No Pix! Does it bother you?

Mar 2nd, 2005, 03:26 PM
  #41  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,491
I'll offer a slightly different comment.

Ever since movies like "Funny Face" and "Blow Up" made photography seem a glamorous job and past-time, they've also included the clear message that you just press down the shutter release and let'er rip! One shot of anything is simply not enough -- you have to have 1104, because only one will be "perfect."

That's fine for truly professional photogs who are looking to create a work of art. It's incredibly wasteful for tourists wanting to bring home a piece of the trip memory in 3x5 form. I know, I'm a reformed click-a-holic myself. Routinely came home with 15 rolls of undeveloped film, 3 of which provided dozens of photos of Versailles fountains with ever-so-slight variations of light or clouds or p.o.v.

Soon I figured out that I had NO photos of myself and my dear companion, NO photos of the breakfast room we loved, etc.

I've now figured out that I need just a couple of shots of me near the Sagrada Familia to evoke the memory a few years down the road, and one shot or two of Spouse looking happy and relaxed for once, having horchata and tapas. Otherwise, I now can see things with my NAKED eye!

And I'm not flooding storage shoeboxes with so many packets of developed film that I dare not open the closet to even think about organizing them.
soccr is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 03:41 PM
  #42  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,137
I am a rotten picture taker(notice I did not say "photographer" because that implies some skill which I do not have ;-)), I am really happier when I am not taking pictures when I am siteseeing. I just get all caught up in the moment...and picture taking just seems to ruin it for me.
Judyrem is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 03:47 PM
  #43  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Um, the Brits are sensitive about photography because they are at WAR. Add the Islamic Jihadists to the IRA, and you've got security issues.
Robespierre is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 03:55 PM
  #44  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 300
true, but they are quite happy to sell you a book or VHS tape about the castle
ChevyChasen is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 09:13 PM
  #45  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,020
"At that point, we'll simply admire each other!"

Dave in Paris -- We do that too, even after all these many years.

Prefer that to a trip album on a cold night, but I must admit I do enjoy my photos and reliving trips we have made.

Giovanna is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 09:18 PM
  #46  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,020
"I think you are over reacting to what I've said."

Perhaps I am Patrick. Often the written word is not interpreted as intended. We might do better discussing this at one of the South Florida Cafes you mentioned (hopefully sans flashes), or here in my neck of the woods in SF over a nice bottle of red wine! Truce?
Giovanna is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 09:38 PM
  #47  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,067

If there's no photography, then I can live with it. But I honestly think it's a lot less to do with copyrights than with the people who forget about the flash as has been said. I'm more used to the "No FLASH Photography" signs, but Kilkenny Castle in Ireland even confiscates cameras and returns them upon exit, even though you must tour with a guide. Now that I thought was overkill.

As far as 1) whether people should or shouldn't want to photograph art and 2) whether they're (we're) being pains in the backside:

1) Yes, we should - as long as the rules don't prohibit it and we're not harming the art - and 2) yes we are.

I try not to line anyone up. If someone's in the picture, I like a quick pic. To me it seems closer to the truth, what you capture in these fast shots of people.

But I do take pics of art, sans humans. I was just at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY over the weekend and found myself wanting to take a few photos. Never of 2D artwork. That's not something I want, but I saw others taking photos of paintings.

I do enjoy taking photos of sculpture though. The different light at different angles, sometimes close enough not to fit the whole piece in. Rodin's work there just felt inspiring. But I do try not to get in other's way and not to dominate the space. I do my thing when no one is trying to share and I never feel like I'm ONLY seeing things through a viewfinder. I'm framing what I've already seen in a viewfinder, and taking it home with me. I don't want to take home what others saw, so the gift shop won't run out of postcards on my account.




Clifton is offline  
Mar 2nd, 2005, 10:22 PM
  #48  
lyb
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,142
I'm an avid photographer and to me photography is a big part of my enjoyment, I think I see things in detail much more than non photographers, at least with my friends and family. I will mention something and they haven't noticed it. I notice the different lighting, texture, people around me, and details in general.

However, if I am at a location that says no photography, I respect it 100%. It actually is very irritating to me when people somehow things the rule is not for them.

As far as people who say that they have given up taking pictures while traveling and feel freer, look at it this way...Photography is one of my three favorite hobbies, a trip wouldn't feel complete without photography. Think if I told people who really enjoy having great dining experience while traveling that they would enjoy their trip much more if they didn't waste their time over leisurely meals, what a waste of time and money, they could just grab some fast food, spend less and have more time.....that would be ridiculous, wouldn't it??? To some people dining out while traveling is a huge part of their traveling experience, which I think is great. I personally like to have maybe one nice meal during my trip, but food is not that important to me, and I'd rather spend my money on other things. But I certainly don't think it's freeing not to eat in nice restaurants.

And on that note, if you're eating where it specifically says, no food or drinks, I'll give you the same dirty look as I would give you if you were taking a picture where it tells you not to.
lyb is offline  
Mar 3rd, 2005, 06:26 AM
  #49  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 363
In reply to some of the most recent posts:

I am somewhat reformed with photography. I some times used to carry a 35mm with several changes of lenses and several types of film, plus a video camera and all that gear.

After recently getting a very small but high quality digital camera I feel like a freed slave. Sure this small camera has (many) limitations but the ease of carry and use makes it so nice and I still get plenty of really good pictures. Another plus is that I donít stand out with all the equipment. Just pull it out of the pocket snap a photo or two and move on.

I now keep my photos on CD without all the clutter of boxes of slides or photos that I already have tons of. Most travel photos have little value to anyone besides the person who took them.

Also, I do respect "NO PHOTOGRAPHY". Usualy you can buy a post card of the subject that is a better quality photo than I would get anyway.

Happy travels.
tatersalad is offline  
Mar 3rd, 2005, 06:32 AM
  #50  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,749
Giovanna, "truce?" This was never meant as a heated argument, just merely some explanations. So I see no need for a "truce" which suggests there has been a "war".

But if the truce includes red wine in SF or a South Florida cafe, I'm willing to pretend we've done battle, for the truce party sounds like a lot of fun!
Patrick is offline  
Mar 3rd, 2005, 09:11 AM
  #51  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 44
I do love to take pics. My bf and I went to London last year. I took an obnoxious amount of pictures. Yet, never in a place that prohibited them. I love those pictures and cherish each memory that is attached. However, we do not agree on picture taking styles. I love everyday scenery; the back streets, a corner pub, even traffic streaming by... He likes the pics of various objects with one of us placed nearby. He doesn't like the "scenery only" pics. I know I was there. I want to remember something how I saw it, not how I looked while looking at it. =o)
Yet, I will confess that I loved it when someone offered to take a pic of the two of us.

I dreamed of going to London ever since I can remember. Those pictures are pieces I can hold on to forever. I have found that even if I cannot take a picture IN a place, I can take pictures of the surrounding areas to help remind me of what it was all about. They are just tangible bits that reflect what I loved so much about it. The next trip we take, the story will be the same.

I do try not to occlude anyone's vision or path while I am taking pics. I don't think that is fair to the other patrons. I realize they are there for the same reason we are. Even if I catch someone in the pic, I just make up some bs story to tell the friends about them.

We've even struck up some conversations while taking pics. Someone would offer to take our pic, we'd offer to take theirs, then jokingly we'd offer to take their pic with our camera. Some have even posed for us. It's fun and it adds another funny story to our journals.
Jenn906 is offline  
Mar 5th, 2005, 12:24 PM
  #52  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 677
The notion that a photograph of a public attraction taken despite a sign says "no" is the equivalent of theft has to rank among the most ridiculous statements ever posted in this forum. Haughty? Maybe. Contemptuous of capricious rules? Definitely. But theft? That enters the realm of absurdity. What precisely is being stolen? Reflected light?

Do I think that "No Photography" rules apply to everyone but me? No. You are welcome to disregard them as well.

Another ridiculous statement, often repeated in this forum, is that postcards are "just as good" or even "better" than personal photographs. A postcard is not going to remind you that the first time you saw Big Ben was in the fog, or the incessant smile on your wife's face during your first visit to Paris. The difference between a postcard and a personal photograph is equivalent to the difference between McDonalds and Thanksgiving dinner with the family.
smueller is offline  
Mar 5th, 2005, 02:59 PM
  #53  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,089
If the world does not owe us a living, it certainly doesn't owe us a photograph. I enjoy my vacation photos, but even with restrictions, I certainly have enough of them at the end of the trip to jog my memory.

Patrick, I have to agree that when people obsess about getting a photo that doesn't reflect their honest experience, or in other words, doesn't reflect the conditions under which they actually visited the site, that that gets under my skin. If the view of the site is continuously partially obstructed by other visitors on the day that one visits, isn't that part of one's genuine experience? I recall one crowded day at the Pantheon - several people gave orders to others to move, because they wanted a completely unobstructed photo of something, and the unobstructed view existed only in their own heads! So in sum, I don't mind people recording their experiences, for after all I do, too. And like you, I don't mind assisting them to that end by moving out of the way, if my presence as another person is an oddity instead of the norm. However, I too object to being yelled at to accomodate the creation of a fantasy setting that didn't truly exist at the time in question.

Smueller, I think you are comparing two different things. Pictures which reflect some aspect of a specific day or time or person, or in other words a particular incident or event, are one thing. However, a straight photo of a work of art can't be said to reflect a personal experience, at least not to the same degree. Meanwhile, postcards are often shot by photographers who had the cooperation of the site managers, and who thus had optimum lighting conditions, and very often better equipment, than the average person. Of course, I admit that there is a huge variation in the quality of postcards.
Sue_xx_yy is offline  
Mar 5th, 2005, 03:29 PM
  #54  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,067

Sue, I couldn't agree with you more on what you just posted. I used to be of the mindset that I'd wait as long as necessary to get a shot of something minus the crowds or I'd give up.

It's been in just the last few trips that I began to feel that a popular site without the crowds I'm trying to shoot around just isn't the same place. Crowds or at least signs of life are very much a part of what happens in these places. I have to admit though that I've accidentally captured some pretty startled expressions when I whipped up the camera for a shot and someone unknowingly walks into the line of view. One poor girl in Timisoara, stepped just between me and my target, the Piata Unirii, and looked like she'd stepped on a joy buzzer. This wasn't an area one sees a lot of cameras though. Of course, I delete the photo and apologize in these cases. And I knew how to say Scuzati-ma, Va rog, so that helped, as did an accomplished sheepish look.


Clifton is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Original Poster
Forum
Replies
Last Post
schnauzer
Europe
43
Jul 6th, 2005 07:15 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy -

FODOR'S VIDEO

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:08 AM.