Ban On Photographing Near Gulf Oil Booms 435
boombaard writes "The day before yesterday CNN's Anderson Cooper reported that, from now on, there is a new rule in effect, which de facto bars photographers from coming within 65 feet of any deployed boom or response vessel around Deepwater Horizon (official announcement). The rule, announced by the US Coast Guard, forbids 'photographers and reporters and anyone else from coming within 65 feet of any response vessel or booms out on the water or on beaches. In order to get closer, you have to get direct permission from the Coast Guard captain of the Port of New Orleans,' while 'violators could face a fine of $40,000 and Class D felony charges. What's even more extraordinary is that the Coast Guard tried to make the exclusion zone 300 feet, before scaling it back to 65 feet.'" Read below for the Coast Guard's statement on the new rule.
"The Coast Guard Captain of the Port of New Orleans has delegated authority to the Coast Guard Incident Commander in Houma to allow access to the safety zones placed around all Deepwater Horizon booming operations in Southeast Louisiana. The Coast Guard Incident Commander will ensure the safety of the members and equipment of the response before access is granted. The safety zone has been put in place to prevent vandalism to boom and to protect the members and equipment of the response effort by limiting access to, and through, deployed protective boom."
huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well as CNN explained in the video, the boom is laying everywhere so the 65 foot distance effectively blocks cameramen from capturing images of the oil-soaked islands/reefs along the cost, or the oil-soaked birds struggling to survive. In other words, it prevents the people of the US, from seeing the damage that has been caused.
And we deserve to know because it's OUR country, not BP's country or the government's country. That's the whole purpose for freedom of the press - so the people will stay informed rather than remain in the dark. "The liberties of a people never were nor ever will be secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry, Virginian
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, maybe, be a pro and do what you should have from the beginning - ASK THE COAST GUARD FOR PERMISSION BEFORE POTENTIALLY INTERFERING WITH A CRITICAL OPERATION.
Now if the CG consistently denies permission to everyone, including seasoned pros with lots of credentials (think Joe McNally, Dave Hobby, or people of that caliber), then it's a story. If they deny requests from 95% of "photographers", half of whom are from the "mom picked up an SLR and now she's starting a photography business with it despite no knowledge of shutter speed and aperture", I'm still all for it.
Re:"Interference" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:huh? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What spill? I've never heard of this Oil Spill?
Re:huh? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:huh? (Score:4, Funny)
Oil what?
I thought there was an agreement to refer to this as a "Whoopsie Daisy".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I feel obligated to repost this video. Their Whoopsie Daisy [youtube.com] took place in 1979. Maybe this one can be an "Uh Oh! Not Again!"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Oh no. Not again." - a bowl of petunias
Now if only we could figure out why the bowl of petunias said that? Anyway here's a LINK to CNN video where they compared this press censorship to when George Duh Bush blocked the press from documenting the Katrina flooding of New Orleans - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC0NyinwQ6A#t=1m40s [youtube.com]
take a look around fark's politics section (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is being used to hassle anyone coming near the site, 65 ft or not.
Perhaps you could give reputable examples so we could decide for ourselves. For the record, I consider Fox news a remarkably poor news site even by US standards and I consider Daily Kos below Fox News in terms of integrity and reliability.
Re:take a look around fark's politics section (Score:4, Insightful)
There's something below Fox News in integrity? That's very difficult to imagine - even Cthulhu has some principles.
Re:take a look around fark's politics section (Score:5, Funny)
That's very difficult to imagine - even Cthulhu has some principles.
Yeah, he's opposed to deep water drilling, for a start.
Re: (Score:2)
This is being used to hassle anyone coming near the site, 65 ft or not.
Is there video of this alleged hassling? I'll bet it's some asshole saying something to the effect of "Look, I'm 65 1/2 feet away so leave me alone!".
LK
Re:take a look around fark's politics section (Score:5, Informative)
or Daily Kos, or any other news outlet that isn't owned by Rupert Murdoch
Daily Kos is not a "news outlet". It's a partisan blog.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, while I don't disagree, I think the popular usage of "news" has long since ceased to mean "objective discovery and reporting of facts and implications of those facts". Instead, "news" has become segmented by demographic. You have news for the liberal, news for the conservative, news for the dumb, news for the elitist, news for the nerds.... I pine for a day when it was considered embarrassing for a news organization to not be making a serious and overt attempt at objectivity (and yes, of course it
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, "news" never actually meant that. That's just a marketing angle television news came up with in order to appeal to the broadest market; actual journalists have rarely if ever been objective.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While that's true, they used to be a lot more objective, not to mention more literate, than they are now. Newspaper journalism was the last to slide but it's followed TV and internet into the wholly partisan, shiny-bytes toilet.
Re:take a look around fark's politics section (Score:5, Funny)
Daily Kos is not a "news outlet". It's a partisan blog.
Well it started out that way, but clearly it has risen in stature to the point where it can now be compared to FoxNews in terms of reliability and integrity!
Re: (Score:2)
Daily Kos is not a "news outlet". It's a partisan blog.
Well it started out that way, but clearly it has fallen in stature to the point where it can now be compared to FoxNews in terms of reliability and integrity!
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, what's the crime actually committed? None. So classifying this as a felony would easily not hold constitutional muster, and I bet the ACLU will get involved. This is clearly to prevent interviews.
I think this is the issue. Not a matter of the 65 feet being reasonable or not. That's not focusing on reality.
Re:huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
secondly why the hell should workers be being interviewed, they are supposed to be cleaning up the mess not standing around yapping to the press.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have no problem with a 65' boundary, nothing a 300mm lens can't handle. But this should be no more then a misdemeanor.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This rises some questions about the wisdom of the whole concept of a felon, specifically the "no voting" part. It seems a very convenient way of ensuring that only people who think and act like those in power are allowed to have political influen
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are a lot of actions that "could" result in people getting killed, like running a red light with your car. Looking up some state laws at findlaw.com, it seems that most states regard this as misdemeanor.
Violating the 65 ft. safety zone is arguably less dangerous by itself, and should be a misdemeanor at worst.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
again, you're focusing on the distance being a factor for safety - that has nothing to do with it. Really, it doesn't. Take that part of the concept out of your brain for a moment.
Now look at what's left - a felony for being too close to something?
Have you never seen news reporting on a crime near where it's occurring? You know, like interviews during military deployments? This has nothing to do with safety.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
reckless endangerment and any kind of actual criminal charges require proof. Especially a felony.
At sea, yes, reckless endangerment is probably easier proven.
However, on the beach?
65 feet does not bar photography (Score:5, Insightful)
What a crappy title. 65 feet ( 20m ) doesn't bar photography "near" a boom, it keeps idiots from bumping up against it. Unless photographers are using 1970 Instamatics, this should provide no obstacle to any serious photographer.
Re:65 feet does not bar photography (Score:5, Insightful)
Bumping against, hell I think they're mostly worried about photographers who have never been out in a boat before, piloting a zodiac [wikipedia.org] and parking it right in front of a moving fishing boat who is deploying said booms, unaware that fishingboats aren't particularly fast, nor do they have breaks. Q.E.D.:
Idiot photographer parks zodiac in front of fishing boat
Fishing boat runs over zodiac
Coastguard has to send out a ship to take care of idiot photographer, further stressing the thinly spread coastguard
BP profits (somehow)
Spoils my plans (Score:4, Funny)
What a crappy title. 65 feet ( 20m ) doesn't bar photography "near" a boom, it keeps idiots from bumping up against it. Unless photographers are using 1970 Instamatics, this should provide no obstacle to any serious photographer.
I beg to differ, I had planned to do a series of night shots of booms with a Holga and an LED flashlight. I insight my "right" to engage in dangerous night missions that may lead to equipment damage be respected!
Hey, some serious photographers use Holgas...
Nothing to do with photography (Score:5, Informative)
From the submitter's own link of the official announcement:
NEW ORLEANS - The Captains of the Port for Morgan City, La., New Orleans, La., and Mobile, Ala. , under the authority of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, has established a 20- meter safety zone surrounding all Deepwater Horizon booming operations and oil response efforts taking place in Southeast Louisiana.
Vessels must not come within 20 meters of booming operations, boom, or oil spill response operations under penalty of law.
The safety zone has been put in place to protect members of the response effort, the installation and maintenance of oil containment boom, the operation of response equipment and protection of the environment by limiting access to and through deployed protective boom.
In areas where vessels operators cannot avoid the 20-meter rule, they are required to be cautious of boom and boom operations by transiting at a safe speed and distance.
Violation of a safety zone can result in up to a $40,000 civil penalty. Willful violations may result in a class D felony.
Permission to enter any safety zone must be granted by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port of New Orleans by calling 504-846-5923.
For information about the response effort, visit www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com.
There's no mention of photography, camera, or anything of that nature. If you get your vessel within 20m of a protective boom, you're a total moron regardless of whether or not you happen to have a camera.
Re: (Score:2)
If the rupture in the oil well has spread from the original site to within 20' of the beach, we've bigger problems than photography. Besides, the photographs that really matter are the ones from the plume. ROVs have been available for news outlets to buy for years. If we haven't seen independent media photographs from the site of the action yet, we're not losing anything with a ban on a paltry 20'.
(The oil slick has spread for miles beyond the booms, and if the newspapers could photograph Lady Di sunbathing
a much bigger problem is ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:a much bigger problem is ... (Score:5, Informative)
Flying over? I assume you actually mean flying over below 3000 feet as your link describes. It would be an air traffic control nightmare with the vehicles involved in the cleanup. You can fly over all you like at 3100 feet.
Re: (Score:2)
You should tell him that he's not allowed to fly under 500 feet anyway anywhere under any circumstances unless taking off or landing - that should really get the conspiracy going...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You should tell him that he's not allowed to fly under 500 feet anyway anywhere under any circumstances
That's completely incorrect.
FAR 91.119c states - [No person my operate an aircraft below] an altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
Basically you can fly 10 feet off the surface if you want to, just don't get near an oil rig or a boat. Same thing goes for land, just stay away from houses and cars.
Re:a much bigger problem is ... (Score:5, Informative)
Did you read the link you posted?
"All pilots operating within and near this area including the shoreline should exercise extreme caution due to the numerous low level operations associated with the deepwater horizon/mc-252 incident 3000 feet and below.
Aircraft involved in these operations may make sudden changes in direction, speed, and altitude. For additional information, participating aircraft altitude assignments and awareness, all pilots are recommended to review the following web site dedicated to the aviation cleanup efforts at: https://1afnorth.region1.ang.af.mil/deepwater_spill/default.Aspx [af.mil]
With the exception of aircraft conducting aerial chemical dispersing operations;no fixed wing aircraft are authorized below 1000 feet above the surface unless for landing and takeoff"
The FAA rules are to keep collisions from happening.
That is nice (Score:4, Funny)
I like the bit about being allowed to get close to the ground for landing. So considerate. Goverment press releases, they can't help but make you smile.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The flight restrictions strike me as similar to the main article's complaints - they can be construed as impeding freedom of the press, but really are for safety of the responders and planes. If a boat wake poses a threat, so would the the airstream of a low flying plane. For further restrictions, the simple observation that air traffic at moderately low altitude is probably much higher/less linear than normal means that controlling more aircraft interferes with the cleanup effort. I have no qualms with
Nothing to see here (Score:5, Insightful)
That's odd, none of the official documents say anything about photographers. The poster even fits in a quote mentioning photographers explicitly, and words it so that if you're not paying attention it implies that it's an official quote. This is sensationalist journalism at its best. Why are photographers trying to get that close anyway? With my consumer-grade camera I can take a close-up portrait of someone from rather further away than that.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
With my consumer-grade camera I can take a close-up portrait of someone from rather further away than that.
So can I. Particularly if they leave their shades up.
Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
With my consumer-grade camera I can take a close-up portrait of someone from rather further away than that.
So can I. Particularly if they leave their shades up.
Just saying.
Yes, well spotted. That's what I was implying.
photographers *are* being harassed- even CBS (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6496749n [cbsnews.com]
That's video shot by a national news outlet, of a US Coast Guard officer, threatening the news crew with arrest if they don't comply with a BP policy. Color of law, anyone?
More: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=bp+photographers+blockade [google.com]
Search youtube, too. A lot of people with video recorders are getting harassed by local cops and sheriff departments.
Come on Google Maps (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems like a non-issue, RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a hobbyist photographer and videographer, and I've been hassled for ID before when shooting in a public place. I read plenty of stories about photographers being harassed improperly, and reading the article I don't think this is one of them. They started at 300ft, which was silly, and scaled it back to 65ft when called on it. Leaving aside the who and why, 65 feet doesn't make this stuff hard to photograph. Even with a 200mm lens on a digital SLR (especially crop sensor) you can get very serviceable shots of "what's going on" at 65ft. Professional press photographers on assignment usually have a healthier complement of lenses than that, before considering telconverters, cropping in on the subject and so on.
If the story is something highly specific to do with equipment and handling of it then perhaps you need an even bigger lens or to be closer to the subject. But if you're taking shots of how they're laying out booms, who's involved and so on, 65ft isn't a big deal at all. Seems like a not unreasonable tradeoff to keep people from getting under the workers' feet. The subjective standard I'm applying here is does the restriction make it likely we'll not find out something that the public interest demands should be disclosed? No, it really doesn't.
Your wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Boats? Fine. Why are they banning photographers from taking photos from the shorelines?
oh lord (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? This is a /. worthy story?
Starting to be ashamed to be a member. What happened to tech stories and stuff?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for damning high-handed government... (Score:2)
But this is a common sense distance.
65 feet (20 meters) is an entirely reasonable safety margin for this situation. A good current could push you 20 meters faster than you can respond, causing you to crash into the equipment (that would be Bad [TM]).
Any photographer (professional or dilettante) who can't capture a picture of this equipment from that distance is an utterly hopeless moron. All the more reason for not allowing them even closer.
Um... So what? (Score:2)
They have telephoto lenses. They can get perfectly usable pictures from beyond 65 feet. It seems perfectly reasonable to keep people away while cleanup personnel are trying to do their jobs.
LK
20m, not 65 feet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US military has been doing things in metric for decades; it's taking the press a while to catch up. My favorite was when I read a story in which a soldier was talking about something being "about ten clicks [sic] down the road" and the reporter helpfully explained that "a 'click' is military slang for about three-fifths of a mile." No, klick is military slang for a kilometer, which is a unit of measurement well understood by anyone with more than half a brain, and which does happen to be about three-f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:20m, not 65 feet (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is that the actual original policy, DESPITE being US policy and regarding a US event, was given in metres.
I only understand metric, but I'm no unit Nazi - I'm happy to whip out google and type "x feet in metres" so I can visualise in my head how far that is (not very!). But the point is that things should always be reported in the units of their source. If the original source said 20 metres, it should be reported as 20 metres. Otherwise what you have is only an approximation and not accurate.
The whole issue could be avoided though if /. submitters simply used both. E.g:
"20 metres (~65 feet)" (if the source was in metric); or
"2 miles (~3.2 km) (if the source was in US units)
That way it's clear what the actual source said, but also saves people doing conversions. Win win.
Re:20m, not 65 feet (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that precision gets lost in the conversion. I'm sick of seeing news reports that claim something like "The accident may cost over £658,891" when what they're actually doing is reporting too many sig figs on an ass-sourced "$1 million". Or "PRECISELY 91 CENTIMETERS" when the source was "feh, about 3 feet" and a meter would suffice.
Where's the digg down button on this thing? (Score:5, Informative)
The title of this article is an absolute embarrassment. This is beyond inaccurate, it's inflammatory. Photography is not banned. A reasonable safety margin has been set around the response equipment and boats - and it's about fucking time. Scuba divers and other special activities are routinely given a 75 foot (more or less) safety margin, and it seems absolutely reasonable to make everyone stay clear while these people are trying to work. Frankly, 300 feet would have been completely reasonable. It's bad enough this "news" is already ancient (par for the course on /. lately), but now we have to deal with mind-boggling bias... is this /. or Greenpeace?
Nothing to see here. Move along.
If only... (Score:2)
Professional photographer had access to more powerful lenses than what's on an iPhone.
I can only imagine this being the end of photo-journalism as we know it.
Flickr is as good as dead
not a very effective photography ban (Score:2)
I mean, seriously - 65 feet? You think that will stop somebody from taking a picture? That's bloody trivial, even with cheep lenses.
Even their original plans for a 300 foot ban would just mean the photographers would need to bring a different lens.
Terrible summary (Score:5, Insightful)
BP's next move... (Score:3, Funny)
lol (Score:4, Informative)
This is a story? (Score:3, Insightful)
Three words:
Safety
Zoom Lens
This isn't surprising at all. All it takes is some idiot to get his prop tangled in one of those, or an angry idiot to vandalize it, to make it even more useless. There are a ton of zoom lenses capable of spanning 65 feet to get a picture.
Climb up high on the boat, put a zoom and polarized filter on (to get through surface reflections on the water) and take the picture.
Lies, damn lies, Anderson Cooper, NewsBusters (Score:3, Interesting)
From the actual release:
FTFA at NewsBusters.org:
This is not about reporters and photographers. This about preventing accidents. It sounds to me like Cooper and company are pissed that they are not getting special treatment and are required seek permission and access like everyone else.
I notice that there was no mention of CNN or any other news organization applying for access to an area, let alone being denied access. Did they bother to apply, or did they just start whining that they had to follow some rules to help ensure the safety and security of everyone involved?
Sounds to me like Cooper et al. are whining because some safety rules have been set up that inconvenience them instead of inconveniencing or endangering those who are actually doing the clean up and the equipment being used.
Limiting access of (specificially) photographers (Score:3, Insightful)
65 feet is only a couple of boat-lengths. That's pretty close. If I was working those booms, I'd be worried about any boat that close running over or afoul of the boom.
So photographers are limited to 65ft. How close can other people get? Is that still 300ft? My guess is that reporters are belly-aching because they can't get close enough to dip a gloved hand into the oil and show it to the camera.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, clearly we should ban press from all areas that Jethro finds boring.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:4, Funny)
Also known as a hillbilly "mating ritual".
Re: (Score:2)
Another one scored for Jethro Gibbs - but I wonder what NCIS has to do with it.
Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)
Uhhhh - I really don't see a problem. No photographers within 65 feet. Let's think a moment. You want a shot of a boat or a boom, that is, what, 50 feet long? Since any professional photographer has zoom lenses (whether optical or digital zoom, it hardly matters) he can be anywhere within 1/2 mile to get spectacular shots. I can show you a great shot of the ship I served on, shot from ~ 5 miles out - you can see that both the mount 52 deck gun and the missile launcher is tracking the helicopter that took the shot. (It was in a war zone, we tracked EVERYTHING, didn't matter if it claimed to be friendly)
[photobucket.com]
The coast guard doesn't want any one climbing on the booms, or sabotaging them, they don't want to be rescuing some fool who hurts himself. Stay 65 feet away, take all the pics you want. Seems reasonable to me. The original 300 feet wasn't unreasonable, either. 300 feet is terribly close to any working vessel at sea. The rules of the road, observed around the world, dictate that you stay clear of working vessels and/or ships underway.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Everyone's missing the real reason for the ban: too many "photographers" are using their "cameras" to steal the souls [wikia.com] of the clean-up workers. The lich-kings (aka "Ted Turner" and "Ruport Murdoch") have long been stocking souls in preparation for the 2012 apocalypse. Louisianans, thanks to their voodoo culture, understand this and want to keep their souls for the use of the local shamans.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no reason vessels should be so dangerously close to equipment. 300 feet makes much more sense.
As for picture quality, a good camera can capture very high levels of detail at 300 feet.
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
I was going to post the same myself. For photography of an oil boom, even my kit lens could achieve enough zoom at a distance of 65 feet to take picture of something large like a skimming boom.
Personally, I'd be afraid to get within 65 feet of an active boom unless I were escorted by an expert boom operator. This rule is designed for photographers too stupid to stay away from dangerous objects.
The headline is misleading, it implies photographing of the booms is not allowed, but in reality, you're just not permitted to get ridiculously close to them. Ideally ANYONE should be banned from getting within that distance of an active skimming boom. It probably specifically specifies photographers because photographers were the only people trying to get stupidly close to the booms. (And most likely, true professionals were getting escorted close-in with the appropriate permits rather than just trying to sneak up without asking first.)
Re:So? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Felonies can only be created by legislation (for federal law, this means an act of Congress.) The Coast Guard didn't decide to impose a safety zone, and separately decide what class of offense to make violations and what penalties to make available for violations. Instead, the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, which provides the authority under which the Coast Guard has established the perimeter, sets out the civil penalty f
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe that their is also a limit to how much a fine can be with a misdemeanor. Before I get jumped on I freely admit that I could be wrong about that.
Also maybe you missed that part where it said, "could be charged with". It is meant to scare people into not being stupid. Let me know if anybody gets charged with it. This is the worst case and honestly will probably never be used unless someone is really causing problems and refuses to comply with requests to move.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, yes there is [al.com]. Not only has there been intentional vandalism, booms have accidentally been damaged by boat propellers. I realize the media is reluctant to report anything that might help BP, but you really should do a little research before spouting off.
Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)
Greetings and Salutations.
Well, the questions and thoughts that spring to my mind are: Have there been any problems with photographers damaging the booms or causing breaches? While 65 feet may not seem like much, it can easily make it very hard to get clear pictures of the booms as they bob up and down in the ocean waters. THAT makes it harder to keep track of how well they are working to block the oil, or, adsorb the crude and keep it from moving on. Is this the REAL reason for the limit? Also, why would the limit be 300 feet first...then get cut down to 65 feet? That sounds more like spin control than security to me.
Regards
dave mundt
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
It's pretty unlikely, given that not a single foot of the gulf is actually boomed properly. See, actual booming requires that the booming be in the water, deployed in a zig-zag fashion with the high points leading to collection equipment. It also requires nearly round-the-clock hand maintenance to deal with changing tides, wind, waves, etc. Laying down a straight line of boom in the water, then leaving it to sit does fuck-all to contain oil, and less than fuck-all when it gets wadded up on the beach a couple hours later.
So no, I doubt that there's a serious problem with photographers damaging booms. And yes, this is almost certainly about spin control, rather than actual disaster control.
Re:So? (Score:5, Funny)
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU
Re:So? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well you did fall for the spin on the story as had I until I thought about a bit and read some of the other comments on Slashdot.
This is not a restriction on photographers it is just a restriction. All none workers are to keep at least 65 feet from all booms and working ships.
Think about how close that really is before you get all bent. It is to keep protesters, gawkers, and general idiots as well the press from bumping up to or getting run over by out at sea.
Frankly 300 feet which is really close to get t
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
Are you going to cite the magical photo fairies next?
I don't think 65 ft is all that unreasonable, but understand that it will make a lot of photography rather harder. Longer lenses mean heavier lenses, which, as you say, means you'll probably need a shorter exposure, at least if hand-held. (Setting up a tripod can often take too long for non-posed photos.) But a shorter shutter means that you'll be compromising somewhere else: narrower depth of field or higher ISO. Narrow DOF can be nice for some artistic shots; less nice for most photojournalism. Sure, these things probably aren't so important if it's nice and sunny out, but what about if it's cloudy? Balancing all of these things can quickly become difficult.
But the real problem is that of perspective. Unless you carry around a 40' self-supporting tower with you, having to stay 65' out means that your angle is going to be MUCH lower. That does two things. First it will make it much easier for your view to be blocked. Instead of walking up to a line of grass and photographing over it, you have to photograph through it. Instead of getting closer and photographing from above the waves, you have to wait until they line up in such a way that nothing's in the way of your shot. It also means a lower angle on the ocean, which may well mean that it's harder to see the oil.
In short, putting a long lens on your camera isn't the same as walking up to something, for a number of reasons, and if you think it is, you should go back to photo school.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
It also means a lower angle on the ocean, which may well mean that it's harder to see the oil.
I totally agree with the points you made. The obvious thing of course is to simply get a higher angle, by either getting onto an object on the beach, or by getting onto the roof/upper deck of a boat you are in. Sixty five feet really isn't that far.
Is it as good as getting a shot from 1 foot of the object? Not at all. I totally agree, but I can sort of understand why they don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry to go bungling around booms and things meant to STOP the oil.
Great for Journalism? No.
Great for folks wanting to brush this under the carpet. Yes.
Great for the cleanup/relief effort? Hopefully.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't bother with that tripod at sea, unless it's gimbaled and stabilized. Youtube has some videos where the camera was tripod mounted. You get better results with handheld equipment. Gyros and such cost more money than even professionals are likely to spend, unless the photographer is specialized in open water shooting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I rather doubt that the Coast Guard considers athestics as part of the ru
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that doesn't solve the problem. With distance comes additional wave peaks; any one of them can occlude the view. All you'd get would be a sharp photo of the intervening wavefront. Not the boom. It more depends on the height above the water of the camera when the photo was taken. Which in turn shouldn't be a huge problem -- it isn't like the photographers will be out there in canoes.
I suspect there's something going on here - some damage that occurred, or an injury - that they're trying to prevent fro
Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)
65 feet is not a very large distance. At all. It's less than half the usual 'safe recommended following distance' for highway traffic.
Moving things around on the sea is difficult, and they've already once had a worry about a gas buildup blowing out and had to quickly move a ship (which yanked a pipe etc etc). Having a small buffer zone to allow things to move around in an emergency is only sensible, and any journalist who thinks endangering other people so they can sit on top of the story can just blow it out their ass.
This story is just sensationalism feeding off public displeasure with anyone involved with this mess.. which is disappointing. While there are people who deserve to be hated for what has happened, if you're just automatically going to shit on ANYONE involved with trying to fix the problem, why the hell would anyone want to get involved with that? blaaaah.
Re:So? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I dislike pretty much everything the Obama administration is doing, but I have to say that here the simplest answer is most likely the correct one.
I think the no-fly zone (which applies only to flight levels below 3000') is more likely to prevent mid-air collisions from casual sightseers getting in the way of coast card and BP aircraft, and from every inattentive rubbernecking pilot who just wants to go check it out. It may require a bit more intelligence to get a flight certificate than a driver's license,
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Coast Guard
Because we all can't be seamen!
I take from this that you don't live within 1000 miles of a body of water deep enough to float a rubber duckie.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that is made kinda difficult when they're all housed in BP housing, transported to and from work sites on BP transportation, and probably not wanting to lose their BP monies for chatting with Anderson Cooper.