Stopping one from taking pictures with pro equipment

eigga wrote in post #8768159
Just dont be pissed the next time someone goes GWC at your next wedding or event job. What goes around....

I'm not sure what GWC means, but if the security guards at the gate of a sporting event are so ignorant as to equate "pro equipment" with "digital slr", and don't even know what the rules of the stadium are- what is and isn't allowed, they shouldn't be doing that job. Period. Just because they have a badge that says "security" doesn't mean they know everything and can make up the rules as they go along.

If someone wants to take snapshots at a wedding, event, or triathlon i'm covering, they are more than welcome to...

[QUOTE=PMCphotography;​8768607]I'm not sure what GWC means,[/qutoe]

GWC = Guy With a Camera. Your average wannabe photographer who usually hangs out around fashion shoots, beach shoots, Senior or Engagement shoots hoping to score some freebee images without putting in the work of the photographer who actully set up the shoot in question.

Do you honestly expect some guy/gal making minimum wage (or less) to be capable of making that disntinction?

They're just doing what they're told. They're probably shown pictures of what a dSLR looks like Vs a P&S and are told "This NO .. This OK." And maybe remembering the difference is really all the employer can hope for.

Unless the client says otherwise, right? In this case, the client decided that they wanted to try and avoid the possibility of high(er) quality images being made of their event. Their Ball .. Their Rules

I expect someone who is paid to do a job to do their job. Their job is know what is and what isn't allowed into the stadium. Their job is to enforce the rules of the stadium. How they possibly enforce rules they don't even know or care to know? Their boss doesn't even what is or isn't allowed. If they tellme specifically that a DIGITAL SLR isn't allowed, and i don't bring in a digital slr, what's the problem? I'm playing by THEIR rules, after all...

Ok, I can see this is no longer a sane, rational discussion. Best of luck and all that...

In the average person's view, the physical size of the gear often equates with what is considered "pro gear"

and then they hand out business cards and sell images cheaper and even eventually take your job cause they will do it for less or give more $$ back etc etc. (even if they arent as good it hurts sales)

All Im saying is a good business person will limit the chance for loss of sales...this is one way that is important IMO.

AND the interesting part about your issue is you ARE a pro and EXACTLY what they are trying to keep from taking pictures.

Good catch Matt.
Lack of proper credentials envy

eigga wrote in post #8770428
and then they hand out business cards and sell images cheaper and even eventually take your job cause they will do it for less or give more $$ back etc etc. (even if they arent as good it hurts sales)

All Im saying is a good business person will limit the chance for loss of sales...this is one way that is important IMO.

AND the interesting part about your issue is you ARE a pro and EXACTLY what they are trying to keep from taking pictures.

If I were to try and take a 500mm lens with an extender, a tripod, and a monopod so i could fill the frame with the players from seats in the bleachers, then maybe you'd have a point. But a 200mm lens from row J would make some pretty uninteresting game photos for me to then try and undercut either the team photographer who is under contract, or the press photographers (especially when the papers here don't accept unsolicited photos from non-credentialed media anyway.)

But a 200mm lens would let me take some great snaps of my daughter as she runs around in the bleachers, waving her flags with her face painted.

During the summer months, I shoot triathlons and marathons professionally for Triathlon Australia and Triathlonphotos.com. All over the course of the race, there are hundreds of photographers taking photos, especially in the bigger cities (Sydney, especially is crawling with photographers.) Triathlon Australia has a clear policy regarding cameras at the events: Your camera cannot hang over the railing on the course at any point. This is for the safety of the competitors and the amateur photographers. But you know what? I'm not really worried about what they take, because i'm confident in my abilities to provide TriAus with superior images. Period.

I would have no arguments if the AFL introduced a "no cameras, period." rule at games, then there would be NO (well, very very little chance) that a spectator could take superior photos than the pro photog on the field. Just allowing point and shoots wouldn't really work either, what if someone had a G10 or a Leica M9 rangefinder? they are pro cameras, after all.

If any pro is that worried about a someone wanting to take photos at a sporting event, then maybe they need to step up their game and make sure their images are the best they can be.

I understand your POV, guess we will just have to disagree. My personal experience is parents will buy cheap (or free) over paying for high quality, regardless of the quality difference.

eigga wrote in post #8774278
I understand your POV, guess we will just have to disagree. My personal experience is parents will buy cheap (or free) over paying for high quality, regardless of the quality difference.

Parents often will, but these are professional triathletes. When they order their photos, they get an official record of their time, how many points they've accumulated towards qualifying for nationals, etc. And we are the only ones allowed into the finish chutes to get them.

PMCphotography wrote in post #8773569
If any pro is that worried about a someone wanting to take photos at a sporting event, then maybe they need to step up their game and make sure their images are the best they can be.

I've said this before...

As a working pro...I do not care about anybody sat in the stands with a camera. They are there to take shots for themselves, I'm there to do a job. I dont care if they get "superior" photos, they wont get used in the papers if they're sat in the paying seats.

Of course, that's not to say that some people wont try...I've seen photos clearly shot from the seats, and definitely not from credentialed photographers up for sale on Alamy or any other "citizen journalism" sites.

What I do in that situation (as it's usually Premier League football - the world's toughest sport to get into photographing) is phone the licensing department and tell them. I know about 15-20 other togs who do exactly the same.

Come in, try and take "good" photos all you like...try and take my business away from me, I will do anything and everything to stop you.

Seems pretty similar to the pro in this case too.

I'm not sure if the last post was directed at me or not, but I'm not trying to take anyone's business away... Only to take some snaps of my kids at the game. That's it.

PMCphotography wrote in post #8766540
This happened to me a few weeks ago!

<snip>... So i left it, made the quick walk back to my hotel room and grabbed my fiancees 18x zoom fuji compact (one that looks like a little slr) and just to be an *******, my film slr from the trunk of my car.

The same security guard tried to make a stink about the film slr, but i politely reminded him that he specified "digital slr" weren't allowed. He said nothing about film. He waved me through, and with my wife's little 18x zoom was able to fill the frame from my seat with the players. Something i'd never have been able to do with my the original lens and body combo i wanted to bring to get a few snaps of the crowd and my fiancee

You have both a wife and a fiancee?

AWESOME!!!

Good catch, I didnt see that at first...