Kentucky Derby - bans ALL Interchangeable Lens Cameras

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #15862517
That is really strange. I've shot NFL for years and never seen that.

Some teams will have a separate pass that is a restriction for photographers that are supposed to shoot more sideline stuff, not game action.

Yes it was for a healthcare client that was working with the bears and a couple of people that were allowed access to the sidelines during the game so they wanted me to document it all but the only photographers that had anything with any reach in Soldier Field that day were the major media pros. Two of the ones that were allowed access.

Red vest is regular media. Green vest is working for the NFL or an NFL team in some capacity.

From someone working out there, less people on the sidelines is a very good thing. I would imagine that there were at least a couple dozen people with the red and green vests shooting with 300 2.8s and larger, not just a handful.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #15862581
Red vest is regular media. Green vest is working for the NFL or an NFL team in some capacity.

From someone working out there, less people on the sidelines is a very good thing. I would imagine that there were at least a couple dozen people with the red and green vests shooting with 300 2.8s and larger, not just a handful.

Seriously, there were only a small amount of photographers on the sidelines that day and most days at Soldier Field now, as compared to the past. They have gotten very selective of who they give passes to and I think its becoming more and more wide spread as we are seeing with whats going on at the Derby. And I really think it has more to do with access than security. It sucks but I think (and I could be wrong) that its going to be a trend.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #15862615
Seriously, there were only a small amount of photographers on the sidelines that day and most days at Soldier Field now, as compared to the past. They have gotten very selective of who they give passes to and I think its becoming more and more wide spread as we are seeing with whats going on at the Derby. And I really think it has more to do with access than security. It sucks but I think (and I could be wrong) that its going to be a trend.

Maybe Soldier Field is a lot more strict than other teams. But how many to you really need down there? Even a couple dozen is a lot.

There is no need for everyone in America that can own a 400 2.8 to be on the sidelines and more than a couple dozen and you are out of legitimate media outlets.

It does not take ny longer to look into a camera vs a lady Coach purse, as a lot of purses are just as big as a camera bag. I also own a Sony NEX with 18-55 & 55-210. It's bag is smaller than most purses I see at Viking and Twins games.

So, searching bags to me is not a good enough excuse.

wysiwyg59 wrote in post #15862862
It does not take ny longer to look into a camera vs a lady Coach purse, as a lot of purses are just as big as a camera bag. I also own a Sony NEX with 18-55 & 55-210. It's bag is smaller than most purses I see at Viking and Twins games.

So, searching bags to me is not a good enough excuse.

When security is tightened, they will want to look through every lens and every camera.

That means taking every single item out of your bag, taking the back cap and lens cap off and the security guard looking through it. This takes a ton of time and really sucks for everyone else. I have to do this at some NFL games I shoot. It takes them 5-10 minutes to search my bag.

wysiwyg59 wrote in post #15862862
It does not take ny longer to look into a camera vs a lady Coach purse, as a lot of purses are just as big as a camera bag. I also own a Sony NEX with 18-55 & 55-210. It's bag is smaller than most purses I see at Viking and Twins games.

So, searching bags to me is not a good enough excuse.

It makes for a lot more bags that have to be checked, though. I don't really see why they couldn't just ban bags, but allow cameras with a single lens attached.

Just wear a giant Kentucky Derby hat, and hide the camera up in there among the feathers and flowers and little taxidermy sparrows?

Its become more and more of a thing. I'm tell'n ya.
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1294603

I doubt it's because of "security". That's what they will say so most people won't complain. What they really mean is they can't determine what length (in inches) to ban and they don't want to ban focal lengths because their security guards won't be able to tell what focal length each lens is. So they run an across-the-board ban.

The Derby is now safe for Sports Illustrated.

That's all that matters.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #15862365
It is not about the camera. It is about getting people in and not having hours long wait to search bags. People bringing in a lot gear take a lot of time and probably annoy the people around them that have to try to look around their camera/lens. They are probably going to search everything extra carefully and eliminating a time consuming search probably helps a lot.

Glad I have a press pass to the Derby .

So why don't they just have a separate gate/line that people with "bags" have to go thru? If you want to bring in camera bags, etc you should have to expect to a longer delay. Those that don't have anything to bring in could go thru the "express" lane.

Just my .02

Maybe you can show up early when the lineups are short and still get in? ...assuming the reason that it speeds up delays is true... maybe enter at the same gate the photojournalists enter?

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #15864613
The Derby is now safe for Sports Illustrated.

That's all that matters.

I somehow doubt that SI cared at all about people bringing their Rebels to the Derby. Give me a break.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #15864543
Its become more and more of a thing. I'm tell'n ya.
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1294603

well after all the 'she-hulk' photoshops that showed up from her super bowl performance...she's probably just trying to limit the damage...