Iggy, keep highlighting the rest of the sentence, and take the whole thing into text. Don't pull some TMZ crap on me and only highlight want you want others to see.
It's not being elitist, it's called informing individuals on who should and should not be given credentials.
Me telling someone that because they want a better angle is not a proper reason to apply for credential is simply trying to make my working environment as safe/easy/happy/nice as possible.
You want elitist, here's elitist. Don't start calling me elitist if you can only shoot sidelines at local soccer games and warm ups at hockey games, I am better than you because I get to shoot there during the actual game. That my friend is elitist.
Do I actually feel that way, hell no!
It's Friday, it's almost 5:00pm, I'm shutting down and heading home for a relaxing weekend. I'll be back Monday so feel free to bash me all you want while I am gone, but please, don't quote me without taking into context all my words.
Rick Denham wrote:
Iggy, keep highlighting the rest of the sentence, and take the whole thing into text. Don't pull some TMZ crap on me and only highlight want you want others to see.
It's not being elitist, it's called informing individuals on who should and should not be given credentials.
Me telling someone that because they want a better angle is not a proper reason to apply for credential is simply trying to make my working environment as safe/easy/happy/nice as possible.
You want elitist, here's elitist. Don't start calling me elitist if you can only shoot sidelines at local soccer games and warm ups at hockey games, I am better than you because I get to shoot there during the actual game. That my friend is elitist.
Do I actually feel that way, hell no!
It's Friday, it's almost 5:00pm, I'm shutting down and heading home for a relaxing weekend. I'll be back Monday so feel free to bash me all you want while I am gone, but please, don't quote me without taking into context all my words....Show more →
Even if I did quote the whole sentence, you still are judging the rights of others.
iggyfenton wrote:
Even if I did quote the whole sentence, you still are judging the rights of others.
Doesn't someone have to man the flood gates? Hell even at little podunk race events, if there were no fence you would see some moron with a p&s 5 feet from a dangerous corner on a race track.
SloPhoto wrote:
Doesn't someone have to man the flood gates? Hell even at little podunk race events, if there were no fence you would see some moron with a p&s 5 feet from a dangerous corner on a race track.
Of course someone should keep the public off the sidelines. But, that is for the event coordinator to decide. These guys are saying that if you don't earn it their way, then you don't belong.
Even the thread poster has said that people wanting a better angle are not worthy. But if you pay a photographer to get there, then that's ok.
iggyfenton wrote:
Even if I did quote the whole sentence, you still are judging the rights of others.
iggy ... that's where you are wrong ... no one has a "right" to a credential ... if they did ... there would be no discussion on the matter as we ALL would have one ....
I seriously doubt if Rick or any other shooter could actually hinder you or anyone else from acquiring access ... if you can convince the issuer you should have access ... I don't think they will check with Rick first before they make a decision ....
Frankly, I don't care who gets access ... Although it would be nice to think that those working alongside me also met the same criteria to be there that I had to attain.
So when some of us "elitist" see media credentials passed out like coupons for the local car wash ... and others crying foul because they can't acquire access to pad their portfolio ... or that the "establishment" is holding them down ... I think there is room for concern ....
iggyfenton wrote:
Of course someone should keep the public off the sidelines. But, that is for the event coordinator to decide. These guys are saying that if you don't earn it their way, then you don't belong.
Even the thread poster has said that people wanting a better angle are not worthy. But if you pay a photographer to get there, then that's ok.
There are alot of events where legitimate media are not given a credential. At those events those who are shooting for fun are being quite unfair.
There are alot of events where you see idiots making fools of themselves while wearing credentials and waving around their digital reblel with kit lens. Those people are being unfair.
If more of the uncouth masses did not try to force their way in, maybe then "working on my portfolio" would be a legitimate way in. Unfortunately, everyone thinks they have the right to be there, and they mess it up for everyone else. You cannot help the organizers from being a bit jaded after receiving thousands of bogus applications.
" All we are trying to do is prevent individuals from getting credentials who honestly shouldn't be there."
I do not see your issue with this statement. You could have an issue with who he feels should be there, but honestly someone needs to hold back the ones who should not be there.
john_a_g wrote:
Steve - no I think sports shooter academy is a good thing. I think sportsshooter itself is good. But I do believe there are a lot of people with elitist opinions that are members. I think a number of members like to hide behind the wall of sportshooter where they can voice an opinion and non members cannot. I believe there are a number of people that, based on their publicly stated opinions believe sportsshooter.com is really i-work-for-a-newspaper.com and can be very condescending and elitist towards people who dont.
Fortunately, most members are not that way. And I've received a lot of help from members there behind the scenes. And, I don't always agree with their opinions. But the concepts are great. I think the academy is great - they're trying to help people get better. But, I would have an issue if someone representing the academy were to say it's OK for their students to have access but not OK for students from another outfit to have access.
SloPhoto wrote:
Doesn't someone have to man the flood gates? Hell even at little podunk race events, if there were no fence you would see some moron with a p&s 5 feet from a dangerous corner on a race track.
Event security mans the flood gates. For everyone;s safety, please notify event security if you see an unauthorized person beyond the gates.
Steve Ickes wrote:
Okay, again OT but I'll bite.....so is your recommendation that non-scholarship student athletes get paid to play?? Well you know, high school sports coaches and principals get paid too. What about those athletes
Have we reached sublime yet?
If there's money being made the the folks doing the show should get a piece of it or some consideration (books, instruments, etc). I was responding to Johns comment.
RCGuy wrote:
Event security mans the flood gates. For everyone;s safety, please notify event security if you see an unauthorized person beyond the gates.
I was referring to the flood gates of credentials, but very true.
butchM wrote:
iggy ... that's where you are wrong ... no one has a "right" to a credential ... if they did ... there would be no discussion on the matter as we ALL would have one ....
I don't speak for iggy, but what I think he is saying is that a number of pro photograhers here do indeed question the rights of other credentialed photographers.
Credentialed photographers do have a "right to be there" just as much as any other credentialed photographer..."pro" or otherwise.
It appears we have established the fact that "press" credentials are used for other purposes; that, in effect the promoters have devalued the "press" aspect of the credential.
Many of the members who have responded in this thread have been very intolerant of people who bring equipment even tho' the promoters have rules against it; citing only credentialed people should take photos.
How does one square that defensive attitude with the credentialed population that aren't media?
SloPhoto wrote:
That is the point I was trying to make..... That they need to be there... that all hell were to break loose were they to not do their job.
But the SID is doing his job every time he receives a credential application and makes a decision on it.
Just because you don't agree with his decision does not mean he is not doing his job.
SloPhoto wrote:
When did I ever say that I disagreed with how an SID made a decision?
Ok so we are in agreement then?
Initially you posted that "someone has to man the floodgates".
And we all agree that the SID is the one manning that floodgates...and that he is performing his job by making decisions on credentials...regardless of whether other photographers agree with the SID's decisions.
Ok so from my iPhone I am asking all you people one question, and if anyone has an educated answer I would love to hear it.
If we are so god damn elitist than why the hell do you want to get credentials and be on the sidelines with us? Do you secretly want to be elitist's just like the rest of us. If you don't than shut your yap and stop refering to us as elitist's because no matter how much you think we re, we're not.
Rick Denham wrote:
Ok so from my iPhone I am asking all you people one question, and if anyone has an educated answer I would love to hear it.
If we are so god damn elitist than why the hell do you want to get credentials and be on the sidelines with us? Do you secretly want to be elitist's just like the rest of us. If you don't than shut your yap and stop refering to us as elitist's because no matter how much you think we re, we're not.
Really, you expect an educated response to an uneducated question? I would submit that your demand for people to shut their yap because they have an opinion that differs from yours, well….elitist. You seem to fuel the fire. This is just a casual observation.
?? Well you know, high school sports coaches and principals get paid too. What about those athletes