You can't even take pictures at a public city beach anymore?

In article ,
Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Right - solve your problem of people not wanting pictures taken by doing
it at a nude beach. They'll really believe you're shooting the waves and
seagulls.

Gary Eickmeier

.... 'an don't forget all dem moons!

Gary ... you've GOT to read things a little more carefully!

NOWHERE did I refer to Black's Beach as a 'nude' beach! Please don't put
words in my sentences ... don't even infer ... it's work for the devil
.... not yours!

Black's Beach is a 'swimsuit optional' beach, lad ... what you care to
take photos of while there is entirely up to you! You've got a 'dirty
mind', son.

Are you one of those folks, Gary, who undress/dress only in the dark?
.... just curious ... but not very!

Best regards and salvation,

Rev. Scott McCoy

Jeff Cochran wrote in message . ..
Jeez. Some guy thinks the original poster is taking pics of his girl
in a bikini (which he may have been) and defends her. The
photographer gets upset and combative as well. And it's all because
George Bush is President?

Somebody needs to take his Valium. Several somebodys it looks like.

Jeff



Only reason I brought up Bush is because of the Homeland Security
tactics. These days, taking photos of public transit
(buses,trains,subways)is treated as "illegal" by the police.
I used to love doing railroad photography, and still do sometimes, but
it seems to be risky these days. Now even on the beach, people freak
out when they see a camera. You just have to wonder where one can do
photography these days without being harassed, threatened, or
bothered. The Pine Barrens, where no one's around (except some deer
and they dont mind).

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:26:02 -0400, Drifter
wrote:

Uh huh. Until someone flies a plane into that Parliament building. Then
we'll see how close you get with your camera. Canadians are just as prone to
unreasoning paranoia as Americans.

HMc

Well, so much for this thread.
Could we get back on topic, you know, photography.

I'm sure such an act would be well covered by photographers.
And probably, more would be using Canons than Nikons. :-)

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Ron Hunter writes:

Nonsense. We limit our rights in certain situations all the time. You
want to fly? Visit the courthouse? Visit a military base?

You don't have a right to do these things. You do have a right to take
pictures in public.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote in message . ..
Drifter writes:

What I still can't figure is why Mr. Angry lit into me. There must
have been 40 tourists in the immediate area all snapping away for all
they were worth. Maybe he felt threatened by my big lens grin.

There's a certain species of person who feels convinced that anyone who
is taking photos and looks professional MUST be taking pictures of him.

I'm consistently amazed and amused by people who will step out of a
crowd of 200 people on a street to ask why I'm taking pictures of THEM.
Talk about ego!


And there were at least 100 people on that section of beach! It would
be impossible not to get someone in my picture. If I was really
skilled at photoshop, I'd edit all the people out of my picture, as
the beach is the main subject in focus.
And I have a Canon Powershot A75, a very good camera, but by no means
the equipment of professional photographers.
I studied the pictures I took yesterday at the beach, and most of the
people are so far away I wouldn't even be able to tell what they were
or weren't wearing. And the guy claimed his girlfriend was taking her
bathing suit off. That's illegal at Long Beach, no nudity is allowed.

Ron Hunter writes:

And when that 18-wheeler comes through the light and creams you, tell
HIM you had the right of way.

?

Sometimes there are ways to work things out.

Hoping others will respect your rights with no action on your part is
often excessively optimistic.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ron Hunter writes:

DAMN RIGHT. Always has. Always will.

Remember that when it comes your way.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ron Hunter writes:

No, but I would make an effort to understand and deal with their
concerns.

Why? They've already demonstrated a total unwillingness to deal with
yours.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ron Hunter writes:

Assault.

That depends on his exact words.

Disturbing the peace.

That depends on the jurisdiction and his behavior and the place.

Making terroristic threats.

What terrorist threats?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:14:45 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Atreju writes:

Not everything is cowardly!

Tossing away rights that others died to protect just because it scares
you when someone yells at you doesn't exactly sound worthy of a medal.

You very obviously do not understand the distinction between "tossing
away rights" and choosing to not excersize them in a particular
situation.

In order to live peacefully in society, we sometimes have to forego
what is literally our right, in favor of being peaceful to one
another.

Why would that apply to the photographer, but not the guy yelling at
him?

Because the photographer can control himself, but not the other guy.

Perhaps if someone actually stands up to the angry young male, he'll
stop yelling.

Perhaps. Do you guarantee that?

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"