Where is the Best Place you have been thrown out of or asked to desist Photographing
Mine was the Phoenix Art Museum on the occasion of the traveling exhibit: Frida Kahlo, Diego Rivera and Twentieth-Century Mexican Art. The posted sign was politely brought to my attention and I immediately put my lens cap on and enjoyed the exhibit.
We had just finished watching the Ceremony of the Keys in the Tower of London. Before the ceremony began, a very large Sergeant Major explained there would be no photography. After the ceremony we had walked out of the Tower, so I turned and took a shot, forgetting autoflash was on. The very large Sergeant Major sceamed across the grounds detailing what he could do to a camera. Of course, one of my students grabbed a non-flash shot of me in the moment with my hands in the air. When we got home, she had t-shirts made with “1-800 Free Our Teacher.”
billnikon wrote:
the Alamo was moved to its present site about 1985 because it was in a freeway rightway.
The original Alamo was destroyed by the Mexican Army after the battle to keep the US from using it again as a fort.
I don’t believe this to be correct. Where did you get that information? I’ve been to the Alamo at it’s current site as a child (and that was WELL before 1985) and more recently. It is true that some of the buildings were destroyed after the battle, but not all.
Photography is intrusive. I start from that fundamental. Accordingly, per situation, I ask permission to take pictures. Some places have no one to ask.
But get this: Several years ago, while in Oxnard, California, I visited a public roadside static display of aircraft and missiles in Point Mugu Missile Park near the Point Mugu military base. I took several pictures of these old aircraft.
Soon, a security patrol officer showed up and asked me to identify myself. The security guy said another had reported me out of a concern that I was photographing base buildings in view from the static display. I told the guy the buildings looked uninteresting. I was just taking pictures of the old aircraft.
Nevertheless, he asked me to move on. I did so, heading south on State Highway 1, with the security patrol following me for several miles.
Yet, I did manage to acquire some decent pictures of military hardware. See attached pictures.
limeybiker wrote:
Mine was the Alamo, I didn't read the signs, to busy clicking away.
F-14 "Tomcat," Point Mugu Missile Park
F-4 "Phantom," Point Mugu Missile Park
lev29
Loc: Born and living in MA.
jwn wrote:
I witnessed a vehicle run into a telephone pole ... Georgia State police came over and took my camera and said if I took another picture I would be taken in and never see the camera again ... He told the black guy next to me to go to his car. We were standing in a parking lot across the street from the one car accident and not in the way ... Southern hospitality.
Yes, there are numerous instances of U.S. Law Enforcement officials giving on-the-spot verbal orders forbidding photography & video-recording for unconstitutional reasons. Such incidents are available for review on YouTube.
But the reason I’m posting a response is because of one particular sentence that jwn wrote, highlighted above in
boldface. I admit that I have, verbally only, made such remarks to a friend or very small group of friends in the past (and yes, I am caucasian,) but self-restraint would prohibit me from writing such a sentence publicly, unless there was a point in stating the race, religion, or ethnicity of a particular individual which was pertinent to the story.
I am not so much scolding jwn as I am reminding him that under many circumstances, "P.C." is not a dirty word. I wouldn’t be surprised if more than one Hog would take serious exception to jwn's apparent need to convey an individual stranger’s race in an anecdote that has nothing to do with race. Or does it, jwn? Perhaps you inadvertently forgot to include some pertinent context that you meant to share with us?
To the OP, please understand that I am NOT trying to hijack your topic, but I cannot let that remark in its present form go unaddressed.
P.S. For those WHITE American "conservative-minded" individuals who are contemplating a negative response to the preceding, such as that I'm being too PC or that I should mellow out, $crew you. It is a mindset that we all need to get rid of, no matter who the President of the United States is!
billnikon wrote:
the Alamo was moved to its present site about 1985 because it was in a freeway rightway.
The original Alamo was destroyed by the Mexican Army after the battle to keep the US from using it again as a fort.
Sorry Bill. Someone has given you some bad information on the location and travels of the Alamo. I've been visiting it for almost 60 years and can verify that it is still located where it has been since being established by the Fransiscans in 1718 as Mission San Antonio de Valero. The interesting thing is that it was never all that successful as a church. Turned out that they built it on the wrong side of the river from where the town was located. The chapel, which is most of what survives today, was started in about 1744. It is mostly original, except for the roof. There has been some discussion recently around restoring/rebuilding more of the complex, which was destroyed by Santa Anna's army during and after the siege.
Was asked very politely by the docent at the Aztec pyramids, outside Mexico City, to not take flash photos of one of the rooms where wall had paintings. No signs were posted, but I was glad to comply. Seems they had documented some fading from lighting in the past. When I revisited the site a few months later, signs had been posted.
It's one of the most fascinating places in Mexico. I know there's been a lot of restoration, but it's quite an engineering feat. Even the unrestored lines are die-straight.
jwn
Loc: SOUTHEAST GEORGIA USA
Szalajj wrote:
They may have been trying to protect the driver, who they were being paid off to stop any bad press from being exposed. A local politician or a Georgia State official in an embarrassing position?
I think it was more of future liability on the EMT extracting a women from vehicle, and the trooper was an a**hole.
lev29
Loc: Born and living in MA.
47greyfox wrote:
For all of you who continued to shoot knowing it was prohibited, I would personally enjoy throwing you out.
As I opined both independent of and subsequent to your post, 47greyfox, I’m with you all the way!
The Titanic museum in Pigeon Forge Tenn,but they would let you take a shot of the lego model 26 ft long that a kid from Iceland built.
Lincoln Center, NYC. Would you imagine the buildings are copyrighted!? A permit to shoot there is only $500!
A Federal Reserve bank...the vault door was incredible and I just started shooting. Armed guard didn’t appreciate my sense of beauty...
A friend of mine returned from a trip to India with a photograph of a sign posted by the Ganges river stating no photographs of beggars, lepers, or corpses. There was soldier standing by to enforce the rule but my friend had a very small Minox camera and rupees to the guard allowed my friend take the picture of a funeral and a beggar and the soldier and the sign all in one frame.
Inside the Bahai House of Worship on the North Shore north of Chicago. First time inside I did not see the sign and snapped off a couple of pics of the dome. OOPS!
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.