Which could also be called a Girl With Camera or a Gorilla with Camera, or even a Green Mountain Stater With Camera.But Man With a Camera is different than Guy With a Camera. You don't want to call a MWC a GWC.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Which could also be called a Girl With Camera or a Gorilla with Camera, or even a Green Mountain Stater With Camera.But Man With a Camera is different than Guy With a Camera. You don't want to call a MWC a GWC.
Which could also be called a Girl With Camera or a Gorilla with Camera, or even a Green Mountain Stater With Camera.But Man With a Camera is different than Guy With a Camera. You don't want to call a MWC a GWC.
Which could also be called a Girl With Camera or a Gorilla with Camera, or even a Green Mountain Stater With Camera.But Man With a Camera is different than Guy With a Camera. You don't want to call a MWC a GWC.
Ohhhh you funny.
View attachment 141389Which could also be called a Girl With Camera or a Gorilla with Camera, or even a Green Mountain Stater With Camera.But Man With a Camera is different than Guy With a Camera. You don't want to call a MWC a GWC.
Ohhhh you funny.
Well it has begun.
Is this a new thing that will be happening across the country and throughout the world? Photographers wont allowed to take photos in public without a expensive permit?
https://petapixel.com/2017/06/09/laguna-beach-requires-100-permit-kind-photo-shoot-public/
This is an absolute joke.
Not at all; the way municipal governments work, it will likely cost them a LOT more to administer that $100 permit than $100. There are two reasons for this sort of thing, for which I am totally in favour.They're just trying to make money. I mean, is $100 really going to stop a wedding/engagement or family portrait shoot? Nope. So it's not to limit traffic. Just a money-making scheme IMO. If it morphs into something more, then I'll be concerned.
Yep. That's taught in Business 101.If there's a permit fee... the client pays it. Plain and simple.
If I have 2 locations, both of which are great for wedding photography, and one charges 100 and the not... guess which I'm picking most often. It will limit traffic. Wont eliminate it, but will limit it. (Assuming they really enforce the rule closely)
Not at all; the way municipal governments work, it will likely cost them a LOT more to administer that $100 permit than $100. There are two reasons for this sort of thing, for which I am totally in favour.They're just trying to make money. I mean, is $100 really going to stop a wedding/engagement or family portrait shoot? Nope. So it's not to limit traffic. Just a money-making scheme IMO. If it morphs into something more, then I'll be concerned.
1. It prevents a public area, meant for the enjoyment of ALL of the public from becoming a free photographer's studio and preventing the public from enjoying it; and
2. If you or I as the photographer are making money from our gig there, why should we be entitled to free use of a space maintained at public expense?
I never shoot in public spaces (unless I know it's permitted) without obtaining permission. If there's a permit fee... the client pays it. Plain and simple.
Yep... a little while I did a team shoot for the local contingent of the Battlefield Bike Ride which is riding to the Vimy memorial this year for the 100th Anniversary. Veteran's Memorial Park in Langford has a miniature of "Mother Canada" and i thought that would be a great backdrop. I called the city, explained what I wanted, quick e-mail with details and everything is good. The day of the shoot, I'm setting up around 7.00 on Sunday morning and who roles up? By-law enforcement (You know, never around when you need them, but at 7.00am on a Sunday...). Asked my name, checked his computer, and all was good... BUT.. had i not done my due diligence... Point being why, when you're going to be blocking a large part of a public, tax-payer funded space, would you think that you DON'T need permission??????Not at all; the way municipal governments work, it will likely cost them a LOT more to administer that $100 permit than $100. There are two reasons for this sort of thing, for which I am totally in favour.They're just trying to make money. I mean, is $100 really going to stop a wedding/engagement or family portrait shoot? Nope. So it's not to limit traffic. Just a money-making scheme IMO. If it morphs into something more, then I'll be concerned.
1. It prevents a public area, meant for the enjoyment of ALL of the public from becoming a free photographer's studio and preventing the public from enjoying it; and
2. If you or I as the photographer are making money from our gig there, why should we be entitled to free use of a space maintained at public expense?
I never shoot in public spaces (unless I know it's permitted) without obtaining permission. If there's a permit fee... the client pays it. Plain and simple.
Amen. It's the out-sized sense of entitlement among some photographers--mostly hacks and wannabes--that makes for the problems. My only beef is iffy enforcement at permitted/pay venues when goofs-with-cameras(new acronym?)get in the way with their "clients." Hard-bitten pros I know who still play by the rules routinely involve law enforcement to clear venues they've paid for of these lice. Suspect it's no different in BC. Big problem around Toronto and its 'burbs.