Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 21, 2007, 1:58 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,534
Default

Looks like the UK governments really lost the plot and now wants to restrict photography in public places and theres a petition online to protest against this proposed new law.

If your in the UK sign the petition stop this new law from ever being passed.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Photography/

Cheers

HarjTT

:? :O


HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 21, 2007, 2:16 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

wow Harj
what whacko is doing this
and what will it do to tourism
arrested for photographing the household cavalry ... lol
they cant hope to enforce it can they ?
maybe russia is better now
das !


i signed as an expat, which i am

Riley

Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2007, 2:33 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

Tourism would sure suffer.....I can't IMAGINE such a law there or anywhere else. Just think if they did that in Paris?! I'd be sick, going there this Fall. I got back to the officejust a few minutes ago. Took my lunch-time hour to do some shooting here in downtown Dallas with my E330, 50-200+1.4 teleconverter. It's 72 degrees here today....I need to be off.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2007, 3:09 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,534
Default

Hi Guys

I wouldn't be suprised if they did pass something like this, and Riley, you'd know they do like passing really crap laws, like ID cards that have your fingerprints, a retina scan and all the info that they have on you. Something like this photography ban was mentioned in the media about 18-24months ago but I just thought it was a joke. I can also see them saying its ok to shoot at Trafalgar Sq, Parlaiment squ, etc but no where else unless you have a permit - some parts of Liverpool St are already like that.

Cheers

HarjTT

:? :O

HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2007, 3:55 AM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 43
Default

the 1 in a million that uses their camera for malicious reasons ruins it for the rest.

As for tourism; if I knew that I can't take pictures at a place that I plan to visit I would still go. Who knows, if I can't remember what I had seen then I may have to go back to do it again. (leave it tosomeone to put a twist on things) Would you really boycott a place because you can't take it home with you.

I, for one, would be against the ban, but I understand it. Someone you don't know is taking a picture of your little one, how would feel (once you asked him to show you his pictures) if he refuses and walks away. Creep.

I think you know what I'm getting at.
wass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2007, 8:35 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,534
Default

Hi wass

We all know why they would want to place such a restriction, but if such laws were passed say 30-40 years ago we would not have had images like these:





Cheers

HarjTT

:? :O

HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2007, 10:07 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Mikefellh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,707
Default

Typical government stupidity...if someone wants to take a malicious photograph they'd use a cellphone camera, or a watch camera, they wouldn't do it openly.

The other day I had to opprotunity to handle some spy cameras of the past, and you'd never know a picture was taken.


This is just like the talk of outright banning of incandescent bulbs without thinking they are being used from photofloods, to traffic lights, to even car headlights. Even if it was replacing incandescents with CFLs (compact fluorescents), they're ignoring the amount of excess garbage CFLs produce, not to mention the drop of mercury that's in EVERY fluorescent bulb!
Mikefellh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2007, 10:15 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

yeah
i cant stand flouro tubes and bulbs
they look like crap for colour and seem to flicker to me


Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2007, 10:35 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Mikefellh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,707
Default

Rriley wrote
Quote:
i cant stand flouro tubes and bulbs
they look like crap for colour
Lightbulbs have different colour tempertures.

The Ott Light is one of the highest rated lights on the market for those who require true colour, full spectrum light like photographers looking at output, quilters, crafters, etc. and it uses a FLUORESCENT bulb!!! Check it out:

http://www.ott-lite.com/
Mikefellh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2007, 10:57 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

yes i know that Mike
what annoys me most is the pulsing i see with them
not everyone sees this usually some pre-disposed medical condition makes them at least annoying, possibly dangerous. ie epilepsy

my own problem is i had a head injury from being run down at a road block
while luckily for me, 99% of my issues melted away, i do suffer the malady of flouros

i guess Ill spend the next 3 yrs stocking up on tungsten fillament globes

Riley

Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:40 AM.