Shameful News in OKC

RDKirk wrote in post #18293838
Well, I guess it all depends on whether one wants to take all positive steps to reduce unwanted actions as much as possible or merely bristle in feckless indignation.

Notice that the park did put up another sign, albeit handwritten. They did post more information directed at photographers, and that fact means they needed to have posted that same information permanently much earlier.

What about the dog walker that goes off trail...do they need a special sign. What about the kids playing Frisbee in some sensitive area...do they need a special sign? What about the birder with their tripods blocking paths...do they need special signs?

Why is it that photographers need a special sign? If the rules say you can't go off the paths and you can't block a path, that should apply to all, not photographer exempt.

Hogloff wrote in post #18294172
What about the dog walker that goes off trail...do they need a special sign. What about the kids playing Frisbee in some sensitive area...do they need a special sign? What about the birder with their tripods blocking paths...do they need special signs?

Why is it that photographers need a special sign? If the rules say you can't go off the paths and you can't block a path, that should apply to all, not photographer exempt.

And yet in various places I do see signs explicitly for dog walkers.

When an effective people sees they have a specific type of problem, they address that specific problem.

RDKirk wrote in post #18294182
And yet in various places I do see signs explicitly for dog walkers.

When an effective people sees they have a specific type of problem, they address that specific problem.

Yes, that's because dog's have a specific case to do with leashes and poop...hope photographers don't have these specifics.

What's so specific about photographers which is not covered for the general public? Does a photographer need to be explicitly told to stay on the trails and not block other people?

Yes, they do sometimes.. it is like one sees one go off trail and the race is on for everyone that is a photog to do it.

I have a lake that positively crawls with photogs in certain times of the year.. can't even get a shot off for all the photobombing going on in the background. I avoid that place then.

A clarification and a bit of an update. The hand lettered sign at the park has been removed so, I assume, the problem has be resolved - at least until the senior portraits and engagement sessions begin this summer. Martin Nature Park is NOT a normal city park. It is maintained as a nature preserve. 30 years ago, it was on the edge of town but the city and it's suburbs have it surrounded so it's status as a special park is important and well known. It's one of my favorite places for a morning walk. I am posting some of my images so readers can get a sense of the character of the park. These are normal scenes from the park (except the foggy one). I think everyone will see that it is a place about the animal and plant life - not a portrait studio.

When I first saw the sign, I spoke to one of the park employees who assured me that the problem was not with those of us who use the park for wildlife and nature photography but was specific to those using the park for elaborate portrait sessions.

RDKirk, did you read in the opening post where one photographer wanted to bring in a generator for his lights? The rules of this place are clear and common sense for such a park. It seems to me that expecting specific rules for such photographers amounts to blaming the park for stupidity and insensitivity on the part of the photographers.

Photo from rgs's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (827017)

Photo from rgs's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (821579)

Photo from rgs's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (816135)

Photo from rgs's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (814016)

Been following the thread...surprised it had new traction...
Here are the rules posted on the website...
https://www.okc.gov …enter/park-rules-and-faqs

And a few of my favorite captures from the park...

rgs wrote in post #18291750
It has nothing do do with ignorance of rules - some of these guys have even been issued tickets because of the egregious nature of their violations.

I'm curious about what kinds of tickets have been issued to photographers, since none of the posted rules (https://www.okc.gov …enter/park-rules-and-faqs) referenced by a specific municipal code are not related to photography except the use of drones. Can they actually issue tickets for people going off the trails?

I still think that if they started requiring a photography permit, it would resolve 90% of the problems, (give or take a few percentage points).

I've shot here a few times before. I can definitely tell a lot of people shoot out there and I could definitely see this being a problem. Small world though. Oklahomie!!

rgs wrote in post #18294750
The hand lettered sign at the park has been removed so, I assume, the problem has be resolved - at least until the senior portraits and engagement sessions begin this summer.

Looks like the sessions may be beginning earlier than this summer, although it seems like Martin Park is ok with it since it's on their IG page.

looks like they are staying on the trail though...

JonQCanon wrote in post #18306135
Looks like the sessions may be beginning earlier than this summer, although it seems like Martin Park is ok with it since it's on their IG page.

Hosted photo: posted by JonQCanon in
./showthread.php?p=183​06135&i=i168946298
forum: The Business of Photography

Looks to me like they are learning from last year and trying to get ahead of the problem. Good for them.

But, lurching to an entirely different subject, I do wonder just what this photographer thinks that diffuser on his flash is going to accomplish outside. And if he thinks his little speedlight outside with a light gobbling diffuser mounted can still overpower the sun and be a main light. Or why anyone would want to use flash for anything but fill outside.

I suspect that's not a photographer, but a bunch of props thrown together for the photo to prove a passive aggressive point to those ignorant enough to not obey the rules. That looks like a rubbish backdrop to be taking photo's anyway....

welshwizard1971 wrote in post #18306190
I suspect that's not a photographer, but a bunch of props thrown together for the photo to prove a passive aggressive point to those ignorant enough to not obey the rules. That looks like a rubbish backdrop to be taking photo's anyway....

i think if that were the case they wouldn't have tagged the photographer in the post...he's not some award winning portrait photographer...but he does seem to be trying to make it as one...you can see the results from the shoot on his instagram page...

welshwizard1971 wrote in post #18306190
I suspect that's not a photographer, but a bunch of props thrown together for the photo to prove a passive aggressive point to those ignorant enough to not obey the rules. That looks like a rubbish backdrop to be taking photo's anyway....

At least in winter. We are having an early spring and the park will soon be dense with green. I'm going there tomorrow morning and I expect the redbuds to be bright pink and lots of gentle, early spring green around.

rgs wrote in post #18306187
Looks to me like they are learning from last year and trying to get ahead of the problem. Good for them.

But, lurching to an entirely different subject, I do wonder just what this photographer thinks that diffuser on his flash is going to accomplish outside. And if he thinks his little speedlight outside with a light gobbling diffuser mounted can still overpower the sun and be a main light. Or why anyone would want to use flash for anything but fill outside.

Yes, definitely looks like they're going to be more proactive.

And I was thinking the exact same thing about the speedlight!