abaduck

Members
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    579

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by abaduck

  4. Posted

    Were you the one shooting with the Red?

    I'm normally ok with shooting through the glass but wasn't accustomed to such low glass (I'm used to shooting college/semi-pro) and esp through glass with so many puck streaks on it.

    Yeah that was me... just back tonight from some seriously hot shooting in Hawai'i, then off tomorrow afternoon for 4 days shooting in Iceland. Talk about contrast in climates lol!!

    By the time I'm back I won't know what week it is.

    The puck streaks were annoying but not such a big deal... you just open up the lens, reduce your DoF, and the streaks are out of focus and not too obvious. But I was shooting slow-mo at times, 240 to 300 FPS, it looked ok in camera but in post you could really see the flicker from the lights.

    Mike

  11. Posted

    But let's say the person you speak of was guilty but never charged? Or used an "escape" in the legal system? What would that say about that particular leader if it was to come out? And, if requested, should it be public knowledge? Especially if the charge is asssociated with someone who may provide fire education and firehouse tours to children? If it were to come out, what would parents think?

    In this country you are 100% INNOCENT until convicted by a jury. 'guilty but never charged' is an oxymoron. That's the way it is. Like democracy itself, it's sometimes a lousy system - but it's FAR better than any of the alternatives. What do you want? Mob rule? Conviction by accusation? Star chamber? Lynching?

    Mike

    ny10570, billy98988 and johnfire like this

  13. Posted · Edited by abaduck

    As far as it being dilapidated why would you say that ??? it looks well built.. yeah the porches look scarey but from the picture they all look structurely stable and straight...

    Don't forget, I've been inside it... not in great shape, dodgy floors as I recall, and some 'interesting' alterations. Looks not too bad from the outside I grant you, but inside it's not a very pretty picture. I *liked* it - lovely views from those huge wraparound porches, interesting and different - but if I owned it I'd need to spend a lot of money to be comfortable in it.

    Mike

  14. Posted

    HAH!

    I helped a very good friend move out of that very property last winter. On a very icy day. I wasn't sorry to see her out of it...

    Lovely views, interesting property, but yes a nightmare and somewhat dilapidated! That shot is actually looking at the B/C corner; the A side and main entrance is on the street to the right, with access to both the '1st' and '2nd' floors off the street, going up and down, IIRC. Could be an interesting problem to describe where you were in that pile...

    Mike

  17. Posted · Edited by abaduck

    While I completely agree with what you are all saying in regards to training and the sometimes "forgetful or unintentional moves" we sometimes make, there is just no consistency when it comes to how photo's like this are treated while up on here.

    Seth will be along in a moment to correct me if I'm wrong, but I *think* the reason for the apparent inconsistency is we're talking about very different types of photo posts/threads.

    In a thread like this, someone posts a photo or photos as an education/training matter and positively *invites* critique. That's fair enough.

    But there are other threads where fire scene photographers simply post their work, as 'news'. Seth, I think, wants these posts and threads to be off-limits for such criticism/nit-picking - because he wants to encourage fire scene photographers to post their work without fear of people nitpicking the department being photographed to death! That's also fair and sensible in my view.

    So the apparent inconsistency actually makes perfect sense :-)

    Mike

    helicopper, x635 and RescueKujo like this

  18. Posted

    From my experience Con Ed electric line workers would not climb on top of any vehicle to extinguish burning cable insulation, plus they don't wear short sleeved shirts, white fire helmets, or that style hi-vis vest, particularly one that says CHIEF.:-)

    Urk. You have better eyes than I do then; Yes, I thought it was an unusual thing for a ConEd guy to do, but that's who I thought it was - a ConEd supervisor with a white helmet.

    Mike

  19. Posted

    From what I can see, the department are just assisting ConEd. The firefighter in the street is wearing turnout pants, helmet, and vest; which seems appropriate PPE for this type of call.

    The ConEd guy is on the engine (for such it is; appears to be jeans, t-shirt, vest, and white hat)... well it's his electricity system. If he deems it appropriate to deal with the incident in this manner, and requests FD assistance, that's his call.

    Now I'm speculating here, but perhaps he was the first ConEd guy on scene, in an SUV or small van, and decided that the fire needed to be knocked down to minimize damage. He used a little creative thinking and enlisted the help of the FD, as the big ConEd trucks weren't on scene yet?

    That's what it looks like to me, anyway.

    Mike

    Alpinerunner likes this

  20. Posted

    Just a wee follow-up (I know, I know, I never know when to keep my mouth shut)

    Now this video is from the UK, produced by the leading UK photography magazine. but it illustrates perfectly quite a lot of what I was saying above. In it, six photographers go out simply photographing buildings, very openly, from the public street in London. In every single case, they get hassle (and I do mean hassle this time!) of various levels from private security guards, who preposterously mis-state the law, or downright lie about it, on more occasions than I can count. Three of them ended up with security calling the police; in each case the cops were friendly, professional, knew the law, and were quite clear - there was nothing wrong going on, nothing of interest to them, one of them phrased it perfectly: 'you can photograph anything you like from the public street'.

    http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_stopped_in_street_pictures_experiment_news_308762.html?aff=rss

    Some good models there for photographer-cop interactions, and some good examples of the kind of crap we far too often receive from security, property owners, and other officious busybodies who claim laws that don't exist, and powers they don't have.

    Mike

  21. Posted

    If anyone doubts the forces of a forest fire, there is a great book called The Great Hinckley Fire, about a fire over century ago that burned three towns off the map. Folks burst into flames running for their lives and it even overtook a fleeing train. It killed about 400 people. It is seldom discussed because it occurred the same day as the Great Chicago Fire, and everyone focused on that one.

    http://minnesota.pub...5/19/firestorm/

    Just to correct, you're wrong about Great Hinckley. It took place on September 1, 1894. The Chicago fire was on October 8, 1871.

    Interestingly, there were FOUR vast fires in the Illinois/Wisconsin area that occurred virtually simultaneously on that same day, and the Chicago fire, despite its fame, wasn't even the biggest; in terms of area burned and number of fatalities, the Peshtigo fire was much bigger. There's a theory, unproven but reasonably respectable - not lunatic fringe stuff - that all these fires had a common cause, the breakup and impact of a small comet. Abstract: http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMPDC04_865/PV2004_1419.pdf

    Mike

  22. Posted · Edited by abaduck

    mike,

    I read that article and it is written by someone who has no clue about law enforcement or how it works but has no problem telling us how we should do our jobs. There are also many people that post here that feel free to do the same thing.

    I understand what the author was saying but there are many times when the police have no choice in what we do.

    I agree, and I carefully chose this example because it was precisely that kind of situation; the cops had been given a report by the conductor (how accurate or not the report was we don't know, since the conductor clearly had no clue about the law, or even her own Amtrak company rules) and the cops pretty much HAD to act on the basis of that report. Even the writer of the article wasn't especially critical of the cops; it was more about the whole situation and post-9/11 mindset that allowed this kind of event to happen. When you look at the totality of the event - an obviously-innocent tourist being taken off a train and investigated for the non-crime of taking photos from a train - that's what I was wanting people to think about.

    One of the comments on the article DID say, in effect, 'the cops should have told the conductor that there's no law against photography, and don't waste our time with BS reports of non-crimes like this'. Well I'm sorry, one, as I said we don't know exactly what the conductor reported, it may have been exaggerated, and two, whatever was said they had a report from a credible source and would have been going out on a limb if they had decided NOT to investigate.

    I'm trying to be fair here and see things from an LEO point of view; is that a reasonable way to think about the position of the cops in that kind of situation?

    I will give you an example...

    When the pope came to dunwoodie a few years ago the concessions were up the hill from the main viewing area. When the secret service ordered it, we had to close off the main viewing area and not let anyone back in, NO MATTER WHAT. As a result of this many people who were at the concessions at the time of the closing got seperated from their groups. Did I necessarily agree with this, No, but it didnt matter because my job was not to agree, it was to enforce the security procedures that were put in place by the lead agency.

    It's easy to make the cops the bad guys, the fall guy for societys troubles is a role we know well, but as I said before, place blame where it actually belongs - with the animals who attacked us.

    That's slightly different because you weren't investigating or dealing with specific individuals, you were taking actions - enforcing general security procedures in this case - as a result of direct and specific orders that came down your chain of command. I do the same all the time. Anyone who isn't comfortable with THAT shouldn't be part of any of the paramilitary uniformed services!

    The cops are NOT the bad guys here, I've been careful to point that out more than once. It's not just cops. I don't believe it's even mostly cops. Building owners, private security guards, railroad employees, hell even bus drivers - all seem to have some percentage infected with these ridiculous wrongheaded ideas about what it's legal to photograph - ideas which simply didn't exist ten years ago. Those ideas have come from somewhere. Again, to repeat, where cops have been involved in this kind of situation I'm sure that in 99.9% of cases they're doing it with the best of motives, doing their job, believing they're protecting society, and enforcing what they believe the law to be. And that is the *problem*.

    As for the animals, I hate them as much as I did ten years ago. But I'm coming to believe that we may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, and surrendered too much in our attempts to combat them. When I read that Amtrak story, my first thought wasn't "bad cops". It wasn't even "bad conductor". It was "If this kind of thing can happen in AMERICA now, in some important ways, they WON...".

    I refuse to concede that kind of defeat.

    Thanks everyone for keeping this civil and giving considered replies.

    Mike

  23. Posted

    The bottom line is this is the post 9/11 world and you guys have to deal with it....

    In the post 9/11 world you have to use your head... you will be challenged by the police more often than not and your attitude will more than likely mean the difference between being allowed to stay and being being made to leave.

    Crime Cop, I'm tempted to make some comments about giving up liberty in exchange for security, but I think we all know someone already used that line a long time ago :-)

    I'd like you to read this, it's measured and thoughtful, no ranting, it pretty much encapsulates a lot of what I personally feel about the post-9/11 world:

    http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/war_and_peace/every_day_diplomacy.php

    Note that it all starts with an employee (not an LEO) with a totally wrongheaded idea about the law.

    I'm a bit of a naysayer; I don't consent. I push back against the 'post 9/11 world'. Threats are real, but it's all gone a bit too far.

    On the issue of 'attitude' you're totally correct of course, but with respect that goes both both ways. The vast vast vast majority of photographers will be perfectly innocent remember. So be gentle with us, ok? :-) - if a cop approaches me and is friendly but professional they'll get respect and complete co-operation in return. If they come out swinging, giving me the BS 'you can't photograph that!' attitude, then obviously my own attitude will be different.

    Dan, it may be that this hits a little too close to home for your to be objective but I think every law enforcement officer on here will tell you that almost every contact with a violator - from a traffic violator to a mass murderer states that "they did nothing wrong". I'm not suggesting that photographers are in the same category as violent felons so let's not misinterpret taht.

    The public perception that law enforcement officers "need someting to do" is probably as old and frustrating and photographers being asked what they're doing. He was doing his job; that is what he's out there to do. Whether a photographer or a "couple" or a group just hanging out, he probably would have contacted any of you to find out what you were doing there.

    Helicopper, I wouldn't have a problem with being contacted as you describe, and I 100% agree with you on the 'need something to do' point - I think Photounit was wrong there. Photography is NOT normally a suspicious activity, but a friendly contact, just keeping an eye on what's going on in his jurisdiction, whilst at the same time keeping a professional mind open for any signs that this may after all be suspicious, that's great, that's exactly what a cop should be doing. But that is NOT what happened according to the account by Photounit:

    "...and then was told by a NYS Trooper " You should know better" To which I replied "Excuse me? He then went on to tell me it's illegal to photograph bridges and that I of all people (I had a FD shirt on) should know better. He then went on to tell me that there were signs on the bridge all-over forbidding photography and that I needed permission to do what I was doing..."

    That's NOT checking him out to see what he's up to. That's where it all went wrong, and I've heard stories of it going wrong that same way so many times it's depressing.

    Mike

  24. Posted

    So the documented instances of surveillance by criminals and terrorists against government facilities and infrastructure aren't something that law enforcement should be involved with and we're merely hassling photographers?

    There are regulations at military installations, airports, and area bridges and tunnels restricting photography so it is not just urban legend. Is it perhaps misunderstood? Yes, but it is misunderstood by both sides. There are cops who think the blanket prohibition is correct and there are photographers without an ounce of common sense.

    I'll take this one step further. You assert your right to photograph whatever you want and you post your photos of the XYZ bridge or entrances and security measures at the 123 building on your website. Now the bad guys don't even have to do the work, they copy your photos from your website and bingo, they've done their recon.

    Property owners, too, have a right to restrict what you do on their property so security guards and the owners or their agents absolutely have a right to tell you to get lost if you're on their property.

    The link you posted doesn't provide anything more substantive on the subject either.

    Helicopper,

    A few thoughts on this:

    1. You're a law enforcement professional, so I give your comments considerable respect. Please understand that. Having said that...

    2. Surveillance. Does it *never* happen? Only a fool would say 'never'. But I'd be prepared to wager there are damn few documented instances of it, and as far as I know photographic surveillance played no part in ANY of the major international terrorist outrages of recent years. This offers a UK perspective, from the point of view of a senior security professional who also happens to be a photographer: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jun/05/news.terrorism

    3. Military installations. That's one of the few, perhaps the only, exceptions: there ARE laws concerning the photographing OF military installations, from both private and public property. This is pretty well known.

    4. Bridges, tunnels, malls, and other private property: the owners can set rules for people who come on their property. These rules can prohibit photography. Breaking such rules isn't a criminal matter, the most the property owner can do is ask you desist from breaking the rules, and/or leave their property. If you don't comply, then you break the law - it becomes trespass or possibly defiant trespass. But note that it's still a somewhat grey area of the law as to how enforceable such restrictions are, especially on 'public' private property, such as bridges and tunnels; that may well be unconstitutional, I don't believe it's been settled.

    5. Remember, even where property owners restrict photography ON their property, they can NOT restrict photography OF their property, from other locations. I can go along near or under the Whitestone and photograph it as much as I like. A misunderstanding of this point MAY be behind some of the 'urban legend' I alluded to, since many, perhaps most, of the incidents I've heard about concern security and/or LEOs trying to tell people 'you can't photograph xyz, it's against the law' when the photographer is working in the public street.

    6. I don't have a problem with any LEO dealing with suspicious behaviour, that's exactly what they should be doing. But see point 5. above. I can understand someone being approached and spoken too if they are, or appear to be, photographing the details of security cameras, for instance (something I've actually done in the past, by the way, for an essay on the 'surveillance society'!). But all too often, from what I've heard, similar approaches are being made to photographers who are doing nothing to arouse suspicions - composing a general artistic shot which includes the subject. They then get the 'you can't photograph that!' treatment. Again, see Photounit. I've heard a LOT of similar stories.

    7. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently, but I did NOT say cops were 'merely hassling photographers' as you put. I said, very carefully, that they had better things to do than hassle photographers, and that they were proceeding with good intentions - which to me clearly adds up to the opposite of 'hassling', which I would define as making things difficult for no reason other than a dislike of the person being hassled. I amplify and clarify this in 6. above. It's not investigation of suspicious behaviour I object to, it's miscategorizing perfectly innocent behaviour as suspicious I dislike, and most especially the 'urban legend' mis-stating of the law.

    8. Me not being an LEO, I'd be the first to admit I'm not going to be familiar with all the MOs of terrorists, and the threats of the moment. You, not being a pro photographer, likewise probably aren't aware of the scale of this issue, the extent of the problem. It's become a serious issue. Mutual respect and education are called for :-)

    The above is a fair and accurate summary of the situation as I understand it; if anyone feels I'm wrong in any respect, please correct me.

    Mike

  25. Posted

    Good (but very different) responses from Photounit and Crime Cop.

    Guys, as someone who is both a first responder and a semi-pro photographer/cinematographer, I can see both side.

    Yes, the ACLU are bent to the left and I'm not a fan of them. But that doesn't mean they're always or entirely wrong, and for you to dismiss that as 'leftist garbage', Crime Cop, doesn't address a very real issue.

    I'm less concerned with incident scenes and photographing LEOs at work (which have their own special issues; adrenalin is in, scene safety is the first priority, and if I'm close enough to a incident an LEO has to tell me to step back *I* would be one being unprofessional) as I am with the kind of situation Photounit described, where the photographer IS the 'incident'.

    There's a lot of misunderstanding in this area, and I really don't know how it got started. You can dismiss the ACLU, but there are plenty of other organizations, including professional photographers societies and unions (such as the one I'm a member of) who are highlighting this as a very real issue. Maybe you would prefer to hear it from them?

    http://www.nppa.org/member_services/advocacy/

    There IS a serious problem with LEOs, security guards, and all kinds of people, who have someone got the idea it's not OK to photograph bridges... or tunnels or trains or courthouses or federal buildings or factories or airports or... you name it. I have NO idea how this got started, there hasn't been ANY such restriction in this country since at least the second world war, if even then. Yet the 'urban legend' persists and has taken on a life of its own. Hell in this thread, right here, yesterday, we had our own X635 saying it was forbidden to photograph trains in Grand Central, which is *utter BS*.

    There have been a very significant number of stories of bad encounters between photographers and LEOs and security guards and property owners etc. etc. Now I'm not ascribing malice to any of this and I'm NOT (take note) bashing cops. Cops have better things to do than hassle photographers to no purpose whatever, so they're doing it with good intentions, but as I said this wrong-headed urban legend about 'you can't photograph that!' has grown up and seems firmly implanted in many people's minds (see Photounit's story and about 5,000 similar stories!) and seems almost impossible to root out, and I'm frankly unsure of the best way to proceed.

    Mike