olivia wrote:
This kind of thing makes me wish that all cameras were banned at BM period.
As a photographer, I can't disagree more with much of the sentiment in this thread. Cries of vigilante retaliation with water guns? I had a friend riding in last year's CT who asked me to take some time out of my burn to photograph her ride, and I declined specifically because the attitude of overzealous riders being expressed here and elsewhere. I don't need someone sabotaging my equipment just because I had my camera pointed in that direction and the paranoid woman next to my friend ASSUMED that I was being a yahoo. In a situation like a parade where there are lots of people going by, only the photographer REALLY knows what he's taking a photo of and what the photo is for, period. It's too bad for my friend, since that was her first and likely last BM, and she missed out on having what will probably be her only CT ride documented. (Having a photograph of something like this might not be important to you personally, but there's a reason why photo albums are one of the most important things many attempt to save when their houses are on fire.)
scarlet_minnow wrote:
No one is going to be hurt; the worst that can happen is someone's camara is damaged. Boo hoo. Use it according to the rules and your camara will be fine.
And what happens when the person next to you not only consents but WANTS her photo taken during the ride, and because of the logistics of the parade YOU are riding into the picture?
By all means, photogs who single out unwilling subjects before the CT ride or continue to photograph those who have clearly refused consent during the parade are violating the photography rules. However, you're making a wild assumption that merely photographing the parade itself is somehow tantamount to not using the camera "according to the rules", especially when many of the participants WANT to be photographed, whether by a designated photographer or by the public in general.
scarlet_minnow wrote:
Don't kid yourself, that 2K lens is probably there to capture professional shots that can later be sold.
That's an awfully broad brush you're painting with. So you think that all the photos in our image gallery were taken by cheap disposable cameras? (Disclosure: I'm on the Burning Man webteam and have images in the image gallery, so I have some personal investment at stake here.)
I lugged well over $10k worth of camera equipment up to the playa this year for a campmate's playa wedding that months in advance I had agreed to shoot, and 10 minutes before the wedding procession was to leave our camp, I had TWO expensive DSLR bodies die from the dust. (Luckily, a frantic last-minute cleaning of various camera openings and battery contacts revived both of them and I was able to shoot the wedding without any further equipment failures.) We photographers already take a LOT of risk and expense bringing our equipment up here for the photos that the rest of you ooh and ahh over long after the event is done; John over at Center Camp Photography has to pay a considerable amount to send out for his medium format gear to be professionally cleaned every year after the event. If I'm at CT shooting a friend/s.o./whatever only to have another rider, misjudging my intentions, taking some poorly-assumed vigilante action just because of where I'm pointing the camera and because of the caliber of my equipment, then I have little doubt that in the heat of the moment I will probably wind up taking some vigilante action of my own in return. Some of us pay the rent with our gear.
Instead of attacking photographers, you can:
* Pull over and ASK what the photographer is doing, who they're shooting, what they're shooting for, etc. Heck, you might even wind up liking their work once you've had a chance to check it out.
* Shake your head no, yell "no photos of me!", or do something similar to make it clear that you do NOT consent to be photographed. Most of us are more than happy to honor that request, and it alerts nearby people to help police any yahoos if they don't put their cameras down.
* Talk to your fellow CT riders and organizers about the photography issue BEFORE you ride. Many don't want to be photographed, but many do, and some even solicit the attention. A healthy exchange of views is almost always a good thing, and during the ride it'll give you some context to gauge reactions by, regardless of whether you fall into the pro- or anti-photography camp. At worst, if none of the nearby riders want to be photographed, you can all watch out for each other against yahoos. ("I shouldn't have to watch out for yahoos" works about as well as "I shouldn't have to lock my bike up when I go pee" -- regardless of your beliefs, the city's grown too big to not take basic precautions.)
* Report tag numbers of photographers who are unambiguously harassing others, or get someone to help you bust untagged cameras. The tagging system is there to protect both those being unwillingly photographed AND to protect rule-abiding photographers from being lumped in with the troublemakers.
* Petition to move CT farther out on the playa and earlier on in the week (say, Tuesday). Sorry for sounding like I'm trying to exclude those who can't arrive earlier, but the later on in the week CT is held and the more of the city CT rides through, the more CT will attract the undesirable elements of the city. There may be thousands of riders in CT, but there are TENS of thousands of OTHER denizens in BRC -- and for many of them, CT is, as Adrian put in an issue of this year's Piss Clear, merely a "boobie barrier" that blocks the path to the porta potties.
* Notify BMORG if you see any CT photos being used inappropriately after the event, or any BM photos of ANY kind being used commercially. You are MUCH less likely to make a mistake doing so than by making broad assumptions about photographers at CT and running the chance of mistakenly crying wolf -- many people with cameras there have friends, partners, spouses, etc. riding in the parade.
Lastly, you're sadly mistaken if you honestly believe that there's a lucrative market out there for "professional shots that can later be sold" of long-range photos of painted breasts taken of a moving target under the harsh mid-afternoon sun. I can think of at least a dozen better situations to take "boobies at Burning Man" photos other than CT -- even if there existed a good avenue by which to sell them, which there doesn't. (Video footage is another issue altogether though.) Making a buck doing photography outside of Burning Man is already tough enough as it is; the profit-to-equipment-risk ratio for photography at Burning Man is just not worthwhile as a profitable enterprise, not to mention the very real legal problems it invites (and the BM legal team is VERY quick to jump on misuses of Burning Man imagery).
Having said that, it's been gratifying for me to have tens of thousands of visitors to my gallery last year, to receive hundreds of thank-you comments/emails, and to have my work included in this year's What Where When. Some of us see photography as our way of giving back to the community -- and yes, as our way of participating. It's clear to me though that because of the misdeeds of a number of yahoos, many CT riders have a particularly narrow view of photography and photographers as a whole, and that's just too bad. It is precisely because of this attitude that I don't try to document anything related to CT, even when asked. Which is a shame, since I do think that good photos can help portray the event in a more positive light and I'd like to do it one of these years.
