If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Got told, "No photos!" today
In article
, Rich wrote: Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot. http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...mall-vehicle-c rash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to not allow photography in their stores. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Got told, "No photos!" today
"shiva das" wrote in message ... In article , Rich wrote: Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot. http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...mall-vehicle-c rash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to not allow photography in their stores. "whose" corporate policy |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Got told, "No photos!" today
In article ,
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote: "shiva das" wrote in message ... In article , Rich wrote: Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot. http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...ew-mall-vehicl e-c rash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to not allow photography in their stores. "whose" corporate policy I don't know, whose corporate policy? Perhaps a better question is "Who's still a grammar and spelling nazi in this day of no usenet postings of any value?" or "Who's still complaining when we feed the fun trolls in this same age of no usenet postings of any value?" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Got told, "No photos!" today
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:09:25 +0000, Bruce
wrote: "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: "shiva das" wrote in message ... In article , Rich wrote: Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot. http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...mall-vehicle-c rash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to not allow photography in their stores. "whose" corporate policy Prepare yourself for *an onslaught* from the more senior posters here who deplore any correction of spelling, grammar and/or punctuation. They may consider themselves too old to learn how to improve their photographic technique, and their advanced age means they are not really interested in advanced new equipment, but when someone corrects an errant apostrophe on here, their outrage knows no bounds. ;-) I'm pretty senior in age, but I'm not about to participate in an onslaught over this. That apostrophe isn't "errant", by the way. It has not strayed from the proper path. It doesn't belong in that path at all. I also object to "on here". It is on my screen, but only because it was "in" what you wrote. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Got told, "No photos!" today
"shiva das" wrote in message ... In article , "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: "shiva das" wrote in message ... In article , Rich wrote: Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot. http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...ew-mall-vehicl e-c rash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to not allow photography in their stores. "whose" corporate policy I don't know, whose corporate policy? Perhaps a better question is "Who's still a grammar and spelling nazi in this day of no usenet postings of any value?" or "Who's still complaining when we feed the fun trolls in this same age of no usenet postings of any value?" I'm. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Got told, "No photos!" today
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:22:14 -0500, shiva das
wrote: In article , "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: "shiva das" wrote in message ... In article , Rich wrote: Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot. http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...ew-mall-vehicl e-c rash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to not allow photography in their stores. "whose" corporate policy I don't know, whose corporate policy? Perhaps a better question is "Who's still a grammar and spelling nazi in this day of no usenet postings of any value?" While the Nazis were not at all proper, "Nazi" is a proper noun and should be capitalized. Sic Heil. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Got told, "No photos!" today
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:11:20 -0800, "Frank ess" wrote:
: : : "shiva das" wrote in message : ... : In article , : "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: : : "shiva das" wrote in message : ... : In article : , : Rich wrote: : : Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but : when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were : permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but : it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could : have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and : shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me : to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the : guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when : telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they : were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the : same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out : and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black : DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot. : : http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc.../bayview-mall- : vehicle-crash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome : : Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is : entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to : not allow photography in their stores. : : "whose" corporate policy : : I don't know, whose corporate policy? : : Perhaps a better question is "Who's still a grammar and spelling nazi : in this day of no usenet postings of any value?" : : or "Who's still complaining when we feed the fun trolls in this same : age of no usenet postings of any value?" : : I'm. Let us take up the grammarial cudgel and pound all perceived malefactors therewithal! Bob |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Got told, "No photos!" today
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:09:25 +0000, Bruce wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote: "shiva das" wrote in message ... In article , Rich wrote: Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot. http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...mall-vehicle-c rash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to not allow photography in their stores. "whose" corporate policy Prepare yourself for *an onslaught* from the more senior posters here who deplore any correction of spelling, grammar and/or punctuation. They may consider themselves too old to learn how to improve their photographic technique, and their advanced age means they are not really interested in advanced new equipment, but when someone corrects an errant apostrophe on here, their outrage knows no bounds. ;-) At what age does this 'advanced age' begin? Bought my first reflex camera in 1943, a Houghton-Butcher Ensign, my latest camera, bought this year, is a Ricoh CX3. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Got told, "No photos!" today
On 2010-12-18 15:12:48 -0800, Robert Coe said:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:11:20 -0800, "Frank ess" wrote: : : : "shiva das" wrote in message : ... : In article , : "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: : : "shiva das" wrote in message : ... : In article : , : Rich wrote: : : Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but : when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were : permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but : it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could : have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and : shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me : to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the : guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when : telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they : were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the : same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out : and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black : DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot. : : http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc.../bayview-mall- : vehicle-crash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome : : Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is : entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to : not allow photography in their stores. : : "whose" corporate policy : : I don't know, whose corporate policy? : : Perhaps a better question is "Who's still a grammar and spelling nazi : in this day of no usenet postings of any value?" : : or "Who's still complaining when we feed the fun trolls in this same : age of no usenet postings of any value?" : : I'm. Let us take up the grammarial cudgel and pound all perceived malefactors therewithal! Bob Umm... it seems this usage of "therewithal" might be inappropriate and superfluous. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Got told, "No photos!" today
On 2010-12-18 15:09:40 -0800, tony cooper said:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:22:14 -0500, shiva das wrote: In article , "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: "shiva das" wrote in message ... In article , Rich wrote: Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot. http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...ew-mall-vehicl e-c rash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to not allow photography in their stores. "whose" corporate policy I don't know, whose corporate policy? Perhaps a better question is "Who's still a grammar and spelling nazi in this day of no usenet postings of any value?" While the Nazis were not at all proper, "Nazi" is a proper noun and should be capitalized. Sic Heil. "Sic Heil" ? Are you making a mocking commentary on spelling and grammatical errors, or did you goof on the old N.S.D.A.P. call for victory? -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Got told, "No photos!" today | SMS | Digital Photography | 1 | December 18th 10 12:23 AM |
"Ifff you go out in the sun today..." Better make sure your camera/lens is metal! | Robert Coe | Digital Photography | 35 | July 27th 10 01:13 PM |
"Corset-Boi" Bob "Lionel Lauer" Larter has grown a "pair" and returned to AUK................ | \The Great One\ | Digital Photography | 0 | July 14th 09 12:04 AM |