No old cameras allowed I guess...

[wiltw]

The only way discrimination could come into this is if the OP was the only one of a particular ethnicity or religious group who was asked asked to stop. And, given the circumstances, even if that was the case, it would be extremely difficult to prove. There is no legal definition of discrimination against analog vs. digital cameras nor regarding those who use one or the other. This is a clear case of shear ignorance than can easily be cleared up. Most likely, folks will be required to leave their cell phones at the desk.

Wait, 'discrimination' is simply not being treated the same as the other person on the basis of some group, class, or category; not specified as ethnicity or religious group necessarily. Discrimination against film photographers?!
So, if they contend it was 'sheer ignorance' on the part of the guard, then they will need to better educate the security staff; or start to enforce equally. Problem remedied, either way!

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Well, I continue to see smart phone shooters taking photos seemingly without any issues. Then I just took these two photos with my smart phone:




So it must be a "No Rolleiflex TLR" rule...

 

[wiltw]

"Shots across the bow" are probably the best way to drain all the enjoyment from an activity like that.

Everyone is taking my commentary too much as the hard core rights advocate!

The point is to bring up the inequality of their enforcement, so that they address the issue. "Look it even works against me, a volunteer who works in behalf of this organization! I hold no ill will, but the next photographer will not be me, and he or she just might be a young ACLU attorney who pursues a lawsuit against this organization (unlike me) for the inequality of treatment. Photographers with cameras like mine are discriminated against. Those with point and shoots and smartphone cameras meanwhile are ignored by the same organization. THAT is 'discrimination', that could bite this organization in the pants one day!"

 

[winger]

Well, I continue to see smart phone shooters taking photos seemingly without any issues. Then I just took these two photos with my smart phone:

View attachment 101181
View attachment 101182

So it must be a "No Rolleiflex TLR" rule...

That's why I say there likely isn't an actual rule, especially if you didn't see one in the list you were given. Make a stink outside of the meet, but I still say make the stink (and show the photos as evidence).

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

wiltw... While I admire your enthusiasm and deep sense of fairness, that airplane just won't fly. Any lawsuit raised regarding such an argument will crash and burn without ever making it to court. Again, if the OP wants to photograph his son at those swimming meets then he's best off just bringing his cell phone like everyone else. Then, if it's really important to him that he end this silliness he can plead his case to those who will (or won't) listen. I'd suggest he wait until his son no longer competes in those events though... if he wants to continue shooting cell phone pics of him in those events.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

FYI I changed the second photo, got a much better one of the same photographer, who's floating around the whole meet shooting without harassment. And no he's not some official photographer as far as I can tell...

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Well, I continue to see smart phone shooters taking photos seemingly without any issues. Then I just took these two photos with my smart phone:

View attachment 101181
View attachment 101183

So it must be a "No Rolleiflex TLR" rule...

If you're seeing others there shooting with real cameras I'd plead my case to those who control such things. But be aware, if they don't want any cameras there then you may lose the option of using a cell phone just like everyone else. I assume these events occur on private property? Or is this public property? If the latter then maybe... maybe... maybe... it's a freedom-of-speech issue if you want to share your images with others.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I absolutely agree that you have to get back in these people's faces. But make sure you know the rules where you are. If you're right, stick to it. This sort of thing is worse here in Florida, which is a defacto police state, and there is always someone with imagined police powers pointing out what people can and cannot do. I certainly could have been arrested, knowing the cops down here. I was calling the guard's bluff, but just in case, always carry a digital pocket voice recorder to record these sort of confrontations. When you whip one of those things out, people tend to clam up, pronto.

So middle earth is Florida? Not California!

 

[Element 6]

Age discrimination is all around us... I guess it should not be a surprise it applies to cameras too.

 

[ToddB]

That blows! I would of politely said are you going to tell those folks too?

 

[VisualDarkness]

So it must be a "No Rolleiflex TLR" rule...

Maybe they limit the amount of lenses mounted on a camera at a time? Some places here regulate the number of hooks allowed when fishing.

 

[VisualDarkness]

Maybe the argument that "this is the old model of the smartphones over there, it just lacks the phone part" work?

 

[Chan Tran]

You are definitely discriminated because of using a camera that is out of style. It's not so much about no photography but more about you don't go with the flow.

 

[removed account4]

That blows! I would of politely said are you going to tell those folks too?

couldn't agree more !

no point in making threats .. they will scrutinize you more ..

i'd go back when there isn't an event, with your camera
and the cell phone snaps. ask for the person in charge, and say you were told you weren't allowed
to use your camera, but others were, and ask why.

from my limited experience on secure military installations as a site photographer
in private shopping malls / private property as a photojournalist and as a retail schlep
at an establishment that didn't allow photography of any kind ( before cellphones existed )

there are rules and some folks don't follow them, and other people just make up the rules as they want because its a power trip.

 

[Element 6]

In all seriousness, this is a typical bureaucratic interpretation of a rule which is seen more and more in this "zero tolerance" society. Most likely, there is a rule somewhere, which states "no cameras", which probably originated a long time ago due to commercial photography issues at amateur events. However, the spirit of the rule (no commercial photos) has morphed into the letter of the rule. A phone is not a camera, therefore it does not meet the definition of the rule (by the letter). Bureaucracy knows no limits to lack of common sense.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I'll wrap this up from me, at least for today: on my way out towards the end of the meet I asked another orange-vested "marshall" about the ban on cameras (and showed him an online photo of the ancient Rolleiflex I had been using--which was now in my car) and how there's DSLR's firing away let alone all the smart phones. He looked at me and said, "Who told you that? I don't know of any rules against photography!", so we may have had ourselves a renegade marshall who first tsk tsk'd me (who I could not longer find, his shift might have been over for the day).....I'll be writing an email to one of the person's who run this meet and see what more I can find out.....

 

[ambaker]

Your camera was seen as a camera. Phones contain cameras, but are not seen as such by today's generation.

Google Glass is banned, but cell phones are not, in a local establishment. Both are capable of the same thing, but everyone has a phone so they are not seen as a threat. We can't ban everyone, we can ban the few with a camera.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[hoffy]

As I read this thread, I am sitting watching my daughters roller skating at the local rec centre.

As you walk through the door, I counted at least three signs clearing stating 'No Video or Photography'. Obviously, the half a dozen mothers I have seen snapping away with there phones are blind, illiterate or plain ignorant....actually, I'd put it down to the latter.

While 'its just a phone', its amazing the clarity and detail you can get, especially when the intent is to share online.

As for me......well, it did cross my mind to load some Hp5+ and push a roll to 1600, but in the end its about my girls having fun, not me getting some shots, so the camera stayed home.

Richard, you did the right thing today, but it is most certainly worth the follow up. In the end, I suspect you won't just be allowed, I'd say you'd just about be encouraged to use your TLR. Well, that's what I'm hoping for anyway!

 

[Nodda Duma]

As I read this thread, I am sitting watching my daughters roller skating at the local rec centre.

As you walk through the door, I counted at least three signs clearing stating 'No Video or Photography'. Obviously, the half a dozen mothers I have seen snapping away with there phones are blind, illiterate or plain ignorant....actually, I'd put it down to the latter.

Or they simply ignored it for the non-sensical rule that it is. I'd say that's common sense, not ignorance.

99 times out of 100 no one will bother you in those situations. If they ask you to stop, mutter an apology and put the camera away.

 

[hoffy]

Until one person complains, I get booted and spoil a fine afternoon with my kids...... I don't need to have photographic evidence of every moment of my Childrens life.

 

[Nodda Duma]

It is my opinion that if the facility were to boot you for that on a first offense, then it is not a place worth patronizing.

But that is just me and my desire to avoid zero-tolerance policies. YMMV

 

[Terry Christian]

The solution is clear: attach the wheel from a rotary-dial telephone onto the back of your Rollei and call it an antique cellphone.

But seriously, I'd tell that marshal to show me the policy in writing. If he can't, then I'd keep photographing until somebody there can.

 

[blansky]

Or shoot with a Littman and say it's the new big big iPhone.

 

[gleaf]

Do you really want to volunteer to help an organization that treats you that way or allows you to be treated that way? If I am treated badly at a venue I never return. Officials are in limited supply and it is a form of reasonableness enforcement.

 

[moose10101]

Do you really want to volunteer to help an organization that treats you that way or allows you to be treated that way?

If that's where his son wants or needs to go to compete, it's likely that he does want to continue to volunteer. That was the purpose of being there; taking photos was a secondary consideration, probably by a wide margin.