DSLR owners - Has this happened to anyone else?

[Ratpack]

Have you had any issues where you were told you could not take photos because you have a "Professional" camera? I had this happen this fall when my daughter was cheerleading. They were doing group shots and the photographer told my wife she could not take any photos since she had a professional camera. Now if he had said no photos by anyone other than himself, that would have been fine and I would have understood. But he was letting people with PnS cameras take all the pictures they wanted. Now I ran into it again. This weekend I am taking the kids to Monster Jam and looking forward to some photos of the kids with the Monster Trucks and the ad says in bold, "No Professional Cameras". Are we going to start being restricted just because we bought a DSLR at events now?

 

[ktulu]

I'd respond saying the camera may be "pro" in your eyes, but the results are certainly amateur at best

 

[tinksdad]

That's odd! Are the assuming since you're shooting with a "pro" camera that you will be selling photos??


I got kicked out of old office building in Chicago as I was trying to photograph the interior finish and architecture........ In that case I believe it was the tripod that put the security person off.

 

[YEKCIM]

That's odd! Are the assuming since you're shooting with a "pro" camera that you will be selling photos??

I think the concern is that you'd just use the pix you take instead of buying the pix from the guy/gal who make their living doing this. The fact that, given good lighting, etc, a good P&S would take a comparably good pic has apparently not registered on the photographer, or he/she would have banned all "competition".

~YEKCIM

 

[MICKEY88]

That's odd! Are the assuming since you're shooting with a "pro" camera that you will be selling photos??


I got kicked out of old office building in Chicago as I was trying to photograph the interior finish and architecture........ In that case I believe it was the tripod that put the security person off.

generally taking pics inside a privately owned building without permission is illegal and frowned upon by most businesses,

with public buildings it gets iffy in this post 9/11 world....



I've heard of concert venues only allowing point and shoots in the past.


as for the cheerleading situation, if it were my daughter and on property owned by anyone other than the Photographer, I would have offered him my cell phone to call the police, he had no legal right to stop you, unless he had set up some sort of backdrop and you would have been shooting that, otherwise the most he could have done was told the cheerleading advisors or whoever was in charge that he would not take pics unless other people left the area, because they were distracting the cheerleaders and he didn't want to compromise the quality of his work, even then, unless he had such a provision in a signed contract it would be up to the advisor to decide how to handle the situation..

 

[mabas9395]

unless he had such a provision in a signed contract it would be up to the advisor to decide how to handle the situation..

Actually, I think it is quite common for people who run events to hire a photographer where in the contract it states that they will be the one and only professional photographer. Thats the only way it makes it worth while for the photographer.

However, I'm not sure how the contract defines "sole professional photographer". Whether that means the only one allowed to sell the resulting photos or the only one allowed to have "professional level equipment".

Its easy for me to see both sides of the issue. If my child is participating in an organized event, both children and parents should follow the rules even if we don't agree with them (no pro cameras). Its also considerate to not interfere with someone trying to make an honest living (do you share the photos with all the other parents so they don't have to buy a pro copy?). On the other hand, if my DD5 ever becomes a cheerleader, you can bet that I will do every sneaky thing I can think of to smuggle my dSLR into the event to get some shots of my little princess.

Bottom line, I guess I would probably break the rules and bring my camera to take shots of my kids, but try to buy the group/team shots from the pro.

This is a good/fun/practical topic for discussion on a photography board and I hope that my opinion hasn't offended anyone, sorry if it has.

 

[gruZ]

I've read a fair amount about this lately.

In the case of the organization hiring a professional, or exclusive photographer for events etc., the language of the contract is between the organization and the photographer. It is in essence protecting the photographer from the organization hiring another professional. These contracts are between these two parties (organization and pro), and have nothing to do with you. The professional will often have an issue because, as someone pointed out above, they make a living off the pictures they sell, and therefore want to increase their sales.

From what I understand the only time you would be obligated (not getting into site release / model release issues) to not take pictures is if when you registered your child for the event / sport / etc., a stipulation of the registration is no "pro-level" equipment.

From a practical standpoint, if the pro is using optical flash triggers, there might be a very real reason they don't want you taking pictures - the flash from your camera could trigger their strobes at an unwanted time.

I have always asked the pros if I could take a few pictures - they have almost always said it wasn't a problem, but told me to wait until they directed me to do so.

Please take the above contract stuff in context - I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one.

 

[Ratpack]

If my child is participating in an organized event, both children and parents should follow the rules even if we don't agree with them (no pro cameras).

I don't think it is a matter of following rules, I wouldn't think twice about it if it was no photos at all. I understand that the photographer is making a living. The problem is singling out those of us with DSLR cameras only. I see the trend now of more and more people springing for DSLRs. In the past, if you saw a DSLR, then you knew this person was serious and most likely a professional. That is not the case now. Everywhere you look, people are sporting DSLR cameras. I just think they should say no pro photographers or no cameras, and leave the type of camera out of the equation.

 

[DisneyGirl4188]

I just think they should say no pro photographers or no cameras, and leave the type of camera out of the equation.

I agree. I just bought a DSLR (and sold my Kodak z740). I would be very upset if I was told I couldn't take a picture with my camera, but others could. It should be all or nothing, IMHO.

 

[MICKEY88]

From what I understand the only time you would be obligated (not getting into site release / model release issues) to not take pictures is if when you registered your child for the event / sport / etc., a stipulation of the registration is no "pro-level" equipment.

.

this would apply for regular events, but if it was a planned photo shoot only, and a contract existed with the photog. then the organization, would be responsible for clearing out people with cameras or losing their photog, yet having to pay if the contract is written properly..

 

[mabas9395]

Actually, they make it a matter of following the rules if, for whatever reason, the event organizers make a rule saying P&S is OK but dSLR is not.

 

[MICKEY88]

I don't think it is a matter of following rules, I wouldn't think twice about it if it was no photos at all. I understand that the photographer is making a living. The problem is singling out those of us with DSLR cameras only. I see the trend now of more and more people springing for DSLRs. In the past, if you saw a DSLR, then you knew this person was serious and most likely a professional. That is not the case now. Everywhere you look, people are sporting DSLR cameras. I just think they should say no pro photographers or no cameras, and leave the type of camera out of the equation.

the real problem is how do you define professional camera.. on reality very few DSLRs are truely classified as professional.

then you get into another grey area,, there are people with true professional cameras, who take amateur photos, and will tell you they are amateurs..

and there are professionals, who shoot with cameras that are not classified as professional cameras, so in reality the way of dealing with this situation was bizarre

 

[MICKEY88]

Actually, I think it is quite common for people who run events to hire a photographer where in the contract it states that they will be the one and only professional photographer. Thats the only way it makes it worth while for the photographer.

.

perhaps it's because I come from a small town, my experience has been, very few photographers who do sports teams, even use contracts..

they should, but most in my area do not..

 

[mabas9395]

perhaps it's because I come from a small town, my experience has been, very few photographers who do sports teams, even use contracts..

they should, but most in my area do not..

In that case, be as polite as you would to anyone and have at it!

 

[Groucho]

I'd be really curious how they would define a "professional" camera.

I would guess that they look at the size of your lens. A big fast zoom will probably get their attention, but a small faster prime that'll produce better quality photos will probably go unnoticed. Gotta use their ignorance of lenses against them.

 

[Sk8Leigh]

I go to figure skating shows and competitions, and I often run into this. However, it's usually the lens instead of the camera. I have a 80-200mm f2.8 lens, and a few times I've been made to either put it away or leave it with security upon entering. I have friends who have had this happen even more often than I have.

When there's been an issue with the camera it's usually because they think it can shoot video, which isn't allowed at all.

I hate it because it adds a whole layer of stress to attending events that I don't need.

 

[MICKEY88]

In that case, be as polite as you would to anyone and have at it!

actually we usually buy the official team photo, and nothing else, then I get good action shots for all our other needs, wallets/ sharing with family etc...


my stepson brought his flyer home last year for senior pics, they offered 500 dollars off if you booked your sitting in June....

we booked a sitting for the obligatory yearbook photo, cost us 25 dollars..

then he and I spent a saturday afternoon shooting all the pics he wanted, in various locations and outfits.., grand total after ordering from mpix was under $100

 

[MICKEY88]

I'd be really curious how they would define a "professional" camera.

I would guess that they look at the size of your lens. A big fast zoom will probably get their attention, but a small faster prime that'll produce better quality photos will probably go unnoticed. Gotta use their ignorance of lenses against them.

or have press credentials, and this is also one time that wearing a vest and looking dorky pays off...

 

[gruZ]

this would apply for regular events, but if it was a planned photo shoot only, and a contract existed with the photog. then the organization, would be responsible for clearing out people with cameras or losing their photog, yet having to pay if the contract is written properly..

If that is the case I agree, the organization should step up and clear people out. I think the original post said the photographer was the one doing the clearing - which I think would cause more problems than if a league official made the request.

 

[tinksdad]

generally taking pics inside a privately owned building without permission is illegal and frowned upon by most businesses,

with public buildings it gets iffy in this post 9/11 world....



I've heard of concert venues only allowing point and shoots in the past.


as for the cheerleading situation, if it were my daughter and on property owned by anyone other than the Photographer, I would have offered him my cell phone to call the police, he had no legal right to stop you, unless he had set up some sort of backdrop and you would have been shooting that, otherwise the most he could have done was told the cheerleading advisors or whoever was in charge that he would not take pics unless other people left the area, because they were distracting the cheerleaders and he didn't want to compromise the quality of his work, even then, unless he had such a provision in a signed contract it would be up to the advisor to decide how to handle the situation..

Yes, I knew that and asked. She thought about it for a minute and then told me no. No problem, always pays to ask and be nice about whatever answer you get!