focal length I'm going to use and the predicted outcome of my vista. Get in, open tripod, engage camera on quick release plate. Focus, fire of a bracketed exposure (3 max) then I'm gone. By the time Mr security guard has taken off his slippers and put his boots on. I'm long gone ! At worst I'm slinging my tripod over my shoulder, with a "sorry mate, I'm on my way"

Incidentally, the therm 'shoot and scoot' we coined from Artillery days where we would put down a fire mission and get the hell out out of there before it started raining shells ! - "UBIQUE".
 
Last edited:
HAHAHA - yes - i know the shoot and scoot origin term :] but your explanation makes me laugh :]. Anyway - going back to the topic: maybe the solution for "taking the space by a tripod" is a someting like gorillapod? BUT as Ken Rockwell wrote sometime ago on his page: Buying unnecessary stuff such as Backpack for 200£ or super duper hit tripods is a little bit "overexposure" :]
 
I've shot a lot at night around City Hall, the Scoop and towards Tower Bridge. Other than once no problems. The only time I was ever challenged by More London security I was in the Scoop. I was simply asked not to take any pictures of security systems, a fat chance of that while I was using an 8mm fisheye. If in doubt or when you know photography is forbidden, as in some shops/stores, adopt the 'Shoot and Scoot' principle as above, it works.
 
dean messenger said:
its purely luck of the draw ( plus time of day/ night ) ive gone along the whole south bank from westminster to tower bridge shooting with a tripod along the way for over 4-5 hours and not been stopped once ( both day and night time 0, and ive done the same route ( more times than i can count ) and been stopped as many as a dozen times on one occasion ). sometimes they are fine and just want to know what you are shooting, other times they will be jobsworths who have no clue about the law and demand to see/ delete pics, threaten to call the police etc ) St katherines Dock is probably the only place ( and Trafalgar square ) where i have had regular problems both day and night ) though i generally dont bother with trafalgar square anyway and Katherines dock other than getting the fountain/ tower bridge i will try to shoot handheld if im around there.
There are so many places in London you can shoot with tripod without any problems then its no big deal for someone like me who's fairly local but if your a first time visitor it can be frustrating if you want to get certain shots.
my advice is if you do get approached just say your a tourist getting some pics to remember your visit and if they still insist just nod smile and move on 100 yards.
Click to expand...
Couriously I had no problems at all at Trafalgar square, security/plod just ignored us. (mid evening) and no problems on the south bank either, other than beggars dressed up in costumes asking for money.
 
Llamaman said:
The plaza around the Gherkin is private property as it's a circular building built on a square plot of land. The landlords are also very security conscious (hence the explosives sniffer dog) as it's a prime target for terrorists.
However, there is a public footpath outside the private plot where you could set up. you might get some interest from security, but they're used to people taking photos.

There's normally a lot more pavement space on the other side of St Mary Axe, near the church. But your shot maybe hindered by parked vehicles and you'll have to time your shots between passing traffic.
Oh, and don't come on a Thursday, as there's a food market in the plaza which guarantees a sizeable crown if the weather's good.
Click to expand...

Really... Don't be led to believe such stupidity. How often do we get car bombings in this country? Hmmmm let me think...
 
Steve Smith said:
But this country is England. The UK is a sovereign state.

We used to get lots of car bombings in the 1970s.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Indeed, just as Scotland and Wales are. Lots of car bomings in the 80s too and if I recall there were two car bombs in London as recently as 2007. Fortuntely these were disrupped prior to detonation.

The City of London will allways be a credable threat due to the importance of it's finacial standing.
 
Last edited:
doublem1 said:
Really... Don't be led to believe such stupidity. How often do we get car bombings in this country? Hmmmm let me think...
Click to expand...
The Gherkin is built upon the site of a bombing that destroyed the previous building. Tower 42 (formerly the Natwest Tower) was nearly pulled down after a previous bombing almost made the building uneconomical to repair. The City Of London still has the security posts from the "Ring of Steel" during the peak of IRA bombing activity. Whilst we may not be at a high risk of a terrorist attack, if one were to occur, it is landmark buildings that would be the target.
 
Llamaman said:
Sorry, I don't give the scare-o-meter a great deal of credence, especially when the organisations responsible for setting it want more powers.

In the words of Zach de la Rocha, "Terror's the product you push".
Click to expand...

Ah, we'll all take your advice then ... I think not!
 
Llamaman said:
In the words of Zach de la Rocha, "Terror's the product you push".
Click to expand...

Not really sure we can listen too much to Zach de la Rocha. This is the same man that said...

"Put that mic in my hand And let me kick out the jams Yes, kick out the jams, got to kick 'em out"

If a man can have such a hate for fruity preserves, im not sure I can take him seriously regarding terrorism.



:D
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Not really sure we can listen too much to Zach de la Rocha. This is the same man that said...

"Put that mic in my hand And let me kick out the jams Yes, kick out the jams, got to kick 'em out"

If a man can have such a hate for fruity preserves, im not sure I can take him seriously regarding terrorism.

:D
Click to expand...
To be fair, though, that was a cover version (albeit a good one - although I thought their cover of "How I Could Just Kill A Man" was the best on Renegades)

It is a silly lyric though. Using a mic would get jam all over it, and it would be a nightmare to get it out of the grille.
 
gramps said:
Ah, we'll all take your advice then ... I think not!
Click to expand...
I offered no advice. I only gave my opinion. If you want to live a life in constant fear of a minor threat, be my guest. :)
 
Llamaman said:
I offered no advice. I only gave my opinion. If you want to live a life in constant fear of a minor threat, be my guest. :)
Click to expand...

"Minor threat" ... yes that'll sit well with the relatives and survivors of the London bombings of 7/7 and the myriad of other terrorist atrocities.
 
Don't try tripods on railway stations or the underground either. They will attract attention of security.

I was asked at St Pancras once when covering a media event not to use a tripod, so I asked if it was ok to lay it down on the floor whilst I continued shooting on high ISO...Fine he said. His attitude softened and we had a great conversation for ten minutes about other things. Then he turned and tripped over my tripod lying on the ground.

pmsl.
 
Last edited:
shreds said:
Don't try tripods on railway stations or the underground either. They will attract attention of security.

I was asked at St Pancras once when covering a media event not to use a tripod, so I asked if it was ok to lay it down on the floor whilst I continued shooting on high ISO...Fine he said. His attitude softened and we had a great conversation for ten minutes about other things. Then he turned and tripped over my tripod lying on the ground.

pmsl.
Click to expand...
Classic LOL !

Ironically, if it was errected then he probably wouldnt have fallen over !
 
gramps said:
"Minor threat" ... yes that'll sit well with the relatives and survivors of the London bombings of 7/7 and the myriad of other terrorist atrocities.
Click to expand...
Of course any death is going to be tragic for the families of the victims involved.

But you could say the same about the families of the victims killed by the runaway bin lorry in Glasgow. Their grief is just as real, and the risk of that accident also very low. Are you offended that I refer to the risk of bin-lorry death as minor?

52 deaths over 10 years is minor compared to the other risks you face living in London. How many cyclists have been killed in RTAs during those 10 years? How many random victims of drive-by shootings, knifings or falling cranes/masonry?
The terrorism scare-o-meter is designed to create an unwarranted level of paranoia about a risk that is, in reality (largely thanks to the vigilance of the security services), about as high as you being struck by lightning.

7/7/2005 : 52 people killed.

Estimated deaths due to air pollution in London: 9,500 per year.


Terrorism is a terrible thing and we should be vigilant. But don't allow yourself to be conned into believing that the threat of dying in the mainland UK due to terrorism is anything other than a minor risk. Terrorists do what they do to make us change the way we live. If we allow ourselves to be consumed by fear, they have won.
 
gramps said:
"Minor threat" ... yes that'll sit well with the relatives and survivors of the London bombings of 7/7 and the myriad of other terrorist atrocities.
Click to expand...
No-one is diminishing the personal tragedies caused by such events (or, if they are, they shouldn't be). But that is not what is at issue - which is the overall risk of injury or death, to any particular person, from acts of terrorism.

This risk is simply miniscule. 52 people were horribly murdered in the 7/7 attacks.

Every year, approximately 25 times that number of people are killed on our roads. Tens of thousands of people die every year from heart disease and other illnesses brought on by unhealthy lifestyles. Over six hundred people a year die as a result of falling down stairs or steps. Surprisingly, over a thousand people accidentally poison themselves to death every year. (Source, a bit old but still interesting. Article)

We should stop talking about "terrorists" and start talking about "murderous criminals".

Personally speaking, I worry far more about being the recipient of a life-changing injury (or worse) as I commute to and from work than I do about being blown up by terrorists.

We're way off-topic now, though :)
 
This would make a good 'Panorama' programme.

'Tripods to Terrorists' :rolleyes:
 
Trying vaguely to get back on topic...take your tripod, it'll be fine. There will be dozens of other people shooting the sights of London with tripods in the same area.
There's a tiny chance a security guard might show some interest. If they do, talk to them nicely and just do what they say. You can always move 100 yards or come back 5 minutes later! Harder to do that if you've annoyed them.
 
The main reason ( they state anyway ) is that a tripod is a public hazard that someone could trip over and injure themselves ( being poked in the eye with a big lenses on a DSLR doesnt count ). essentially using a tripod falls under obstruction .
As for the terrorist threat, its because you with your big conspicuous lens and camera in your sandals and socks and superdry T shirt and cheap knock off raybans may just be a terrorist taking shots of crumbly old churches that happen to be standing next to ultra modern big bank buildings and are of course scoping out the entrance doors, security and surveilance cameras for a future suicide bomb attack.

or of course you could just be an offence to fashion and the sight of you makes them physically sick and your loud 3/4 length shorts and pasty legs are scaring off potential customers so they just want you gone!
 
HAHAHA What a humor :p I like 3/4 shorts, I have hairy legs, I'm wearing full size socks.. oh wait.... :/ :D:D:D:D:D:D
 
pwhysall said:
We should refuse to be terrorised. That's how you beat terrorists.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The likelihood of being killed by a terrorist is so negligible that to live your life in fear of it would be foolish. You are much more likely to be hit by lightning. Or if you look at the suicide figures, you are statistically more at risk from yourself than a terrorist.

TomStoff said:
I like 3/4 shorts
Click to expand...

When I am president of Earth, they will be banned!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top