Disneyland is attempting to ban some cameras

[Sherry E]

This is sort of off-topic but it is a comment about celebrities and the paparazzi in Los Angeles. First of all, I DO think that DLR may be starting to enforce or change rules a little bit due to the increasing number of celebrities that go to their parks. We see the photos all the time of celebrities at DLR - Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson just being the most recent example, but Christian Bale and the Beckhams and the Cox-Arquettes are at DLR quite a bit, as are Reese Witherspoon, the Girls Next Door, etc. In fact, there was a great thread on DISboards that featured all kinds of photos of celebs in DLR and it was removed eventually.

But the paparazzi is not as ever-present in Los Angeles as you would think they are if you live in another state. The celebrities and the media make it seem like a famous person cannot go anywhere without being chased and followed. And that is just not true. What many people may not realize is that these celebrities go to places like restaurants and 'hot spots' where they KNOW there will be photographers, and then they complain about not having any privacy. Lindsay Lohan and Samantha constantly do that. They could go to SO many other great restaurants in L.A., but they go to the ones where photographers are lurking - and then whine about it! The paparazzi are not lurking around every corner. They have their usual spots they flock to, and then they are ALERTED by 'sources' as to celebrity sightings around town...

And herein lies the other problem that many folks don't consider - the people; the "sources" - the average Joes on the street or in DLR - who CALL the tabloids and say, "I am at Disneyland right now, and Samantha Ronson and Lindsay Lohan are just leaving the Haunted Mansion and I am following them to California Adventure..." I cannot tell you how many celebrities I have seen around town in Los Angeles and its suburb/adjacent cities. No photographers were anywhere around them. They walk down the street - even right outside of the Screen Actors Guild - and nobody is paying any attention to them at all. People who live in Los Angeles really don't care that much. But someone CALLS the tabloids, or TMZ, and they send out their photographers who may already be out on assignment nearby, and that is how they get there so quickly. When one guy shows up, the word spreads and other people show up and suddenly it is a paparazzi frenzy!

So I would bet that whatever photgraphers showed up in DLR the other day to shoot pictures of Lindsay and Samantha were tipped off to the fact that they were there, and they came rushing to the park to capture them. Same thing with Christian Bale and the Beckhams and all that. The Photographers don't have time or money to just hang around in DLR all day to wait for a random celebrity sighting when they could be down at The Ivy (restaurant) or at the local Malibu Starbucks where they are SURE to see a famous person!

 

[civileng68]

This is sort of off-topic but it is a comment about celebrities and the paparazzi in Los Angeles. First of all, I DO think that DLR may be starting to enforce or change rules a little bit due to the increasing number of celebrities that go to their parks. We see the photos all the time of celebrities at DLR - Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson just being the most recent example, but Christian Bale and the Beckhams and the Cox-Arquettes are at DLR quite a bit, as are Reese Witherspoon, the Girls next Door, etc. In fact, there was a great thread on DISboards that featured all kinds of photos of celebs in DLR and it was removed eventually.

But the paparazzi is not as ever-present in Los Angeles as you would think they are if you live in another state. The celebrities and the media make it seem like a famour person cannot go anywhere without being chased and followed. And that is just not true. What many people may not realize is that these celebrities go to places like restaurants and 'hot spots' where they KNOW there will be photographers, and then they complain about not having any privacy. Lindsay Lohan and Samanthe constantly do that. They could go to SO many other great restaurants in L.A., but they go to the ones where photographers are lurking - and then whine about it! The paparazzi are not lurking around every corner. They have their usual spots they flock to, and then they are ALERTED by 'sources' as to celebrity sightings around town...

And herein lies the other problem that many folks don't consider - the people; the "sources" - the average Joes on the street or in DLR - who CALL the tabloids and say, "I am at Disneyland right now, and Samantha Ronson and Lindsay Lohan are just leaving the Haunted Mansion and I am following them to California Adventure..." I cannot tell you how many celebrities I have seen around town in Los Angeles and adjunct cities. No photographers were anywhere around them. They walk down the street - even right outside of the Screen Actors Guild - and nobody is paying any attention to them at all. People who live in Los Angeles really don't care that much Someone CALLS the tabloids, or TMZ, and they send out their photographers who may already be out on assignment nearby, and that is how they get there so quickly. When one guy shows up, the word spreads and other people show up and suddenly it is a paparazzi frenzy!

So I would bet that whatever photgraphers showed up in DLR the other day to shoot pictures of Lindsay and Samantha were tipped off to the fact that they were there, and they came rushing to the park to capture them. Same thing with Christian Bale and the Beckhams and all that. The Photographers don't have time or money to just hang around in DLR all day to wait for a random celebrity sighting when they could be down at The Ivy (restaurant) or at the local Malibu Starbucks where they are SURE to see a famous person!

Well said Sherry. I agree with you completely. As i stated, i see celebs at WDW and they are getting ZERO (LITERALLY ZERO) attention.

Regardless, I think Disney is in a situation where they dont want this "mess" spilling into their parks, and it is. It's a fact. Tipped or not, they are not wanted there. Think about a a frenzy IN THE PARK and paying guests are inconvenienced due to it. It's bad for the celeb, bad for the avg. guest and bad for Disney. I think this is part of the reason for enforcement but I just think something else could be done instead.

 

[Sherry E]

Well said Sherry. I agree with you completely. As i stated, i see celebs at WDW and they are getting ZERO (LITERALLY ZERO) attention.

Regardless, I think Disney is in a situation where they dont want this "mess" spilling into their parks, and it is. It's a fact. Tipped or not, they are not wanted there. Think about a a frenzy IN THE PARK and paying guests are inconvenienced due to it. It's bad for the celeb, bad for the avg. guest and bad for Disney. I think this is part of the reason for enforcement but I just think something else could be done instead.

It seems there should be some efficient way of screening the media photographers and separating them from the average guests who want to use their nice cameras to get some great photos. Innocent people shouldn't be punished for the acts of others. The intentions of people may be in question for DLR. I guess in this weird day and age, even non-professional or media photographers are in the parks, maybe with the best of intentions when they start out their day, and then they spot someone famous and take a picture of them and then sell it to TMZ or the Enquirer or Star. So it doesn't even necessarily have to be a random person who sees someone famous and then 'tips off' TMZ via cell phone. It could be the guy next to you in the line for POTC, who has a really good camera, and he sees the Schwarzeneggers and decides to take a few pictures and sell them.

Also, another angle on this is the post-9/11 precautionary slant. Ever since we saw what terrorists could plot out under our noses and how they used things like video equipment and cameras to help map out their evil plan years in advance and execute it, some businesses have gone into hyper-cautious mode (in fact, some of the Al Qaeda footage found on video cameras and in still photos was of Disneyland!!). In a large place like DLR, which is a good target for terrorists, theoretically, simply because of the number of people collected there on a given day, perhaps DLR now assumes that professional-looking cameras are threatening in some way, as they may be used to help terrorists plan attacks... Though that theory would make much more sense if they had implemented this ban 6 or 7 years ago - not NOW!!! So I am bewildered!

Disneyland is clearly one of the most photographed places in the entire world, so I think there will be a LOT of unhappy people if they maintain this rule about professional equipment. I mean, it IS possible to have just as great a time at DLR with 'regular' cameras - I am living proof of that - but given the fantastic photos shown on this board taken by folks with 'good' cameras, I can see that many people are passionate about their picture-taking and would be very upset to not be able to really practice that at DLR.

 

[perlster]

A bit repetitive, but I hope that whether or not this is a change in policy, or perhaps overzealous enforcement by a few in the security lines, that Britt Dietz can continue his photography in the parks. He has photos on his site that are especially spectacular because of the specialized lens he uses.

 

[Phalene]

I guess I'll see what happens next week. I'm renting a 70-200 f/2.8 lens to take. I wasn't planning on bringing any other lenses this time, but maybe I should throw my nifty fifty in my bag as insurance.

I am most definately not professional, but my regular 70-200 lens has been acting strange lately and I didn't want to take the chance that it might fail while we are traveling.

 

[CrazyDuck]

I still don't see what the problem is with banning telephoto lenses. Seriously, there is no reason to bring a 200mm lense in the park. Anything over 100mm is pretty much useless in DL anyways. DL and DCA set up well for panoramic shots. If anything you want to bring a wide or a super wide angle lense not a telephoto lense. You don't have to shoot Tinkerbell at the beginning of the Dreams Parade from 100 yards out. Wait 5 minutes and shoot her from 30 feet away. At least you'll have more options as to how to compose the shot!

Uh, I've been to the park by myself with the sole intention of taking pictures. During a business trip to the LA area last February, I had a free day. I spent 12 hours in the park with just me, my camera, my 18-50mm and 70-300mm lenses, and as well as my tripod. I rode Soarin' once and that was the only ride I got on. I had another business trip in June and did the same thing all over again. If I recall, I took a round about 700-800 pictures in one day. It was a magical day!

And you sell the shots on your SmugMug website so technically you are a "Professional" and you shouldn't be allowed in the park with your camera, which would suck because I love your photos! BTW I see very few if any photos on your site that look like they were shot with the 70-300!

I still say Disney should implement a "No Fam - No Cam" policy! At least it's one way to keep the Ratzi out! But thats just my opinion!

 

[NostalgicDad]

I still don't see what the problem is with banning telephoto lenses. Seriously, there is no reason to bring a 200mm lense in the park. Anything over 100mm is pretty much useless in DL anyways. DL and DCA set up well for panoramic shots. If anything you want to bring a wide or a super wide angle lense not a telephoto lense. You don't have to shoot Tinkerbell at the beginning of the Dreams Parade from 100 yards out. Wait 5 minutes and shoot her from 30 feet away. At least you'll have more options as to how to compose the shot!



And you sell the shots on your SmugMug website so technically you are a "Professional" and you shouldn't be allowed in the park with your camera, which would suck because I love your photos! BTW I see very few if any photos on your site that look like they were shot with the 70-300!

I still say Disney should implement a "No Fam - No Cam" policy! At least it's one way to keep the Ratzi out! But thats just my opinion!

You really are clueless. I have never sold a single picture of anything in Disneyland!!! Ask anyone on this site who has sent me a PM requesting a picture. Then ask them how much I charged! Don't go throwing around absolutely idiotic statements to which you know nothing of. I sell photos mainly of bike races on my site. On top of that, pictures of fellow racers on my cycling team that I race for get theirs for free as well. Other than that, nothing has been sold from my site.

As far as pictures taken with the 70-300VR lens......you might want to check again. The full EXIF data is available on each and every picture if you choose to look that far before throwing around these comments.


This is at 300mm.......got a problem with this? If you want, you can have it for free to display somewhere.

 

[civileng68]

I still say Disney should implement a "No Fam - No Cam" policy! At least it's one way to keep the Ratzi out! But thats just my opinion!

Hey, everyone's entitled to their opinion so I have no problems with that.

I will just make a statement though. As a single traveler on business I love photography and don't sell anything I shoot. With that said, it would be discriminatory to deny me a chance to take pics when someone with a family can take the exact same pics with no problems.

I'm also pretty sure your theory would in fact be an illegal business practice.

However, with that said, I'm in support of added rules but, I really do think it could be much more reasonable.

 

[CrazyDuck]

You really are clueless. I have never sold a single picture of anything in Disneyland!!! Ask anyone on this site who has sent me a PM requesting a picture. Then ask them how much I charged! Don't go throwing around absolutely idiotic statements to which you know nothing of. I sell photos mainly of bike races on my site. On top of that, pictures of fellow racers on my cycling team that I race for get theirs for free as well. Other than that, nothing has been sold from my site.

As far as pictures taken with the 70-300VR lens......you might want to check again. The full EXIF data is available on each and every picture if you choose to look that far before throwing around these comments.


This is at 300mm.......got a problem with this? If you want, you can have it for free to display somewhere.

And a great shot it was... I do know how to look up the exif data on yout shots and the fact remains that most of your shots are not at 300mm rather >100mm.

BTW someone is selling your photos that you host on smugmug. If you are not profiting from them then you should find out who is:

 

[deletedpenguin]

Just because Smugmug has the ability to sell photos, doesn't mean he is. The fact is, there's a common issue amongst all of us here. It's the appreciation of photography, and the fact that we're going to be severely limited as to what level of work we could acheive in the parks if this rule is in fact enforced by Disney.

Let us not argue as to whether someone is (deliberately or not) selling photos.

 

[Albort]

Albort, do think Disney has specific guidelines, or is it anything that is detachable?

well, i honestly think its just an anal security person that wasnt too happy that day the OP brought in a high resolution camera. Something like policy changes usually we will find out via our own CM guides, but nothing in there.

Not to mention, there isnt any information on Micechat which usually will discuss these policy changes and usually i find my answers on why things are done that way there.

 

[Janomi]

Just because Smugmug has the ability to sell photos, doesn't mean he is. The fact is, there's a common issue amongst all of us here. It's the appreciation of photography, and the fact that we're going to be severely limited as to what level of work we could acheive in the parks if this rule is in fact enforced by Disney.

Let us not argue as to whether someone is (deliberately or not) selling photos.

Here here! The issue at hand is the curtailment of creativity.

Though I haven't posted in picture of the day threads, I appreciate photography and the versatility of having a variety of lenses (inc. telephoto) to compose pictures anyway I like (esp. without people in them!).

It'll be a sad day when these rules are enforced.

 

[BELLEDOZER]

I tend to agree with the pp. Danny/aka NostaglicDad takes some the most amazing photos I have ever seen. It makes me want to upgrade my digital camera to one that has a longer telephoto, and take better shots. Whether he is a professional photographer (which he is) or not, and whether he is selling his photos is not the point IMHO. The point is whether Disney has the right to restrict the average amature photographer who has a good camera that simply wants to take better than average photos when they are down in Disneyland. A trip to DL for those who are not close to it, costs alot of money, and in return some people who can upgrade to a better camera and want to take better photos while they are there should be given the right to do so. In return they will have lasting memories of the trip, be it with a cheap camera or an expensive one.

 

[scooter15]

well, i honestly think its just an anal security person that wasnt too happy that day the OP brought in a high resolution camera. Something like policy changes usually we will find out via our own CM guides, but nothing in there.

Not to mention, there isnt any information on Micechat which usually will discuss these policy changes and usually i find my answers on why things are done that way there.

Actually, I was told that this policy has always been in place but not enforced. They just decided it was in the best interest to start enforcing it and security will be trained on this. I just assume it means they will now identify what type of lens you will be able to bring into the park.

 

[NostalgicDad]

And a great shot it was... I do know how to look up the exif data on yout shots and the fact remains that most of your shots are not at 300mm rather >100mm.

BTW someone is selling your photos that you host on smugmug. If you are not profiting from them then you should find out who is:

My goodness. Please try to understand what you are talking about before you accuse me of something that is totally inaccurate. I don't host the pictures, smugmug does. I pay them $150/year to host my pictures. No one is selling my photos and I don't know what you actually mean by that. Smugmug has different account levels and my account level is such that any gallery I have will have the "buy" button that you so prominently have discovered and pointed out. I have had countless people ask me for DL pictures and I have moved the images to a special gallery where they can, in fact, download the original, high-res file......FREE of charge. And yes, the magical "buy" button is still on the top of that page as well. Oh, and how about the pictures I took of a guy watching his daughter singing with Queenie in NOS? When I got back home to Texas, I made sure he got those in a special gallery via the email address he gave me. How about the portfolio of 8x12 prints I sent to DL's public relations department and the nice letter I received back from them?

And, why in the world are you arguing exactly how many pictures I have that are taken at 300mm???? Have you gone through the tens of thousands that I have taken to get an accurate percentage? Give me a break, CrazyDuck, and get off my case and back on the topic of the original poster.

Sorry to everyone on this thread as I don't typically get into useless arguments on forums. However, I just will not let someone throw around baseless, uninformed accusations about me without a response.

 

[BELLEDOZER]

As far as I'm concerned, DL should concentrate on other more important issues that are concerning the park, rather than worry about who's carrying what they deem "the wrong kind of camera" in their park. IMHO it would be a travisty to see someone like yourself, who takes amazing pics be no longer allowed to do so, simply because you are a professional photographer, or have what they decide "the wrong camera" when you enter the park. IMO it's making it rather confusing for those of us who go to DL, as how can a person know if the camera that they spent hundreds of dollars so that they can take some great pics of their trip, only to find out when they get there that it's on the banned camera list?? They have to clarify this quickly, otherwise many other people are not going to know if it's safe to take their camera's to DL, and in return will have lost a photo record of their trip. Have a great day!!

Trish

 

[CrazyDuck]

Danny, I don't know why you are getting so offensive. I was never accusing you of doing anything wrong! In fact I have stated many times how much I love your photography and how you are probably one of the best photographers on the Dis. I was only using you as an example as to why a ban on telephoto lenses should not matter much to anyone on these boards as > 90% of your shots a taken with your 18 - 55mm lense (yea I have looked through all of your photos on your site). Telephoto lenses are really not needed at DL as we can see by "your" great photos.

I was not trying to insult you or get you in trouble by calling you a "professional". On the contrary, you should be proud of your work. I was just stating that one can purchase your photos on your site and I wanted to make sure the "you" knew it was possible so that you are getting your cut! I spent $33 for a 20x30 print of Main St. at night from your smugmug site was surprised when you said that you have never sold a photo of disneyland! I just assumed that if they are going to charge you $150 to host your photos that they would give you a cut of any sales!

whatever....

 

[JadeDarkstar]

wow

 

[EnnEss]

Crazyduck, I have a point and shoot canon with some focus options, manual settings, shutter speed etc, its basically a "high end" point and shoot. 90 percent of my pictures at DL or WDW have more zoom than the equivalent of a 55mm. You can't differentiate really between zoom without knowing the persons exact spot when they took the picture. It is offensive to be told by someone else how to take pictures. Its a creative output, and just because you dont see it as such doesnt make it less important to the person you're talking to. Its like telling someone how to paint. Its not driving where there is a correct and right way, its art, even if its only for yourself. If I could only zoom as far a 55mm lense I wouldnt even bring a camera. I wish I had an SLR but I cant afford it.

Furthermore, do you think that the average security guard can tell the difference between various lenses and do you want to deal with arguing with him over how much zoom yours has? In my opinion, wide angle shots of Disney are often dull, its the detailed different ones that are brilliant, often this requires standing in a different than normal location and using a lot of zoom.

If paparazzi are a problem, Disney should deal with them, not everyone for a VERY VERY VERY VERY small minority of people. Celebrities aren't so special that they should affect my daily life, I could care less if they are there. Its up to Disney then to protect them, wihtout infringing on me, because if thats truly the reason than they are catering to those celebrities at a cost to EVERYONE else, and trust me, the non celebrities with nice cameras far outweigh the celebrities when it comes to park attendance.

 

[NostalgicDad]

Danny, I don't know why you are getting so offensive. I was never accusing you of doing anything wrong! In fact I have stated many times how much I love your photography and how you are probably one of the best photographers on the Dis. I was only using you as an example as to why a ban on telephoto lenses should not matter much to anyone on these boards as > 90% of your shots a taken with your 18 - 55mm lense (yea I have looked through all of your photos on your site). Telephoto lenses are really not needed at DL as we can see by "your" great photos.

I was not trying to insult you or get you in trouble by calling you a "professional". On the contrary, you should be proud of your work. I was just stating that one can purchase your photos on your site and I wanted to make sure the "you" knew it was possible so that you are getting your cut! I spent $33 for a 20x30 print of Main St. at night from your smugmug site was surprised when you said that you have never sold a photo of disneyland! I just assumed that if they are going to charge you $150 to host your photos that they would give you a cut of any sales!

whatever....

I'm usually a pretty calm guy but you've managed to get my gumption up with all of these statements. And, while I certainly appreciate all of the compliments you have given me, I'm in disbelief as to why you don't understand why I'm offended by the things you have said thus far. And, the statement in bold above is outrageuos to say the least! I have a record of every sale from my account (very few) and for some strange reason, there's not a single DL picture that has ever sold. Since you have so many details, I would love to see a copy of the smugmug receipt/email along with the date and time it was purchased.

Wow.