Photographers are freaking annoying.

[mjhoward]

If you stand back and work with long glass you get the shot and not punched in the face.

I think one problem is, alot of people just won't spend the cash to get the equipment needed to do the job properly and safely.

Would that be the Fire Department in this case? We've already got a post saying they wanted OP to be their Photographer and wont spend the money on anything but a point and shoot. Will the OP be the one getting in the other firefighters' way and annoying them now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLOwQImdmsY

 

[jake337]

If you stand back and work with long glass you get the shot and not punched in the face.

I think one problem is, alot of people just won't spend the cash to get the equipment needed to do the job properly and safely.

Would that be the Fire Department in this case? We've already got a post saying they wanted OP to be their Photographer and wont spend the money on anything but a point and shoot. Will the OP be the one getting in the other firefighters' way and annoying them now?

Just speaking in a general way...

 

[imagemaker46]

No. I'll take it even further. Nearly all photographers are annoying. They all either think they're gods gift to the art world, or they hate art to the extent that they visually regurgitate the same images of half dome endlessly and not even bother to comment about, or even berate those who try to do anything else.

I don't believe that all photographers are annoying, some do believe they are a god on earth with a camera. As a photographer I can be more grumpy than annoying, I believe in the abilities I have using a camera. I think you have issues within your own personal life that have caused you to become unpopular within the tiny mind you possess. You are probably a facebook, forum joiner, and whatever else comes along in search of artifical friends that you can complain to, when in the real world these same people don't care who you are and are willing to add you to their friend list in order to chase a larger number of facebook friends, that if invited wouldn't show up to virtual party hosted by you offering free beer and women.

You sure can draw a lot of conclusions about me from a half paragraph rant. But I think that my post has more to do with the fact that people on this forum and those like it cannot muster even a single comment on a photograph unless it's of ducks or sunsets or yet another lonely road disappearing to the horizon. If it's outside a cliche, it seems to be a mystery to you fancy snappers, and you're left spouting mental error codes! Bitter, maybe. But at least I'm trying.


And seriously guys, save the cutesy graphics for 4chan.

I personally don't have the time to look at every single image that is posted on this forum, I occationally make comments on the photos, if I like it I may or may not say anything. I don't comment on bad photos. I offer suggestions if I believe it needs one.

When I read "nearly all photographers are annoying" that helped me draw a conclusion about you from five words, I didn't need the paragraph. Being as 99% of the people on this forum are amateurs, many don't have the experience or photographic skills to offer any helpful suggestions for fear of being dumped on by people like you. These are the people that shoot pictures of flowers, birds, dogs and cats, so they will comment on what they like.

 

[imagemaker46]

I think one problem is, alot of people just won't spend the cash to get the equipment needed to do the job properly and safely.

Would that be the Fire Department in this case? We've already got a post saying they wanted OP to be their Photographer and wont spend the money on anything but a point and shoot. Will the OP be the one getting in the other firefighters' way and annoying them now?

Just speaking in a general way...

This is true, I shoot sports so I need longer faster lenses than most would consider buying. Lots of people do buy 200mm-300mm and I think it's a great idea to have a decent long lens. Everything has become "in your face" now, it started years ago but getting worse with camera phones, etc. I just prefer to stand way back, do my thing without bothering people or getting in the way, it's how I learned to shoot, it's how I shoot sports, and from a safety issue, it applies to sports as well.

 

[Destin]

If you stand back and work with long glass you get the shot and not punched in the face.

I think one problem is, alot of people just won't spend the cash to get the equipment needed to do the job properly and safely.

Would that be the Fire Department in this case? We've already got a post saying they wanted OP to be their Photographer and wont spend the money on anything but a point and shoot. Will the OP be the one getting in the other firefighters' way and annoying them now?

‪Seinfeld- Heckler ruins Jerry's show‬‏ - YouTube

Funny, if you read that thread properly, you'll see that my department wont buy more than a point and shoot, and they wont let me use my camera. I happen to have a D80 and a 70-200 2.8, which, last I checked, is more than adequate to get the needed shots and stay out of the way, if they would let me.

I refused to use their point and shoot, because of the fact that I would have to be right on top of the scene, and because it takes CRAPPY photos.

Get your facts straight next time. Your acting like I'm trying to hide that thread or something. I could care less, I have nothing to hide, look through it as much as you want. While your at it, facebook stalk me and run a background check. You won't find anything.

 

[skieur]

All I'm saying, us that when a photographer is within ten feet of a car, where we are performing extensive extrication, he has no need to be there. Even if it's only because he is putting his own life at risk because he doesn't have the proper protective clothing on.

To make it clear, when we close a road down, it is no longer publicly accesible and therefore we have EVERY right to tell the photographer to get off of our accident scene because he is endangering himself, and getting in the way of our life saving operations. I have absolutely no issue with them coming in once the victims are extrcicated and gone, and we are just cleaning up.

You think I'm on a bad power trip? Funny, I feel the same way about photographers who feel the need to exert their so called "rights" to the extreme. Let me make it clear: while emergency crews are on scene at ANY incident they were called to, that have EVERY right to throw out ANYONE they feel is getting in their way. Ive seen my chief throw a sheriff out because he was interfering with us doing our job.

When it comes down to it, the rescue crew doing their job is hand down more important than a newspaper having good photos. Would you rather have a victim live and you miss a photo, or the victim die and you get a good photo? If you choose the latter you are a sick, sick person.

Photojournalists can do their job just fine from 100-200 feet away and that's all there is to it. They have zero reason to get so close that we are having to walk around them to get back to our fire truck to get a tool.

Legally photojournalists have a right to be at an accident scene and certainly closer than 100 feet away as long as they are not in the way of firefighters doing their job and implying that photographers are in the way if they are closer than 100 to 200 feet from the scene is patently a great stretch in imagination and spin that would be tough to prove in court.

On the other hand, case law has shown that a victim has an expectation to privacy while being attened to by a paramedic etc., even if he/she is in a public place. So photos of the firefighting, rescue efforts, police or firefighters are O.K. but when it comes to victims, it may depend on the particular details of the shot.

skieur

 

[Destin]

All I'm saying, us that when a photographer is within ten feet of a car, where we are performing extensive extrication, he has no need to be there. Even if it's only because he is putting his own life at risk because he doesn't have the proper protective clothing on.

To make it clear, when we close a road down, it is no longer publicly accesible and therefore we have EVERY right to tell the photographer to get off of our accident scene because he is endangering himself, and getting in the way of our life saving operations. I have absolutely no issue with them coming in once the victims are extrcicated and gone, and we are just cleaning up.

You think I'm on a bad power trip? Funny, I feel the same way about photographers who feel the need to exert their so called "rights" to the extreme. Let me make it clear: while emergency crews are on scene at ANY incident they were called to, that have EVERY right to throw out ANYONE they feel is getting in their way. Ive seen my chief throw a sheriff out because he was interfering with us doing our job.

When it comes down to it, the rescue crew doing their job is hand down more important than a newspaper having good photos. Would you rather have a victim live and you miss a photo, or the victim die and you get a good photo? If you choose the latter you are a sick, sick person.

Photojournalists can do their job just fine from 100-200 feet away and that's all there is to it. They have zero reason to get so close that we are having to walk around them to get back to our fire truck to get a tool.

Legally photojournalists have a right to be at an accident scene and certainly closer than 100 feet away as long as they are not in the way of firefighters doing their job and implying that photographers are in the way if they are closer than 100 to 200 feet from the scene is patently a great stretch in imagination and spin that would be tough to prove in court.

On the other hand, case law has shown that a victim has an expectation to privacy while being attened to by a paramedic etc., even if he/she is in a public place. So photos of the firefighting, rescue efforts, police or firefighters are O.K. but when it comes to victims, it may depend on the particular details of the shot.

skieur

Right. Legally the photojournalist does have the right. However, and I'm only speaking legally here, the IC (incident commander) who is in most cases a Fire Chief, can tell ANYONE they are not allowed on the scene, for pretty much whatever reason he decides. It's his scene, and he controls all aspects of it. I'm not saying the photog doesn't have the right, just that the Chief's call overrides the photojournalists right in this case, because the Chief is in control of a life safety operation.

My chief's new policy, is that we don't allow members of the media in until the scene is stabilized and secure, meaning that the victims are extricated and en route to a medical facility, and/or the fire is out, etc. Basically, once our life safety role is done, he will allow media inside of our perimeter to take photos/video. May not make the media happy, but we've had issues with them, and this is how he's taking care of it. It's his call to make.

 

[mjhoward]

I think one problem is, alot of people just won't spend the cash to get the equipment needed to do the job properly and safely.

Would that be the Fire Department in this case? We've already got a post saying they wanted OP to be their Photographer and wont spend the money on anything but a point and shoot. Will the OP be the one getting in the other firefighters' way and annoying them now?

‪Seinfeld- Heckler ruins Jerry's show‬‏ - YouTube

Funny, if you read that thread properly, you'll see that my department wont buy more than a point and shoot, and they wont let me use my camera. I happen to have a D80 and a 70-200 2.8, which, last I checked, is more than adequate to get the needed shots and stay out of the way, if they would let me.

I refused to use their point and shoot, because of the fact that I would have to be right on top of the scene, and because it takes CRAPPY photos.

Get your facts straight next time. Your acting like I'm trying to hide that thread or something. I could care less, I have nothing to hide, look through it as much as you want. While your at it, facebook stalk me and run a background check. You won't find anything.

I've got my facts straight. You act as if I was 'attacking' you, I made a point against your FD, not you. Someone stated that 'people just won't spend the cash to get the equipment needed to do the job properly and safely', which was more than likely directed at the photojournalists. The point I was making, was that perhaps the Fire Department is ALSO not willing to spend the money on the proper equipment to get that portion of the job done 'properly and safely'. You just re-enforced my point by reiterating that the FD wouldn't get you anything more than the point and shoot they already had and wouldn't allow you to use your own equipment. What does it matter what equipment you have, if you're not allowed to use it while photographing on the job with them? Wether or not it would literally be YOU shooting for the FD and getting in everyone's way was beside the point. 19 year olds get it. Facebook stalk you? Are you still in High School?

 

[Destin]

I've got my facts straight. You act as if I was 'attacking' you, I made a point against your FD, not you. Someone stated that 'people just won't spend the cash to get the equipment needed to do the job properly and safely', which was more than likely directed at the photojournalists. The point I was making, was that perhaps the Fire Department is ALSO not willing to spend the money on the proper equipment to get that portion of the job done 'properly and safely'. You just re-enforced my point by reiterating that the FD wouldn't get you anything more than the point and shoot they already had and wouldn't allow you to use your own equipment. What does it matter what equipment you have, if you're not allowed to use it while photographing on the job with them? Wether or not it would literally be YOU shooting for the FD and getting in everyone's way was beside the point. 19 year olds get it. Facebook stalk you? Are you still in High School?

Haha alright, sorry for the confusion on that then. My fire chief and board of
Directors just won't spend the money on it because our job is to save lives/property, not take photos of it. I agree with them totally. The photos only get used for our annual slideshow and occasionally for documentation purposes (license plate/vin numbers, etc, for filling out paperwork later. So quality photos aren't a concern to them. I've come to agree with them new as time goes on.

And haha, no but I'm on Facebook as is most everyone else. I worded it like that because... That's just simply what it is. Employers do it. Law enforcement does it. Creepy ex girlfriends do it.... You get the point... Lol

 

[Rekd]

a Fire Chief, can tell ANYONE they are not allowed on the scene, for pretty much whatever reason he decides.

I snorted. :lmao:

 

[Destin]

a Fire Chief, can tell ANYONE they are not allowed on the scene, for pretty much whatever reason he decides.

I snorted. :lmao:

I'm not saying I agree with it. I mean, I do, if the Chief keeps a level head and doesn't abuse the power, because he needs to be able to control the area. Most chiefs in my county are good about this, and only throw people off if they are doing something pretty stupid. It's just the way it is. Like I said, I've seen a Sheriff thrown off of our scene. It's a rapidly changing enviroment in which the Chief doesn't have time to waste trying not to piss people off.

 

[Rekd]

I think you're misreading something here Sport...

The Chief does, on occasion, "throw people out". But it's not because he is "keeping a level head", it's because he is pretty limited as to throwing people out for "whatever reason he decides".

As for a Sheriff's Deputy getting tossed, doesn't surprise me one bit. If anyone spends some time next to a scanner and monitors the different departments when they interact on the scene you'll find a glorious abundance of "RAWR!" from all parties involved. It's hard to catch, but if you get a chance to see it in real life it's even better. :greenpbl:

 

[skieur]

All I'm saying, us that when a photographer is within ten feet of a car, where we are performing extensive extrication, he has no need to be there. Even if it's only because he is putting his own life at risk because he doesn't have the proper protective clothing on.

To make it clear, when we close a road down, it is no longer publicly accesible and therefore we have EVERY right to tell the photographer to get off of our accident scene because he is endangering himself, and getting in the way of our life saving operations. I have absolutely no issue with them coming in once the victims are extrcicated and gone, and we are just cleaning up.

You think I'm on a bad power trip? Funny, I feel the same way about photographers who feel the need to exert their so called "rights" to the extreme. Let me make it clear: while emergency crews are on scene at ANY incident they were called to, that have EVERY right to throw out ANYONE they feel is getting in their way. Ive seen my chief throw a sheriff out because he was interfering with us doing our job.

When it comes down to it, the rescue crew doing their job is hand down more important than a newspaper having good photos. Would you rather have a victim live and you miss a photo, or the victim die and you get a good photo? If you choose the latter you are a sick, sick person.

Photojournalists can do their job just fine from 100-200 feet away and that's all there is to it. They have zero reason to get so close that we are having to walk around them to get back to our fire truck to get a tool.

Legally photojournalists have a right to be at an accident scene and certainly closer than 100 feet away as long as they are not in the way of firefighters doing their job and implying that photographers are in the way if they are closer than 100 to 200 feet from the scene is patently a great stretch in imagination and spin that would be tough to prove in court.

On the other hand, case law has shown that a victim has an expectation to privacy while being attened to by a paramedic etc., even if he/she is in a public place. So photos of the firefighting, rescue efforts, police or firefighters are O.K. but when it comes to victims, it may depend on the particular details of the shot.

skieur

Right. Legally the photojournalist does have the right. However, and I'm only speaking legally here, the IC (incident commander) who is in most cases a Fire Chief, can tell ANYONE they are not allowed on the scene, for pretty much whatever reason he decides. It's his scene, and he controls all aspects of it. I'm not saying the photog doesn't have the right, just that the Chief's call overrides the photojournalists right in this case, because the Chief is in control of a life safety operation.

My chief's new policy, is that we don't allow members of the media in until the scene is stabilized and secure, meaning that the victims are extricated and en route to a medical facility, and/or the fire is out, etc. Basically, once our life safety role is done, he will allow media inside of our perimeter to take photos/video. May not make the media happy, but we've had issues with them, and this is how he's taking care of it. It's his call to make.

Legally, the incident commander or chief has the responsibility for the resources and staff under his command at the scene and perhaps related staff from other departments and services depending on the situation. However this does NOT extend to the media or the general public.

Any decision by the IC regarding the presence of the media and the general public must be directly safety related and I would predict that most courts would say that your chief has stretched his "authority" too far if he is waiting for the fire to be out and the victims on route to the hospital. In my area, this would bring about a court case very quickly on the rights of the press at an incident that affects the general public.

skieur

 

[unpopular]

I don't believe that all photographers are annoying, some do believe they are a god on earth with a camera. As a photographer I can be more grumpy than annoying, I believe in the abilities I have using a camera. I think you have issues within your own personal life that have caused you to become unpopular within the tiny mind you possess. You are probably a facebook, forum joiner, and whatever else comes along in search of artifical friends that you can complain to, when in the real world these same people don't care who you are and are willing to add you to their friend list in order to chase a larger number of facebook friends, that if invited wouldn't show up to virtual party hosted by you offering free beer and women.

You sure can draw a lot of conclusions about me from a half paragraph rant. But I think that my post has more to do with the fact that people on this forum and those like it cannot muster even a single comment on a photograph unless it's of ducks or sunsets or yet another lonely road disappearing to the horizon. If it's outside a cliche, it seems to be a mystery to you fancy snappers, and you're left spouting mental error codes! Bitter, maybe. But at least I'm trying.


And seriously guys, save the cutesy graphics for 4chan.

I personally don't have the time to look at every single image that is posted on this forum, I occationally make comments on the photos, if I like it I may or may not say anything. I don't comment on bad photos. I offer suggestions if I believe it needs one.

When I read "nearly all photographers are annoying" that helped me draw a conclusion about you from five words, I didn't need the paragraph. Being as 99% of the people on this forum are amateurs, many don't have the experience or photographic skills to offer any helpful suggestions for fear of being dumped on by people like you. These are the people that shoot pictures of flowers, birds, dogs and cats, so they will comment on what they like.

What exactly makes you think I'd "dump" on people? I might disagree, and voice this disagreement to get a better understanding of the critics POV, but this is hardly "dumping" on someone. and I try very hard to make it clear that this isn't my intentions.

The photographs I am talking about aren't amateur shots, and moreover I am discussing the feedback that these images typically receive - endless praise but with very little discussion - and the more cliche'd, the more praise these images receive. I understand that people new to photography do not yet posses the vision, confidence and skill but it's not the clear amateur I am speaking of - it's the feedback that these technically "perfect" visual cliches generally receive.

Photography and photographers I think are in a "dark age" where the same old studies are being regurgitated, and photographers are living vicariously through one another rather than creating anything of artistic or even journalistic importance.

If you don't believe me, take a trip through Yellowstone and observe photographers huddled around one another for the exact same, "award-winning", iconic shot. There is something specifically annoying about this.

 

[unpopular]

But good job insulting the very people you expect to get critique from.

No worries. I already gave up.

Have fun with the ducks!