Jimmy Liew
New Member
most of the shows for the opening festival are actually quite affordable...ie if u bothered to take a look. 
Rules for the Esplanade?
- Thread starter rumraisin
- Start date
- Status
StreetShooter
Senior Member
I was there yesterday. As I walked around with my camera slung on my neck, eagle-eyed security men in black T-shirts watched my every move, with arms crossed. I'm sure if I so much as brought my hands to my camera, I would have been gunned down by an Uzi.
I was thinking how ironic it was that in a temple dedicated to the arts, I was forbidden from practising my art of street photography.
Oh well, welcome to Singapore.
I was thinking how ironic it was that in a temple dedicated to the arts, I was forbidden from practising my art of street photography.
Oh well, welcome to Singapore.
I went with my parents on the 2nd day of opening. I had my big SLR with grip and a 28-70 slung around my neck. Not long after I entered, a security guard politely reminded me that no photography is allowed. I said ok.
Walked around the place, discreetly took a few shots, was not stopped. heh. Others were shooting with their P&S. Rooftop terrace was not open.
Next thing to try: Shooting in the concert hall, when I attend one of the concerts. A Coolpix 950 is as quiet as it can get (more so than some German cameras), no one should notice.
There's always a certain thrill in defying "no photography" rules. As can be seen from this pic by street master Red Dawn:
Regards
CK
Actually, I mean I agree that it sucks, but I can see why they do it. They don't want people to take photos of the building to sell for their own profit, as postcards or whatever. There's prob a "copyright" also on the installations inside the building. So they just impose this blanket thing where no photography is allowed at all.
It's like a common practice. Shopping centres are equally unfriendly. Hotels too. Perhaps they think they paid so much money for the interior decor, they can't let everyone take home photos of it just like that.
And did you know that you're not allowed to sell photos you took of the Eiffel Tower, if they're taken after 7pm? The govt prob wants to keep the copyright of the image of Eiffel Tower when it's lit up.
It's like a common practice. Shopping centres are equally unfriendly. Hotels too. Perhaps they think they paid so much money for the interior decor, they can't let everyone take home photos of it just like that.
And did you know that you're not allowed to sell photos you took of the Eiffel Tower, if they're taken after 7pm? The govt prob wants to keep the copyright of the image of Eiffel Tower when it's lit up.
E
elsanto
Guest
Can't they simply do a "can't sell" campaign instead of a "can't shoot" ?? There's a big difference you know... Darn. Anyway, I went in to the concert hall, theater, all around, and had pics of in, discretly of course.
Just before I left (after I had shot up a whole roll), I flashed a shot (50mm f1.9 with flash) at the security guard to spite him, cheez, mann... is he fierce or what, he and his dear friend slammed me against a wall, radioed for backup, frisked me, took my cam, fumbling with it, opened it up...
only to find that there's no film in it.
Tsk tsk...
Just before I left (after I had shot up a whole roll), I flashed a shot (50mm f1.9 with flash) at the security guard to spite him, cheez, mann... is he fierce or what, he and his dear friend slammed me against a wall, radioed for backup, frisked me, took my cam, fumbling with it, opened it up...
only to find that there's no film in it.
Tsk tsk...
That's one of the most stupid things I've ever heard people done (you, not the security guard). What were you thinking? You just reinforce the fact that photographers can't follow instructions. If you're unhappy about the rules, write in. There isn't a need to break the rules on purpose to cheese people off. With the climate in Singapore right now, you might as well carry a sign saying that, "There's a huge bomb in my camera bag, and if you don't allow me to take pictures, I'll set it off." If you were looking for sympathy or outrage from me here, sorry, you aren't getting any. You probably got what you deserved.
well, one thing is that, when you act you need to know what you represents all photographers.
if you are nice and cooporatetive with venues/rules/etc.. etc... people will learn to trust photographers.
but if you go and piss people off, you've just did a diservice to all photographers, next time they will just get tougher with photograpers....ALL THE REST OF US
if you are nice and cooporatetive with venues/rules/etc.. etc... people will learn to trust photographers.
but if you go and piss people off, you've just did a diservice to all photographers, next time they will just get tougher with photograpers....ALL THE REST OF US
Probaby precisely because of such behaviour that they enforce such a band in the first place. Most notably people who use flash in concerts and other places. And rather than try to enforce a "no flash photography" rule, which is rather difficult, they might as well do a blanket ban on photography altogether.
Regards
CK
E
elsanto
Guest
Uh-oh... i smell some conflicts in here. Hey, peace guys, no needo get violent.
I ain't lookin for no sympathy, just in case you did not get the well.. erm.. moral of the story I'm trying to put across?
Further more, the post was posted with a sense of humor, if you have not felt it? I feel sad for you.
I did not use flash for all my shots in there if that's a concern, and there is no need to either, flash will spoil my composition even if it does not disturb people, and well, regarding purposely violating the rule, you can blame me if u want, it's my action and i confess it, the point i'm trying to put across here, is the strictness of them guards.
as well as the following quote which no one seemed to notice...
"Can't they simply do a "can't sell" campaign instead of a "can't shoot" ?? There's a big difference you know... Darn."
=)
I ain't lookin for no sympathy, just in case you did not get the well.. erm.. moral of the story I'm trying to put across?
Further more, the post was posted with a sense of humor, if you have not felt it? I feel sad for you.
I did not use flash for all my shots in there if that's a concern, and there is no need to either, flash will spoil my composition even if it does not disturb people, and well, regarding purposely violating the rule, you can blame me if u want, it's my action and i confess it, the point i'm trying to put across here, is the strictness of them guards.
as well as the following quote which no one seemed to notice...
"Can't they simply do a "can't sell" campaign instead of a "can't shoot" ?? There's a big difference you know... Darn."
=)
E
elsanto
Guest
And no, it's a film SLR... I was aware of the degree of risk involved thus removed the film prior to the act of defiance.
Again, I ain't looking for support here okay. Relax guys.
Sigh, how a point to put across (in this thread) can be so grossly misunderstooded scares me. *Sweat*
Again, I ain't looking for support here okay. Relax guys.
Sigh, how a point to put across (in this thread) can be so grossly misunderstooded scares me. *Sweat*
The internet is inherently an emotionless medium. What you type is up to the interpretation of the reader to be honest.
About the "Can't they simply do a "can't sell" campaign instead of a "can't shoot" ?? There's a big difference you know... Darn.", like what ckiang said, they've decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater since it's inherently so hard to be policing the place on whether a photographer will shoot the pictures with flash on or without so they just ban it altogether.
About the "Can't they simply do a "can't sell" campaign instead of a "can't shoot" ?? There's a big difference you know... Darn.", like what ckiang said, they've decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater since it's inherently so hard to be policing the place on whether a photographer will shoot the pictures with flash on or without so they just ban it altogether.
E
elsanto
Guest
I did "flash a shot (50mm f1.9 with flash) at the security guard to spite him" without film, will I get mugged for saying this?
*laughs*
Well, it doesn't seems very hard to make it a "no flash photography" as opposed to having "no photography at all" as I do not see the diffculities in making it "no flash photography" when they are capable of having "no photography at all". uh. This is confusing.
=)
*laughs*
Well, it doesn't seems very hard to make it a "no flash photography" as opposed to having "no photography at all" as I do not see the diffculities in making it "no flash photography" when they are capable of having "no photography at all". uh. This is confusing.
=)
Hi
i disagree. Wat's so shocking?
He/she was in a property that is under the security concerns of the management, who hired appropriate guards to take care of those security concerns.
They had signs that say "no photography" and apparently their guards had made clear that they don't allow photography.
Yet he / she openly, blatantly did it IN THEIR FACE without respect.
If someone comes to your house (private property), and plucks a friut from your tree in your private garden despite your protests and despite signs hanging in your garden saying "no taking of fruits", would u not confront the person?
i know i said here before that i feel as long as i am not doing anything malicious, i find no harm in taking photos anywhere - MRTs, bookstores, mosques, churches, shopping malls, anywhere....
Yet when and if caught and requested to stop, i do stop.
Respect is key to gaining favour
i can come back again and try to be more discreet in shooting, or i request permission from the proper authorities, but i never argue with the management. it doesn't help matters and won't get you anywhere.
i have a real life example to relate. i'll start a new thread on this...
- Status
Similar threads
