AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
[X]
|
 p.2 #4 · Olympic Speedskating - Jutta Leerdam | |
ilkka_nissila wrote:
There are multiple points of view to this issue.
In the past people used predominantly cameras with mechanical shutters and mirrors which produced sound that some spectators found distracting especially if fast frame rates are used. Today there are quiet or even silent mirrorless cameras (only a few models really photograph action well in silent operation, and spectators are not all that likely to have those models, accredited pros for sure will). Thus there is a bit less pressure from the other audience members towards not letting spectators take photos freely. However, if someone wields a big telephoto lens then it can obstruct the view of the people in the audience next to the person who is photographing, and so there is still some discomfort. If a spectator pays a lot for access to the Olympics, it's understandable that they would want the best view available.
I occasionally photograph sports as a spectator for keeping up my skills for action photography that I need for other subjects, and I always try to get a seat which is in such a position that my photography would produce minimal distraction to other spectators. However, if were to go to the Olympics, it would be difficult to ensure such a seat. I think the 20 cm lens length is a reasonable limitation on the part of the organizers. However, a lens like the 100-500mm will extend to close to 30 cm when zoomed to 500 mm, and while the organizers won't check for that, it might be that the intention of the organizers to ensure neighbouring spectators get unobstructed view, might not be fully realized. I'm not saying the OP should not have taken these, but it's interesting if the organizers know about the extending nature of the lens and let it through or if it was unintended. However, from the security personnel's point of view, they can't really be expected to check if a lens extends and measure it that way. It's just not very practical and the photographers would find it intrusive.
Of course, photos taken by spectators help bring the attention on the Olympics and sports, and the free publicity is probably helpful. As long as the other spectators are not bothered by the activity, all should be well. In addition to cameras, many spectators can have binoculars.
The OP's photos are very nice (I like the 2nd and 4th image, in particular) and it's surprising to me that such results could be obtained given the lens's maximum aperture. A good job definitely. ...Show more →
I'm sure its possible to get on people's nerves, but people yell , scream , and display signs larger than a camera. This race only lasted a little over a minute, and I'm sure the Dutch speed skating fans made a lot of noise. So I'm not sure cameras are that annoying, especially compared to some guy shirtless in January in Buffalo (all part of the fun, really) or European fan violence
The Olympics, one top USA curling athlete is a lab tech at her regular job, fortunately she can get time off to practice since its her mother's company. But Dak Prescott makes roughly $60 million/year salary, plus paid endorsements, playing for the $13 BILLION Dallas Cowboys, the guys on their rookie deals dont make anywhere near that, but top defensive players (Micah Parsons, Chloe Kim's bf myles Garrett ) make ~$40 M, Ohtani's contract dwarfs that, check out max NBA deals, as well. So what if a few guys make a few hundred dollars occasionally selling photos, which is basically free pub anyway
|
