Professional equipment is not allowed in malls?

Started Oct 10, 2013 | Discussions
Dave Hanson
Dave Hanson Regular Member • Posts: 381
Re: Exactly

LeoGotCamera wrote:

Guys,

sorry, but I don't agree with your logic. Property owner can impose any rules, but they need to make sense. We cannot just blindly accept whatever somebody with authority says to us.

This is why I always check the policy of whatever place (sporting venue, museum, zoo, botanic gardens, etc.) I plan on visiting. If it doesn't say so on the company's website, I may call for clarification. And if it says no tripods, it means no tripods. I won't make a fuss about it, I'll just find a way to work around it. It's their place, and yes, they can make whatever rules they want, even if they seem arbitrary. We may not like their rules, but them's the rules and they're part of the price of admission.

 Dave Hanson's gear list:Dave Hanson's gear list
Olympus E-30 Olympus E-620 Olympus E-5 Olympus PEN E-P3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +6 more
JTC111 Contributing Member • Posts: 505
Re: Professional equipment is not allowed in malls?

Dylan Johnson wrote:

CaptiVision Photography wrote:

As a photographer AND security guard, I have some answers for you.

First as people mentioned, photography gear can be a hazard. Tripods, light stands, cords, etc can all just be an accident waiting to happen. That stuff isn't allowed for safety reasons unless for uses permited through a permit.

Secondly, as security, we are there to protect the property and patrons on the property. When security sees a camera, their first thought isn't photography, it's privacy and safety. That person could be taking pictures of children or They could also be staking out a store to rob.

Really? As a photographer you are falling for that tired old nag?

1: What is the harm in photographing children. Please be specific regarding exactly how a child is harmed by being photographed?

2: If a person is scoping a place out to burglarize, bomb or any other malicious act, wouldn't logic dictate that said person is going to attempt to be stealthy so as not to draw attention to themselves?

I can see a brain dead security guard who is too dumb to work at McDonalds falling for it, but a photographer?

Really?

Big cameras also have a tendency to make people uncomfortable, and a lot of times we have to tell them to stop because we get complaints from shoppers about it.

This is a logical reason.

So if you and your 6 year old daughter are out shopping and there's someone with a big camera following you around taking pictures of your daughter, you would be perfectly fine with that?

What you're describing is stalking and is illegal in most places in the US. What's been discussed here did not involve stalking. Simply taking pictures of random children in a mall does not constitute stalking.

Who knows where these pictures are ending up? You don't know if that person is a pediphile or not. That's why security has to take those precautions.

And there we go. Another twisted individual whose mind jumps directly into pedophilia. As I'm typing this, it occurs to me that I don't know if you, Dylan Johnson, are a pedophile. I just googled "Dylan Johnson pedophile" to make sure you're not and the first thing that popped up has me very concerned.

Go on, google it.

See how problematic that is? Now if I accept your logic about guys with cameras being a threat to children as fact, can't I also now be concerned about guys named Dylan Johnson? But wait... you're a guy with a camera named Dylan Johnson, aren't you? That's three red flags. Dylan Johnson... wait a sec... Johnson? JOHNSON??? Isnt that slang for?.... well, you know what's slang for. Did you change your name to that on purpose? I'm going to suppose you did. THAT'S FOUR RED FLAGS!!! And that means you're more dangerous than just any random guy with a camera at the mall.

Twisted logic, ain't it?

But maybe you're starting to see my point.

You're likely no more dangerous than the average person at the mall with or without a camera. And I don't think the fact that you own a camera makes you more dangerous. And if by chance you should one day find yourself at the mall with a camera in your hand, I don't think that increases the chance that you, Dylan Johnson, are a pedophile.

Folks need to stop perpetuating this stupid nonsense.

-- hide signature --

Jim Caputo
"Red hair and black leather, my favorite color scheme" - Richard Thompson

 JTC111's gear list:JTC111's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +9 more
Dylan Johnson
Dylan Johnson Regular Member • Posts: 143
Re: Professional equipment is not allowed in malls?

JTC111 wrote:

Dylan Johnson wrote:

CaptiVision Photography wrote:

As a photographer AND security guard, I have some answers for you.

First as people mentioned, photography gear can be a hazard. Tripods, light stands, cords, etc can all just be an accident waiting to happen. That stuff isn't allowed for safety reasons unless for uses permited through a permit.

Secondly, as security, we are there to protect the property and patrons on the property. When security sees a camera, their first thought isn't photography, it's privacy and safety. That person could be taking pictures of children or They could also be staking out a store to rob.

Really? As a photographer you are falling for that tired old nag?

1: What is the harm in photographing children. Please be specific regarding exactly how a child is harmed by being photographed?

2: If a person is scoping a place out to burglarize, bomb or any other malicious act, wouldn't logic dictate that said person is going to attempt to be stealthy so as not to draw attention to themselves?

I can see a brain dead security guard who is too dumb to work at McDonalds falling for it, but a photographer?

Really?

Big cameras also have a tendency to make people uncomfortable, and a lot of times we have to tell them to stop because we get complaints from shoppers about it.

This is a logical reason.

So if you and your 6 year old daughter are out shopping and there's someone with a big camera following you around taking pictures of your daughter, you would be perfectly fine with that?

What you're describing is stalking and is illegal in most places in the US. What's been discussed here did not involve stalking. Simply taking pictures of random children in a mall does not constitute stalking.

Who knows where these pictures are ending up? You don't know if that person is a pediphile or not. That's why security has to take those precautions.

And there we go. Another twisted individual whose mind jumps directly into pedophilia. As I'm typing this, it occurs to me that I don't know if you, Dylan Johnson, are a pedophile. I just googled "Dylan Johnson pedophile" to make sure you're not and the first thing that popped up has me very concerned.

Go on, google it.

See how problematic that is? Now if I accept your logic about guys with cameras being a threat to children as fact, can't I also now be concerned about guys named Dylan Johnson? But wait... you're a guy with a camera named Dylan Johnson, aren't you? That's three red flags. Dylan Johnson... wait a sec... Johnson? JOHNSON??? Isnt that slang for?.... well, you know what's slang for. Did you change your name to that on purpose? I'm going to suppose you did. THAT'S FOUR RED FLAGS!!! And that means you're more dangerous than just any random guy with a camera at the mall.

Twisted logic, ain't it?

But maybe you're starting to see my point.

You're likely no more dangerous than the average person at the mall with or without a camera. And I don't think the fact that you own a camera makes you more dangerous. And if by chance you should one day find yourself at the mall with a camera in your hand, I don't think that increases the chance that you, Dylan Johnson, are a pedophile.

Folks need to stop perpetuating this stupid nonsense.

Apparently I touched a nerve. My point being that taking picture of random children in the mall may not be illegal but its still not okay, and the tantrum you just had was pretty uncalled for as well. I was simply pointing out what security has to watch for, simple as that, and the example I used of a pedophile is the main reason they have to watch for these things.

I take it you're one of the people who sit in malls and take pictures of kids since you're pretty insistent on defending the people who do, which is really creepy if you ask me, but to each his own.

-- hide signature --

Canon 50d gripped, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, 50mm f1.8, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 430ex II, Carry Speed FS Pro Sling Strap

 Dylan Johnson's gear list:Dylan Johnson's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art
Dylan Johnson
Dylan Johnson Regular Member • Posts: 143
Re: Professional equipment is not allowed in malls?

JTC111 wrote:

Dylan Johnson wrote:

CaptiVision Photography wrote:

As a photographer AND security guard, I have some answers for you.

First as people mentioned, photography gear can be a hazard. Tripods, light stands, cords, etc can all just be an accident waiting to happen. That stuff isn't allowed for safety reasons unless for uses permited through a permit.

Secondly, as security, we are there to protect the property and patrons on the property. When security sees a camera, their first thought isn't photography, it's privacy and safety. That person could be taking pictures of children or They could also be staking out a store to rob.

Really? As a photographer you are falling for that tired old nag?

1: What is the harm in photographing children. Please be specific regarding exactly how a child is harmed by being photographed?

2: If a person is scoping a place out to burglarize, bomb or any other malicious act, wouldn't logic dictate that said person is going to attempt to be stealthy so as not to draw attention to themselves?

I can see a brain dead security guard who is too dumb to work at McDonalds falling for it, but a photographer?

Really?

Big cameras also have a tendency to make people uncomfortable, and a lot of times we have to tell them to stop because we get complaints from shoppers about it.

This is a logical reason.

So if you and your 6 year old daughter are out shopping and there's someone with a big camera following you around taking pictures of your daughter, you would be perfectly fine with that?

What you're describing is stalking and is illegal in most places in the US. What's been discussed here did not involve stalking. Simply taking pictures of random children in a mall does not constitute stalking.

Who knows where these pictures are ending up? You don't know if that person is a pediphile or not. That's why security has to take those precautions.

And there we go. Another twisted individual whose mind jumps directly into pedophilia. As I'm typing this, it occurs to me that I don't know if you, Dylan Johnson, are a pedophile. I just googled "Dylan Johnson pedophile" to make sure you're not and the first thing that popped up has me very concerned.

Go on, google it.

See how problematic that is? Now if I accept your logic about guys with cameras being a threat to children as fact, can't I also now be concerned about guys named Dylan Johnson? But wait... you're a guy with a camera named Dylan Johnson, aren't you? That's three red flags. Dylan Johnson... wait a sec... Johnson? JOHNSON??? Isnt that slang for?.... well, you know what's slang for. Did you change your name to that on purpose? I'm going to suppose you did. THAT'S FOUR RED FLAGS!!! And that means you're more dangerous than just any random guy with a camera at the mall.

Twisted logic, ain't it?

But maybe you're starting to see my point.

You're likely no more dangerous than the average person at the mall with or without a camera. And I don't think the fact that you own a camera makes you more dangerous. And if by chance you should one day find yourself at the mall with a camera in your hand, I don't think that increases the chance that you, Dylan Johnson, are a pedophile.

Folks need to stop perpetuating this stupid nonsense.

I'm also not in the mood or have any interest in fighting with you about your beliefs on taking pictures of children. If you do that, fine, I don't care. Personally, I would never take pictures of children without permission from their parent, but that's just me. And like I said, from a security stand point, that's something they look for because it does happen, regardless if you think its right or wrong to take pictures of kids, pedophiles do exist.

-- hide signature --

Canon 50d gripped, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, 50mm f1.8, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 430ex II, Carry Speed FS Pro Sling Strap

 Dylan Johnson's gear list:Dylan Johnson's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art
JTC111 Contributing Member • Posts: 505
Re: Professional equipment is not allowed in malls?

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Apparently I touched a nerve. My point being that taking picture of random children in the mall may not be illegal but its still not okay, and the tantrum you just had was pretty uncalled for as well. I was simply pointing out what security has to watch for, simple as that, and the example I used of a pedophile is the main reason they have to watch for these things.

I take it you're one of the people who sit in malls and take pictures of kids since you're pretty insistent on defending the people who do, which is really creepy if you ask me, but to each his own.

No nerves touched.  I'm simply tired of close-minded people like you who insist on thinking something as innocent as taking a picture of a child into something sinister and ugly.  You folks have warped minds, the lot of you.

And no, I've never sat in a mall taking pictures of children.  My interests lie elsewhere.  But when I see someone at the mall with a camera, I don't instantly think pedophile.  Talk about creepy. It feels like you're overcompensating for something, Dylan Johnson.

-- hide signature --

Jim Caputo
"Red hair and black leather, my favorite color scheme" - Richard Thompson

 JTC111's gear list:JTC111's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +9 more
JTC111 Contributing Member • Posts: 505
Re: Professional equipment is not allowed in malls?

Dylan Johnson wrote:

JTC111 wrote:

Dylan Johnson wrote:

CaptiVision Photography wrote:

As a photographer AND security guard, I have some answers for you.

First as people mentioned, photography gear can be a hazard. Tripods, light stands, cords, etc can all just be an accident waiting to happen. That stuff isn't allowed for safety reasons unless for uses permited through a permit.

Secondly, as security, we are there to protect the property and patrons on the property. When security sees a camera, their first thought isn't photography, it's privacy and safety. That person could be taking pictures of children or They could also be staking out a store to rob.

Really? As a photographer you are falling for that tired old nag?

1: What is the harm in photographing children. Please be specific regarding exactly how a child is harmed by being photographed?

2: If a person is scoping a place out to burglarize, bomb or any other malicious act, wouldn't logic dictate that said person is going to attempt to be stealthy so as not to draw attention to themselves?

I can see a brain dead security guard who is too dumb to work at McDonalds falling for it, but a photographer?

Really?

Big cameras also have a tendency to make people uncomfortable, and a lot of times we have to tell them to stop because we get complaints from shoppers about it.

This is a logical reason.

So if you and your 6 year old daughter are out shopping and there's someone with a big camera following you around taking pictures of your daughter, you would be perfectly fine with that?

What you're describing is stalking and is illegal in most places in the US. What's been discussed here did not involve stalking. Simply taking pictures of random children in a mall does not constitute stalking.

Who knows where these pictures are ending up? You don't know if that person is a pediphile or not. That's why security has to take those precautions.

And there we go. Another twisted individual whose mind jumps directly into pedophilia. As I'm typing this, it occurs to me that I don't know if you, Dylan Johnson, are a pedophile. I just googled "Dylan Johnson pedophile" to make sure you're not and the first thing that popped up has me very concerned.

Go on, google it.

See how problematic that is? Now if I accept your logic about guys with cameras being a threat to children as fact, can't I also now be concerned about guys named Dylan Johnson? But wait... you're a guy with a camera named Dylan Johnson, aren't you? That's three red flags. Dylan Johnson... wait a sec... Johnson? JOHNSON??? Isnt that slang for?.... well, you know what's slang for. Did you change your name to that on purpose? I'm going to suppose you did. THAT'S FOUR RED FLAGS!!! And that means you're more dangerous than just any random guy with a camera at the mall.

Twisted logic, ain't it?

But maybe you're starting to see my point.

You're likely no more dangerous than the average person at the mall with or without a camera. And I don't think the fact that you own a camera makes you more dangerous. And if by chance you should one day find yourself at the mall with a camera in your hand, I don't think that increases the chance that you, Dylan Johnson, are a pedophile.

Folks need to stop perpetuating this stupid nonsense.

I'm also not in the mood or have any interest in fighting with you about your beliefs on taking pictures of children. If you do that, fine, I don't care. Personally, I would never take pictures of children without permission from their parent, but that's just me. And like I said, from a security stand point, that's something they look for because it does happen, regardless if you think its right or wrong to take pictures of kids, pedophiles do exist.

Yes, they do exist.  But taking a picture of a child isn't an act of pedophilia ...except in the warped dirty minds of some.

-- hide signature --

Jim Caputo
"Red hair and black leather, my favorite color scheme" - Richard Thompson

 JTC111's gear list:JTC111's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +9 more
Dylan Johnson
Dylan Johnson Regular Member • Posts: 143
Re: Professional equipment is not allowed in malls?

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Apparently I touched a nerve. My point being that taking picture of random children in the mall may not be illegal but its still not okay, and the tantrum you just had was pretty uncalled for as well. I was simply pointing out what security has to watch for, simple as that, and the example I used of a pedophile is the main reason they have to watch for these things.

I take it you're one of the people who sit in malls and take pictures of kids since you're pretty insistent on defending the people who do, which is really creepy if you ask me, but to each his own.

No nerves touched.  I'm simply tired of close-minded people like you who insist on thinking something as innocent as taking a picture of a child into something sinister and ugly.  You folks have warped minds, the lot of you.

And no, I've never sat in a mall taking pictures of children.  My interests lie elsewhere.  But when I see someone at the mall with a camera, I don't instantly think pedophile.  Talk about creepy. It feels like you're overcompensating for something, Dylan Johnson.

Not really sure what that means but okay. Sorry I have enough respect to ask permission first. Just because you're a photographer doesn't mean you're intitled to take a picture of whatever you want. Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it's not disrespectful.
--
Canon 50d gripped, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, 50mm f1.8, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 430ex II, Carry Speed FS Pro Sling Strap

 Dylan Johnson's gear list:Dylan Johnson's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art
JTC111 Contributing Member • Posts: 505
Re: Professional equipment is not allowed in malls?

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Apparently I touched a nerve. My point being that taking picture of random children in the mall may not be illegal but its still not okay, and the tantrum you just had was pretty uncalled for as well. I was simply pointing out what security has to watch for, simple as that, and the example I used of a pedophile is the main reason they have to watch for these things.

I take it you're one of the people who sit in malls and take pictures of kids since you're pretty insistent on defending the people who do, which is really creepy if you ask me, but to each his own.

No nerves touched. I'm simply tired of close-minded people like you who insist on thinking something as innocent as taking a picture of a child into something sinister and ugly. You folks have warped minds, the lot of you.

And no, I've never sat in a mall taking pictures of children. My interests lie elsewhere. But when I see someone at the mall with a camera, I don't instantly think pedophile. Talk about creepy. It feels like you're overcompensating for something, Dylan Johnson.

Not really sure what that means but okay. Sorry I have enough respect to ask permission first. Just because you're a photographer doesn't mean you're intitled to take a picture of whatever you want. Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it's not disrespectful.
--
Canon 50d gripped, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, 50mm f1.8, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 430ex II, Carry Speed FS Pro Sling Strap

IMO, asking permission would be the move a pedophile would make. After all, the pedophile wants to get close to the child, doesn't he? The random guy just taking pictures only has pictures, but the guy who asks permission gets to meet the child, talk to the child, perhaps pose the child, touch the child.

Would I be wrong in jumping to the conclusion that you, Dylan Johnson, are a pedophile because you walked up to me and asked permission to take a picture of my kid?

See Dylan? We can all play these logic games.

-- hide signature --

Jim Caputo
"Red hair and black leather, my favorite color scheme" - Richard Thompson

 JTC111's gear list:JTC111's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +9 more
Dylan Johnson
Dylan Johnson Regular Member • Posts: 143
Re: Professional equipment is not allowed in malls?

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Apparently I touched a nerve. My point being that taking picture of random children in the mall may not be illegal but its still not okay, and the tantrum you just had was pretty uncalled for as well. I was simply pointing out what security has to watch for, simple as that, and the example I used of a pedophile is the main reason they have to watch for these things.

I take it you're one of the people who sit in malls and take pictures of kids since you're pretty insistent on defending the people who do, which is really creepy if you ask me, but to each his own.

No nerves touched. I'm simply tired of close-minded people like you who insist on thinking something as innocent as taking a picture of a child into something sinister and ugly. You folks have warped minds, the lot of you.

And no, I've never sat in a mall taking pictures of children. My interests lie elsewhere. But when I see someone at the mall with a camera, I don't instantly think pedophile. Talk about creepy. It feels like you're overcompensating for something, Dylan Johnson.

Not really sure what that means but okay. Sorry I have enough respect to ask permission first. Just because you're a photographer doesn't mean you're intitled to take a picture of whatever you want. Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it's not disrespectful.
--
Canon 50d gripped, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, 50mm f1.8, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 430ex II, Carry Speed FS Pro Sling Strap

IMO, asking permission would be the move a pedophile would make. After all, the pedophile wants to get close to the child, doesn't he? The random guy just taking pictures only has pictures, but the guy who asks permission gets to meet the child, talk to the child, perhaps pose the child, touch the child.

Would I be wrong in jumping to the conclusion that you, Dylan Johnson, are a pedophile because you walked up to me and asked permission to take a picture of my kid?

See Dylan? We can all play these logic games.

And again, that's your opinion, I'm more respectful than that. That's just who I am. Being a father myself, I would rather have someone ask permission to take a picture of my son than try and do it without me noticing.
--
Canon 50d gripped, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, 50mm f1.8, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 430ex II, Carry Speed FS Pro Sling Strap

 Dylan Johnson's gear list:Dylan Johnson's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art
JTC111 Contributing Member • Posts: 505
Re: Professional equipment is not allowed in malls?

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Apparently I touched a nerve. My point being that taking picture of random children in the mall may not be illegal but its still not okay, and the tantrum you just had was pretty uncalled for as well. I was simply pointing out what security has to watch for, simple as that, and the example I used of a pedophile is the main reason they have to watch for these things.

I take it you're one of the people who sit in malls and take pictures of kids since you're pretty insistent on defending the people who do, which is really creepy if you ask me, but to each his own.

No nerves touched. I'm simply tired of close-minded people like you who insist on thinking something as innocent as taking a picture of a child into something sinister and ugly. You folks have warped minds, the lot of you.

And no, I've never sat in a mall taking pictures of children. My interests lie elsewhere. But when I see someone at the mall with a camera, I don't instantly think pedophile. Talk about creepy. It feels like you're overcompensating for something, Dylan Johnson.

Not really sure what that means but okay. Sorry I have enough respect to ask permission first. Just because you're a photographer doesn't mean you're intitled to take a picture of whatever you want. Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it's not disrespectful.
--
Canon 50d gripped, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, 50mm f1.8, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 430ex II, Carry Speed FS Pro Sling Strap

IMO, asking permission would be the move a pedophile would make. After all, the pedophile wants to get close to the child, doesn't he? The random guy just taking pictures only has pictures, but the guy who asks permission gets to meet the child, talk to the child, perhaps pose the child, touch the child.

Would I be wrong in jumping to the conclusion that you, Dylan Johnson, are a pedophile because you walked up to me and asked permission to take a picture of my kid?

See Dylan? We can all play these logic games.

And again, that's your opinion, I'm more respectful than that. That's just who I am. Being a father myself, I would rather have someone ask permission to take a picture of my son than try and do it without me noticing.
--
Canon 50d gripped, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, 50mm f1.8, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 430ex II, Carry Speed FS Pro Sling Strap

No, it's not my opinion.  Sheesh... you're dense as a boulder.  I was purposely being facetious to illustrate my point that you shouldn't be jumping to wild conclusions just because because someone takes a picture of a kid.

-- hide signature --

Jim Caputo
"Red hair and black leather, my favorite color scheme" - Richard Thompson

 JTC111's gear list:JTC111's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +9 more
Dylan Johnson
Dylan Johnson Regular Member • Posts: 143
Re: Professional equipment is not allowed in malls?

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Apparently I touched a nerve. My point being that taking picture of random children in the mall may not be illegal but its still not okay, and the tantrum you just had was pretty uncalled for as well. I was simply pointing out what security has to watch for, simple as that, and the example I used of a pedophile is the main reason they have to watch for these things.

I take it you're one of the people who sit in malls and take pictures of kids since you're pretty insistent on defending the people who do, which is really creepy if you ask me, but to each his own.

No nerves touched. I'm simply tired of close-minded people like you who insist on thinking something as innocent as taking a picture of a child into something sinister and ugly. You folks have warped minds, the lot of you.

And no, I've never sat in a mall taking pictures of children. My interests lie elsewhere. But when I see someone at the mall with a camera, I don't instantly think pedophile. Talk about creepy. It feels like you're overcompensating for something, Dylan Johnson.

Not really sure what that means but okay. Sorry I have enough respect to ask permission first. Just because you're a photographer doesn't mean you're intitled to take a picture of whatever you want. Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it's not disrespectful.
--
Canon 50d gripped, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, 50mm f1.8, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 430ex II, Carry Speed FS Pro Sling Strap

IMO, asking permission would be the move a pedophile would make. After all, the pedophile wants to get close to the child, doesn't he? The random guy just taking pictures only has pictures, but the guy who asks permission gets to meet the child, talk to the child, perhaps pose the child, touch the child.

Would I be wrong in jumping to the conclusion that you, Dylan Johnson, are a pedophile because you walked up to me and asked permission to take a picture of my kid?

See Dylan? We can all play these logic games.

And again, that's your opinion, I'm more respectful than that. That's just who I am. Being a father myself, I would rather have someone ask permission to take a picture of my son than try and do it without me noticing.
--
Canon 50d gripped, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, 50mm f1.8, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 430ex II, Carry Speed FS Pro Sling Strap

No, it's not my opinion.  Sheesh... you're dense as a boulder.  I was purposely being facetious to illustrate my point that you shouldn't be jumping to wild conclusions just because because someone takes a picture of a kid.

That's not my conclusion. This all started because I said security has to watch for that type of thing. Personally myself I would rather ask permission first, that's just me. That doesn't mean I think people taking pictures of kids are pediphiles, but it does happen, and I would just rather have permission from a parent to take a picture of their child because that's what I'd want. I personally - IMO - think its wrong to take pictures of kids without permission.
--
Canon 50d gripped, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, 50mm f1.8, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 430ex II, Carry Speed FS Pro Sling Strap

 Dylan Johnson's gear list:Dylan Johnson's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art
JTC111 Contributing Member • Posts: 505
Re: Professional equipment is not allowed in malls?

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Apparently I touched a nerve. My point being that taking picture of random children in the mall may not be illegal but its still not okay, and the tantrum you just had was pretty uncalled for as well. I was simply pointing out what security has to watch for, simple as that, and the example I used of a pedophile is the main reason they have to watch for these things.

I take it you're one of the people who sit in malls and take pictures of kids since you're pretty insistent on defending the people who do, which is really creepy if you ask me, but to each his own.

No nerves touched. I'm simply tired of close-minded people like you who insist on thinking something as innocent as taking a picture of a child into something sinister and ugly. You folks have warped minds, the lot of you.

And no, I've never sat in a mall taking pictures of children. My interests lie elsewhere. But when I see someone at the mall with a camera, I don't instantly think pedophile. Talk about creepy. It feels like you're overcompensating for something, Dylan Johnson.

Not really sure what that means but okay. Sorry I have enough respect to ask permission first. Just because you're a photographer doesn't mean you're intitled to take a picture of whatever you want. Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it's not disrespectful.
--
Canon 50d gripped, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, 50mm f1.8, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 430ex II, Carry Speed FS Pro Sling Strap

IMO, asking permission would be the move a pedophile would make. After all, the pedophile wants to get close to the child, doesn't he? The random guy just taking pictures only has pictures, but the guy who asks permission gets to meet the child, talk to the child, perhaps pose the child, touch the child.

Would I be wrong in jumping to the conclusion that you, Dylan Johnson, are a pedophile because you walked up to me and asked permission to take a picture of my kid?

See Dylan? We can all play these logic games.

And again, that's your opinion, I'm more respectful than that. That's just who I am. Being a father myself, I would rather have someone ask permission to take a picture of my son than try and do it without me noticing.
--
Canon 50d gripped, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, 50mm f1.8, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 430ex II, Carry Speed FS Pro Sling Strap

No, it's not my opinion. Sheesh... you're dense as a boulder. I was purposely being facetious to illustrate my point that you shouldn't be jumping to wild conclusions just because because someone takes a picture of a kid.

That's not my conclusion. This all started because I said security has to watch for that type of thing. Personally myself I would rather ask permission first, that's just me. That doesn't mean I think people taking pictures of kids are pediphiles, but it does happen, and I would just rather have permission from a parent to take a picture of their child because that's what I'd want. I personally - IMO - think its wrong to take pictures of kids without permission.
--
Canon 50d gripped, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, 50mm f1.8, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 430ex II, Carry Speed FS Pro Sling Strap

And that's fine, but don't imply that we all should follow your rules and to not do so is indicative of some kind of sinister motive.  There are plenty of good and decent people who might take the picture and not ask for permission.

-- hide signature --

Jim Caputo
"Red hair and black leather, my favorite color scheme" - Richard Thompson

 JTC111's gear list:JTC111's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +9 more
Wheatfield
Wheatfield Veteran Member • Posts: 6,297
Re: Professional equipment is not allowed in malls?

Dylan Johnson wrote:

So if you and your 6 year old daughter are out shopping and there's someone with a big camera following you around taking pictures of your daughter, you would be perfectly fine with that? Who knows where these pictures are ending up? You don't know if that person is a pediphile or not. That's why security has to take those precautions.

You are avoiding the question.

Let me ask again: What is the harm in photographing children? Please be specific regarding exactly how a child (or anyone else, for that matter) is harmed by being photographed?

-- hide signature --

Always remember, whenever you declare someone the dumbest person on Earth, someone else will stare at their screen intently, cross their arms and say ‘Challenge accepted’.

Wheatfield
Wheatfield Veteran Member • Posts: 6,297
Re: Professional equipment is not allowed in malls?

Dylan Johnson wrote:

CaptiVision Photography wrote:

As a photographer AND security guard, I have some answers for you.

First as people mentioned, photography gear can be a hazard. Tripods, light stands, cords, etc can all just be an accident waiting to happen. That stuff isn't allowed for safety reasons unless for uses permited through a permit.

Secondly, as security, we are there to protect the property and patrons on the property. When security sees a camera, their first thought isn't photography, it's privacy and safety. That person could be taking pictures of children or They could also be staking out a store to rob.

Really? As a photographer you are falling for that tired old nag?

1: What is the harm in photographing children. Please be specific regarding exactly how a child is harmed by being photographed?

2: If a person is scoping a place out to burglarize, bomb or any other malicious act, wouldn't logic dictate that said person is going to attempt to be stealthy so as not to draw attention to themselves?

I can see a brain dead security guard who is too dumb to work at McDonalds falling for it, but a photographer?

Really?

Big cameras also have a tendency to make people uncomfortable, and a lot of times we have to tell them to stop because we get complaints from shoppers about it.

This is a logical reason.

Logic to you and logic to someone else can differ very much.

By your own logic, everyone who photographs children is a pedophile who must be stopped.

If paying customers are upset by the actions of a person, it is logical for the business owner to end that person's activities, whatever they are, before it becomes bad for business.

-- hide signature --

Always remember, whenever you declare someone the dumbest person on Earth, someone else will stare at their screen intently, cross their arms and say ‘Challenge accepted’.

Dylan Johnson
Dylan Johnson Regular Member • Posts: 143
Re: Professional equipment is not allowed in malls?

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Apparently I touched a nerve. My point being that taking picture of random children in the mall may not be illegal but its still not okay, and the tantrum you just had was pretty uncalled for as well. I was simply pointing out what security has to watch for, simple as that, and the example I used of a pedophile is the main reason they have to watch for these things.

I take it you're one of the people who sit in malls and take pictures of kids since you're pretty insistent on defending the people who do, which is really creepy if you ask me, but to each his own.

No nerves touched. I'm simply tired of close-minded people like you who insist on thinking something as innocent as taking a picture of a child into something sinister and ugly. You folks have warped minds, the lot of you.

And no, I've never sat in a mall taking pictures of children. My interests lie elsewhere. But when I see someone at the mall with a camera, I don't instantly think pedophile. Talk about creepy. It feels like you're overcompensating for something, Dylan Johnson.

Not really sure what that means but okay. Sorry I have enough respect to ask permission first. Just because you're a photographer doesn't mean you're intitled to take a picture of whatever you want. Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it's not disrespectful.
--
Canon 50d gripped, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, 50mm f1.8, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 430ex II, Carry Speed FS Pro Sling Strap

IMO, asking permission would be the move a pedophile would make. After all, the pedophile wants to get close to the child, doesn't he? The random guy just taking pictures only has pictures, but the guy who asks permission gets to meet the child, talk to the child, perhaps pose the child, touch the child.

Would I be wrong in jumping to the conclusion that you, Dylan Johnson, are a pedophile because you walked up to me and asked permission to take a picture of my kid?

See Dylan? We can all play these logic games.

And again, that's your opinion, I'm more respectful than that. That's just who I am. Being a father myself, I would rather have someone ask permission to take a picture of my son than try and do it without me noticing.
--
Canon 50d gripped, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, 50mm f1.8, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 430ex II, Carry Speed FS Pro Sling Strap

No, it's not my opinion. Sheesh... you're dense as a boulder. I was purposely being facetious to illustrate my point that you shouldn't be jumping to wild conclusions just because because someone takes a picture of a kid.

That's not my conclusion. This all started because I said security has to watch for that type of thing. Personally myself I would rather ask permission first, that's just me. That doesn't mean I think people taking pictures of kids are pediphiles, but it does happen, and I would just rather have permission from a parent to take a picture of their child because that's what I'd want. I personally - IMO - think its wrong to take pictures of kids without permission.
--
Canon 50d gripped, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, 50mm f1.8, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 430ex II, Carry Speed FS Pro Sling Strap

And that's fine, but don't imply that we all should follow your rules and to not do so is indicative of some kind of sinister motive.  There are plenty of good and decent people who might take the picture and not ask for permission.

I don't think that anyone who doesn't ask for permission is a pedophile. I never said that. I've said a lot that it's just my opinion
--
Canon 50d gripped, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, 50mm f1.8, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 430ex II, Carry Speed FS Pro Sling Strap

 Dylan Johnson's gear list:Dylan Johnson's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art
Dylan Johnson
Dylan Johnson Regular Member • Posts: 143
Re: Professional equipment is not allowed in malls?

Dylan Johnson wrote:

So if you and your 6 year old daughter are out shopping and there's someone with a big camera following you around taking pictures of your daughter, you would be perfectly fine with that? Who knows where these pictures are ending up? You don't know if that person is a pediphile or not. That's why security has to take those precautions.

You are avoiding the question.

Let me ask again: What is the harm in photographing children? Please be specific regarding exactly how a child (or anyone else, for that matter) is harmed by being photographed?

It's not the act of taking a picture of a kid that's harmful, but it's what some people might do with the photo after. I'm not saying everyone is a pedophile just because you don't ask for permission, I'm saying that you don't know, that's the thing.
--
Canon 50d gripped, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, 50mm f1.8, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 430ex II, Carry Speed FS Pro Sling Strap

 Dylan Johnson's gear list:Dylan Johnson's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art
Wheatfield
Wheatfield Veteran Member • Posts: 6,297
Re: Professional equipment is not allowed in malls?

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Apparently I touched a nerve. My point being that taking picture of random children in the mall may not be illegal but its still not okay,

It may not be OK because of mall rules, but it stops there. If something isn't illegal, it is, by definition okay.

Laws do NOT permit us freedoms. Laws, again by definition, tell us what we cannot do.

and the tantrum you just had was pretty uncalled for as well.

He made a very good point.

I was simply pointing out what security has to watch for, simple as that, and the example I used of a pedophile is the main reason they have to watch for these things.

You have fallen for security theater hook line and sinker, it seems.

I take it you're one of the people who sit in malls and take pictures of kids since you're pretty insistent on defending the people who do, which is really creepy if you ask me, but to each his own.

Talking about uncalled for tantrums, pedo-boy.

-- hide signature --

Always remember, whenever you declare someone the dumbest person on Earth, someone else will stare at their screen intently, cross their arms and say ‘Challenge accepted’.

Wheatfield
Wheatfield Veteran Member • Posts: 6,297
Re: Professional equipment is not allowed in malls?

Dylan Johnson wrote:

I'm also not in the mood or have any interest in fighting with you about your beliefs on taking pictures of children. If you do that, fine, I don't care. Personally, I would never take pictures of children without permission from their parent, but that's just me. And like I said, from a security stand point, that's something they look for because it does happen, regardless if you think its right or wrong to take pictures of kids, pedophiles do exist.

So do axe murderers. Are you worried about them, too?

-- hide signature --

Always remember, whenever you declare someone the dumbest person on Earth, someone else will stare at their screen intently, cross their arms and say ‘Challenge accepted’.

Dylan Johnson
Dylan Johnson Regular Member • Posts: 143
Re: Professional equipment is not allowed in malls?

Dylan Johnson wrote:

So if you and your 6 year old daughter are out shopping and there's someone with a big camera following you around taking pictures of your daughter, you would be perfectly fine with that? Who knows where these pictures are ending up? You don't know if that person is a pediphile or not. That's why security has to take those precautions.

You are avoiding the question.

Let me ask again: What is the harm in photographing children? Please be specific regarding exactly how a child (or anyone else, for that matter) is harmed by being photographed?

You yourself might be an honest photographer taking a candid picture of a kid just for the sheer joy of seeing a happy kid, you go and put that picture on your website, or upload it somewhere else, now you've displayed that picture for god knows who to see. Again, I'm not saying you yourself are a pedophile, or taking a picture of a kid without permission is wrong, I'm just saying I like to have all my basses covered by getting permission for taking that picture and using it on a website or some other form of media.
--
Canon 50d gripped, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM, 50mm f1.8, 18-55 f3.5-5.6, 430ex II, Carry Speed FS Pro Sling Strap

 Dylan Johnson's gear list:Dylan Johnson's gear list
Canon EOS 50D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art
Wheatfield
Wheatfield Veteran Member • Posts: 6,297
Re: Professional equipment is not allowed in malls?
1

Dylan Johnson wrote:

Dylan Johnson wrote:

So if you and your 6 year old daughter are out shopping and there's someone with a big camera following you around taking pictures of your daughter, you would be perfectly fine with that? Who knows where these pictures are ending up? You don't know if that person is a pediphile or not. That's why security has to take those precautions.

You are avoiding the question.

Let me ask again: What is the harm in photographing children? Please be specific regarding exactly how a child (or anyone else, for that matter) is harmed by being photographed?

It's not the act of taking a picture of a kid that's harmful,

So, it isn't harmful to take pictures of children.

but it's what some people might do with the photo after.

I take it you are one of those people who will punish the vast majority of law abiding citizens because of the actions of a very small minority?

Some people get drunk and drive their cars, having accidents and kill people. Are you in favour of taking all the cars off the street? or is going back to the Prohibition era enough.

And what are we going to do about the firearm problem? There is no doubt that they are abused by people, causing other people harm. Are you lobbying to have the Second Amendment repealed so that all the guns can be confiscated?

Drinking and driving and abuse of firearms hurts a heck of a lot more people than pedophiles do, and we haven't even begun to address the fact that pedophiles don't walk into malls and photograph children.

The pedophiles you need to worry about as a parent are your kid's teachers, scout leaders, Priest (if you are Catholic), and other family members. It's a lot more likely that your brother, if you have one, is going to rape your child than some unknown stranger with a camera.

I'm not saying everyone is a pedophile just because you don't ask for permission, I'm saying that you don't know, that's the thing.

And because you don't know, you are prepared to chip away at people's rights. I don't know if you are a pedophile or not, though a google search of your name would seem to indicate that you are one (presuming that you are using your real name). Do you think that because I don't know for sure, I should get in touch with the owners of this website to express my concerns? They can trace your home address via your IP address and have the police come and have a nice little chat with you.

This is the sort of thing that your paranoid psychosis leads to.

-- hide signature --

Always remember, whenever you declare someone the dumbest person on Earth, someone else will stare at their screen intently, cross their arms and say ‘Challenge accepted’.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads