At 08:01 PM 4/26/2005, Albert wondered:
>So I had dinner with my gf and a few friends, we see this HUGE lighting
>setup, and so we go see what's going on. They were doing an MTV shoot,
>some famous singer. So I'm standing ON THE SIDEWALK, and this lady
>tells me not to take pics. So I stop. But after a while, I'm thinking,
>I'm standing on a sidewalk, why can't I?? So I take a few more pics,
>and the lady comes over, and now is brash with not so subtle threatening
>undertones..
At least one reason they didn't want any photography was flash prevention .
. . whether or not you were using any . . . others might start snapping
away. A flash going off would ruin a sequence of their filming . . . and
even if the flash didn't entirely blotch frames of their footage, the
lighting you described is tungsten, not daylight, and would produce blips
of bluish frames in their footage. Either is a Bad Thing.
Another possible reason was their contract with the artist regarding
control and rights to the artist's imagery. In the U.S., if such an event
in view of the public were "newsworthy" they'd be exceptionally hard
pressed to stop someone from photographing it for news purposes. However,
even a news photographer using flash (and its effects described above)
could be considered disruptive to their filming and they would have
justification to do something to stop it. Legitimate news photogs would
want their willing cooperation anyway and would likely identify themselves
first, and ask when and how they can get something for the local news . . .
which can be good PR for whoever is doing the filming if it's approached in
the right way. IOW, they'd do it in a manner that doesn't disrupt the filming.
-- John Lind
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|