Photoclubalpha

From this evening at Steel Rigg on the Roman Wall in Northumberland

We came across this artists easel - he must have forgotten something mid-paint as he was no-where to be seen, he did come back about 20mins later



As well as walkers, there were also climbers on the cragg, this is taken from some distance (Minolta 200 f2.8 + 2x TC), the guy in the white helmet is one of my work colleagues



Finally as we were leaving, I just had to take this sheep and lambs shot



Best wishes

Murph

This reminds me of the current National Trust controversy - see:

http://www.nationaltrustpictures.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

which is a site I set up last week to support agitprop against restrictions on freelance photography (it will develop more in a while, as a number of photographers find their collections of pictures unsaleable due to the Trust's actions and policies).

Hadrian's Wall is Nat Trust in parts - I think this area is. One of my complaints is that an artist is never challenged for setting up an easel and portraying, exhibiting or selling paintings of National Trust properties - but photographers are prevented from using tripods, cameras, and from selling images (or would be if the Trust had its way). I do not object to restrictions as such, but I do object to object to restrictions which make assumptions about photography versus painting, writing or any other creative vocation.

I would hate to have a letter from the Trust asking me to remove your pictures from this forum because it's a commercially owned website!

David

This anti trust lot you have there David, just who/what are they? appointees, members of an exclusive Government supported club, were they elected to the positions they hold, or borne into it? What qualifications and authority do they posess exactly?
If there is some sort of transgression who is it that persues the matter, them? or some government agency, and what legal clout do they have? they might just turn out too be a whole bunch of hot air.
Greg

Greg Beetham wrote:This anti trust lot you have there David, just who/what are they? appointees, members of an exclusive Government supported club, were they elected to the positions they hold, or borne into it? What qualifications and authority do they posess exactly?
If there is some sort of transgression who is it that persues the matter, them? or some government agency, and what legal clout do they have? they might just turn out too be a whole bunch of hot air.
Greg

Anti trust? The National Trust is an independant charity, not linked to government in any way.
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w- ... harity.htm

I like the way in the first shot that the composition mirrors that of the painting. The lambs do in deed look cute. Triplets? It always surprises me how, even in relatively small country like the UK, the weather conditions as you head North mean that flowers, lambs etc. can be many weeks/months behind their more Southerly relations. The lambs around here are quite big, yet I know lambing hasn't started yet in the North of Scotland. Thanks for those Murph.

harveyzone wrote:

Greg Beetham wrote:This anti trust lot you have there David, just who/what are they? appointees, members of an exclusive Government supported club, were they elected to the positions they hold, or borne into it? What qualifications and authority do they posess exactly?
If there is some sort of transgression who is it that persues the matter, them? or some government agency, and what legal clout do they have? they might just turn out too be a whole bunch of hot air.
Greg

Anti trust? The National Trust is an independant charity, not linked to government in any way.
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w- ... harity.htm

Well, just off the top of my head, anti because they are anti freedom of expression, anti freedom of artistic endeavour and anti freedom too communicate, and they are only a charity, how come they have the right too trample over rights and freedoms in the open contryside? that has to be a first, a so called "charitable" organization claiming 24/7 copyright over the scenery throughout all seasonal nuances and possible angles of light etc. including every possible viewing angle, and every possible cloud shape/type in advance.....
Greg

Greg Beetham wrote:

harveyzone wrote:Anti trust? The National Trust is an independant charity, not linked to government in any way.
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w- ... harity.htm

Well, just off the top of my head, anti because they are anti freedom of expression, anti freedom of artistic endeavour and anti freedom too communicate, and they are only a charity, how come they have the right too trample over rights and freedoms in the open contryside? that has to be a first, a so called "charitable" organization claiming 24/7 copyright over the scenery throughout all seasonal nuances and possible angles of light etc. including every possible viewing angle, and every possible cloud shape/type in advance.....

I don't necessary agree with their policy but they own the land and are opening it up for people to visit with the understanding that it is not used for commercial photography. I don't think that they would not have the right to stop you photographing it commercially from public land, or land not privately owned by them.

I don't really think that they are anti freedom of expression, anti freedom of artistic endeavour and anti freedom to communicate. Without knowing the details of their policies (and please correct me if I am wrong), I don't think that they are stopping anyone from taking photos, from showing photos, from being creative (they regularly run their own photography competitions). They are trying to stop people from selling them or using them commercially without their permsission. They are, rightly or wrongly, trying to protect their own (and that of their members) commercial interests and investments.

Ah! the ugly world of commercial gain intruding into the serene realm of ze arteest, yep Tom that is a hairy one alright, and probably no easy answer either as to who has ascendancy, morally and/or legally.
Greg

Hi Paul,

Very lovely shots. I hope you don't get in trouble for sharing with us. The first and the third are especially very meaningful...signs of spring activities and all. And the climbers seem to be enjoying that interesting- looking vertical rock formation.

Yildiz

The (English) Trust attitude contrasts so much with, for example, the Forestry Commission which also owns huge tracts of land and opens it to the public. In Scotland, any activity which a normal person MIGHT undertake voluntarily, for no gain, may also be undertaken for gain on public land (including Scottish National Trust - they can not overturn Scots law). This means for example people are entitled to walk, climb or hike, ride horses, ride bikes - and leaders, guides, organisers etc can be paid. Artists and photographers can work, because they are being paid for an activity which anyone else can do without restriction.

This has nothing to do with restrictions inside properties, which are reasonable, or tripod/flash bans - they apply to all comers.

I first visited Hadrian's Wall as a teenager, just to find 'Cuddy's Crags' - J. Allan Cash had made a classic b/w photo of this location, included in a photographic book on freelancing which was a formative source for me. I remember the photo used a red filter to bring out superb cloud formations over the cliffs and wall. I was very keen to get this same look, and took yellow, orange and red filters. I had a 30mm Meyer Lydith lens as well. Even at that stage (I was 15 or 16) I wanted to get the pictures published. Of course! That's where I learned about photography, from magazines and books, so naturally it was an ambition to see my work in print.

I never got a decent photograph of Cuddy's Crags or any other part of that stretch of the wall, but I did get a classic portrait of our Sheltie dog with fur flying in the wind, facing into it as dogs like to, sitting on top of the wall with a red filtered sky behind him.

It's photos of places which make me want to see them, and not photos in official guide books either.

Paul's photo made me realise I was sitting at my desk taking NO pictures just one hour away from where he was enjoying superb views on Hadrian's Wall - and also that I have not visited the wall for maybe 20 years.

David

Someone setting restrictions on photography get's me a bit steamed that's all, what if this represents the thin edge of the wedge? what if a similar thing takes off here, what if I decide too go for a drive out west one day and find that the Olgas, Ayers Rock, the Kimberleys etc. are now "owned" by some national trust thingy whatever, and only their accredited photographers can take now photos of them for commercial purposes, and no one else is allowed to list photos of these for sale ...wouldn't that be marvellous?
Greg

You are pulling our legs aren't you? Photography of Ayers Rock is not permitted from certain places, I'm not sure how people get round it, but it is very controlled - just like the NT, but this time, with respect the Aboriginal Sacred Places thing.

Here is a quote from a discussion six years ago on a forum:

----------------------------------

Under 'Regulation 12.24 Capturing images or recording sound' of the Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000, the following applies: (1) A person must not capture an image in or of a Commonwealth reserve in contravention of a prohibition or restriction imposed by the Director under subregulation (3). Penalty: 50 penalty units [Aust. $5,500 or approx. $3,600 US] ... (3) For subregulation (1), the Director may prohibit or restrict the capturing of images: (a) generally or to a class of persons; and (b) at all times, at specified times or for a specified time; and (c) in all or part of the reserve. ... (5) The Director, a ranger or a warden may at any time, require a person who has captured an image in contravention of subregulation (1) to surrender the following: (a) all copies and forms of the image; (b) any device or means used to capture the image.

Fortunately Commonwealth Reserves are only a limited number of national parks - Uluru-Kata Tjuta (Ayers Rock), Kakadu, Booderee, Christmas Island, Norfolk Island and a handful of others. However because Ayers Rock is a national symbol, Australian photographers feel quite constrained and indeed upset by these regulations.

The EPBC Regulations as they apply to 'image capture' in Commonwealth reserves have been condemned by one prominent member of Australia's Council for Civil Liberties as a "disgrace".

---------------------------------

Link to the discussion:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-m ... _id=005GhT

David

I hope Murph doesn't mind, but here are a couple more from Hadrian's Wall, taken a couple of years ago. These are both taken at a place called Housesteads where there is the remainder of one of the many forts that are strung along the wall.

David there are some things I wouldn't joke about, astonishing as that sounds, I had a bit of a search for photographic restrictions and this is about all I could find,
http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/approval.html, in short the Fed doesn't care as long as you do it safely and don't damage the environment, (ie. pinch some rare plant or such) or cause yourself too have to be rescued.

The fly in the ointment is the Aboriginal reserves who have taxpayer paid lawyers who do nothing but dream up ways of extorting money from everyone in sight...if they think they can get away with it.
The restrictions I heard about apply to a couple of small areas at the base of Uluru where there are supposed to be something culturally sensitive, amazingly they apparently weren't culturally sensitive until quite recently, also something similar applies over at Kata Juta I think, in any case as far as I know there are currently no restrictions on taking scenic shots from a distance...impossible too police anyhow. If the Indigenous persons are having some secret ritual I don't think you are allowed too photograph that either...and they really don't like photos of ones that have since died being displayed anywhere, especially on TV.
Anyway it's easy to have the last laugh, I know someone who knows someone who knows where there are some rock cave paintings (very remote) that obviously not even the Aboriginals know about anymore, otherwise they would have it cordoned off and charging admission or alternatively declared a sacred site and no-one allowed to go there.
Greg

We all need to remember the role that Ansel Adams played in the Yellowstone Park reserve/park politics. Photography was what created Yellowstone (OK, John Muir sort of laid the foundations!). Adams and a few others, like the Muench (father and son) business providing images for 'Arizona Highways', helped create a reverence for areas which might otherwise have been despoiled.

The same thing happened in the UK but it's not so easy to identify the photographic 'founding fathers'. This has been forgotten, and the freedom they enjoyed (which created the respect, which in turn enabled the creation of parks and protected areas) is now removed from their potential spiritual heirs.

That really pisses me off. Simple as that. It annoys me because I am forced to view the guardians of heritage as Philistines. I know they are not, under the skin. The problem is they have bean counters and 'line managers' and stuff like that clogging up their world view. These people have MEETINGS. They think meetings are work. They use meetings to make decisions because that's all meetings are useful for. The more meetings they have, the more decisions they make. The decisions are turned into policies and rules and statements, and someone thinks they have actually been doing real work. In fact they have done anti-work, creating black holes which absorb all common sense, and the ultimate result is the exact opposite of what they should have achieved...

David