Verrazano-Narrows bridge

NYC has rules now that you can't photograph from a bridge. However,
there are no rules saying you can't photograph the bridge itself. I took
this just off the Belt Parkway tonight, and fought off a rat between my
tripod and my car door on the way back!

http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/954699/1/44216856
http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/954699/1/44220725

Cynicor wrote:
NYC has rules now that you can't photograph from a bridge. However,
there are no rules saying you can't photograph the bridge itself. I
took this just off the Belt Parkway tonight, and fought off a rat
between my tripod and my car door on the way back!

http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/954699/1/44216856
http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/954699/1/44220725

I like the first one. Not a rat in sight.

--
Mike Warren
My web gallery: http://web.aanet.com.au/miwa/mike

In article

om.au,
"Mike Warren" wrote:

Cynicor wrote:
NYC has rules now that you can't photograph from a bridge. However,
there are no rules saying you can't photograph the bridge itself. I
took this just off the Belt Parkway tonight, and fought off a rat
between my tripod and my car door on the way back!

http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/954699/1/44216856
http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/954699/1/44220725

I like the first one. Not a rat in sight.

I agree. I have some great photos of that bridge in daylight from a
small plane, but they are on 35mm prints.

NYC has rules now that you can't photograph from a bridge


what this means?

freightcar wrote:
NYC has rules now that you can't photograph from a bridge

what this means?

Since 9/11, all the bridges have had prominent signs stating that
photography from the bridge is expressly forbidden. I think the idea is
that if you take a photo, you're a terrorist who is looking for the best
spot to weaken the span with a bomb. But it's perfectly OK to go to a
pull-off a quarter mile away and take photos of the bridge (or at least
there are no signs about it).

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, at 06:42:57 [GMT -0500] (22:42:57 Sunday, 13 November
2005 where I live) "Cynicor" wrote:

I think the idea is that if you take a photo, you're a terrorist who is
looking for the best spot to weaken the span with a bomb.

Or maybe you are looking for the best spot to jump from?

In article ,
Cynicor wrote:
freightcar wrote:
NYC has rules now that you can't photograph from a bridge

what this means?

Since 9/11, all the bridges have had prominent signs stating that
photography from the bridge is expressly forbidden. I think the idea is
that if you take a photo, you're a terrorist who is looking for the best
spot to weaken the span with a bomb.

No, no. If they wanted to do that, they'd just buy a postcard with a picture
of the bridge on it. The real reason, as everyone knows, is that cameras
emit bridge-corroding death rays from their lenses, and so anyone using one
on a bridge is obviously a terst. I'll bet you just thought it was silly
authorties overreacting as well, eh? Just goes to show...

It's a good job that the Soviets never figured this out during the cold-war,
or we'd be bridgeless by now.

I believe you, but that is the stupidest God-damn thing I've ever heard of.
I find it hard to imagine that anyone in any field of security could dupe
themselves into believing that preventing people from taking pictures *from*
a bridge can somehow prevent an attack by terrorists. If they are, then we
(the USA) have employed the biggest pack of morons on the planet in our
security and intelligence industry.

"Cynicor" wrote in message
...
freightcar wrote:
NYC has rules now that you can't photograph from a bridge

what this means?

Since 9/11, all the bridges have had prominent signs stating that
photography from the bridge is expressly forbidden. I think the idea is
that if you take a photo, you're a terrorist who is looking for the best
spot to weaken the span with a bomb. But it's perfectly OK to go to a
pull-off a quarter mile away and take photos of the bridge (or at least
there are no signs about it).

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:46:04 -0500, "Kinon O'cann"
Yes.it's.me.Bowser wrote:

I believe you, but that is the stupidest God-damn thing I've ever heard of.
I find it hard to imagine that anyone in any field of security could dupe
themselves into believing that preventing people from taking pictures *from*
a bridge can somehow prevent an attack by terrorists. If they are, then we
(the USA) have employed the biggest pack of morons on the planet in our
security and intelligence industry.


They will stop you or follow you if you carry professional gear but if
you use a P&S they ignore you. Do you suppose the bad guys don't know
this? Do you suppose they would use a Canon 1D Mark II or would they
use a P&S?

They are spending so much time and money on things that don't improve
security that we are less secure because of it!

Mind you, I fully expect the bad guys to be using cameras, mostly
digital, to scout locations and nothing the security folks have been
doing will stop that. We need a different approach to the protection
of high valued assets...


Brian

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:46:04 -0500, "Kinon O'cann"
Yes.it's.me.Bowser wrote:

I believe you, but that is the stupidest God-damn thing I've ever heard of.
I find it hard to imagine that anyone in any field of security could dupe
themselves into believing that preventing people from taking pictures *from*
a bridge can somehow prevent an attack by terrorists. If they are, then we
(the USA) have employed the biggest pack of morons on the planet in our
security and intelligence industry.

Did you write this before or after Katrina happened?

Don't you know the answer to your own implied question.

Father Kodak