Digital BW, The Print

A few weeks ago, I was issued a citation in a national park for 
photographing a model without a permit. 
The offense was "failure to obtain permit," 36 CFR 1.6(g)(1); 
the citation did not mention the law or 
regulation that actually required the permit. The citation imposed a 
$150 
fine, and required a mandatory court appearance. I might have 
contested the 
charge, but the court appearance would have been in Salt Lake City, 
Utah, 
and I live in Florida.

The ranger took my camera, tripod, and three exposed rolls of film. I 
was 
not rude or uncooperative. As a matter of fact, he said if I had not 
been so 
cooperative he would have made it a lot worse on me.

After talking to his supervisor, he did return the camera and tripod 
the 
next day, but kept the film as evidence. He was very courteous, and 
when we 
began to chat about it, it came out that the real reason he issued 
the citation 
was that my model was nude. Although nudity is legal in national 
parks (as 
the ranger himself admitted), he didn't approve personally, and this 
was the 
strongest citation he could find to issue. By the way, he gave the 
model the 
same citation that he gave me, imposing a $150 fine and requiring a 
court 
appearance.

He stated that if I decided to fight the citation, "community 
standards" 
would come into play and I would for sure loose the fight (He kept my 
film 
to prove my shots were not up to "community standards"). He also said 
if I 
had applied for a permit I would have been denied because of the same 
"community standards."

I shoot art nudes, sometimes in landscapes. None could possibly be 
considered 
pornographic or distasteful. All the shots on the day I was cited had 
the 
model framing the landscape; all that was visible was her back or 
side as 
she looked out over a canyon, and most people would have to look 
twice to 
even notice her in the image. By the way, we were in a remote area 
early in 
the morning. No one had complained. The ranger apparently had seen us 
as he 
made routine early morning rounds through the park. It seems the 
citation 
was issued solely because of the ranger's personal tastes and his 
interpretation of "community standards."

I looked at the NPS web page for permits for Commercial Filming and 
Still 
Photography at 
http://home.nps.gov/applications/digest/permits.cfm?urlarea=permits, 
and 
noticed that photography in national parks requires a permit when;

"the activity uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a part 
of the 
location's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities"

There are no definitions of any of these terms, so it is not clear 
who is a 
"model." Looking at the fee schedule at the bottom of the web page, 
it does 
not even appear that a permit is needed for still photography 
involving only 
a camera and tripod and 1–2 people. After seeing this, I wish I had 
been 
able to fight the citation, but I simply could not afford the time 
and expense. 

NOW TO THE BOTTOM LINE.
I just learned that there is a proposed rule formalizing the permit 
requirements for lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 
the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. 
Reading the 
proposed rule, especially after my recent experience, I am concerned 
that a 
"model," "set," or "prop" may be interpreted to mean whatever a 
particular 
ranger wants it to be. Perhaps a "model" could even include a 
photographer's 
spouse, son, daughter, and dear ole Mom if the ranger disliked 
something 
else the photographer was doing. With my delay shutter release, I 
could have 
also been a model. [Although not one I would want in my images.]
Would my model and I have been cited if she had not been nude?

I have seen suggestions on several forums for definitions of "model" 
and 
"prop" to be added to the rule:

Model means a person who poses for filming, photography, videotaping, 
or 
recording by other means for the purpose of promoting the sale or use 
of a 
product or service. A commercial-professional model.

Prop means an object such as a vehicle, boat, article of clothing, 
food and 
beverage product, or other commercial article filmed, photographed, 
videotaped, or recorded by other means to promote its sale or use.

These seem to be reasonable definitions; had they been in effect, 
neither my 
model nor I would have been cited.

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 20, 
2007. 
The description of the rule can be obtained from the GPO Access web 
site at 
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html; search for "filming". The 
relevant 
result is fr20au07P.

I submit this for your information, and encourage you to submit 
comments on this 
proposed rule change.
I personally think this something every American should be concerned 
about and 
especially every photographer. 
If you wish to submit a comment re these definitions, the time is 
short: the 
rule is open to public comment only until October 19, 2007.

Again. 
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html; search for "filming". The 
relevant 
result is fr20au07P

From how you described the situation, it appears you were indeed 
using a model.  It's analogous to getting a traffic citation for an 
offense that others have gotten away with.
DJ
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "stonieorl99" 
<stonieorl@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few weeks ago, I was issued a citation in a national park for 
> photographing a model without a permit. 
> The offense was "failure to obtain permit," 36 CFR 1.6(g)(1); 
> the citation did not mention the law or 
> regulation that actually required the permit. The citation imposed 
a 
> $150 
> fine, and required a mandatory court appearance. I might have 
> contested the 
> charge, but the court appearance would have been in Salt Lake 
City, 
> Utah, 
> and I live in Florida.
> 
> The ranger took my camera, tripod, and three exposed rolls of 
film. I 
> was 
> not rude or uncooperative. As a matter of fact, he said if I had 
not 
> been so 
> cooperative he would have made it a lot worse on me.
> 
> After talking to his supervisor, he did return the camera and 
tripod 
> the 
> next day, but kept the film as evidence. He was very courteous, 
and 
> when we 
> began to chat about it, it came out that the real reason he issued 
> the citation 
> was that my model was nude. Although nudity is legal in national 
> parks (as 
> the ranger himself admitted), he didn't approve personally, and 
this 
> was the 
> strongest citation he could find to issue. By the way, he gave the 
> model the 
> same citation that he gave me, imposing a $150 fine and requiring 
a 
> court 
> appearance.
> 
> He stated that if I decided to fight the citation, "community 
> standards" 
> would come into play and I would for sure loose the fight (He kept 
my 
> film 
> to prove my shots were not up to "community standards"). He also 
said 
> if I 
> had applied for a permit I would have been denied because of the 
same 
> "community standards."
> 
> I shoot art nudes, sometimes in landscapes. None could possibly be 
> considered 
> pornographic or distasteful. All the shots on the day I was cited 
had 
> the 
> model framing the landscape; all that was visible was her back or 
> side as 
> she looked out over a canyon, and most people would have to look 
> twice to 
> even notice her in the image. By the way, we were in a remote area 
> early in 
> the morning. No one had complained. The ranger apparently had seen 
us 
> as he 
> made routine early morning rounds through the park. It seems the 
> citation 
> was issued solely because of the ranger's personal tastes and his 
> interpretation of "community standards."
> 
> I looked at the NPS web page for permits for Commercial Filming 
and 
> Still 
> Photography at 
> http://home.nps.gov/applications/digest/permits.cfm?
urlarea=permits, 
> and 
> noticed that photography in national parks requires a permit when;
> 
> "the activity uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a 
part 
> of the 
> location's natural or cultural resources or administrative 
facilities"
> 
> There are no definitions of any of these terms, so it is not clear 
> who is a 
> "model." Looking at the fee schedule at the bottom of the web 
page, 
> it does 
> not even appear that a permit is needed for still photography 
> involving only 
> a camera and tripod and 1–2 people. After seeing this, I wish I 
had 
> been 
> able to fight the citation, but I simply could not afford the time 
> and expense. 
> 
> NOW TO THE BOTTOM LINE.
> I just learned that there is a proposed rule formalizing the 
permit 
> requirements for lands administered by the Bureau of Land 
Management, 
> the 
> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. 
> Reading the 
> proposed rule, especially after my recent experience, I am 
concerned 
> that a 
> "model," "set," or "prop" may be interpreted to mean whatever a 
> particular 
> ranger wants it to be. Perhaps a "model" could even include a 
> photographer's 
> spouse, son, daughter, and dear ole Mom if the ranger disliked 
> something 
> else the photographer was doing. With my delay shutter release, I 
> could have 
> also been a model. [Although not one I would want in my images.]
> Would my model and I have been cited if she had not been nude?
> 
> I have seen suggestions on several forums for definitions 
of "model" 
> and 
> "prop" to be added to the rule:
> 
> Model means a person who poses for filming, photography, 
videotaping, 
> or 
> recording by other means for the purpose of promoting the sale or 
use 
> of a 
> product or service. A commercial-professional model.
> 
> Prop means an object such as a vehicle, boat, article of clothing, 
> food and 
> beverage product, or other commercial article filmed, 
photographed, 
> videotaped, or recorded by other means to promote its sale or use.
> 
> These seem to be reasonable definitions; had they been in effect, 
> neither my 
> model nor I would have been cited.
> 
> The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 
20, 
> 2007. 
> The description of the rule can be obtained from the GPO Access 
web 
> site at 
> http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html; search for "filming". The 
> relevant 
> result is fr20au07P.
> 
> I submit this for your information, and encourage you to submit 
> comments on this 
> proposed rule change.
> I personally think this something every American should be 
concerned 

> about and 
> especially every photographer. 
> If you wish to submit a comment re these definitions, the time is 
> short: the 
> rule is open to public comment only until October 19, 2007.
> 
> Again. 
> http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html; search for "filming". The 
> relevant 
> result is fr20au07P
>

Funny thing is that here in Africa we have much more freedom then my home
country, the USA.  

 

I think it is prudent for there to be some regulations in place regarding
nudity in national parks, after all we don't want Biff and Beulah Phat and
the 5 little Phat kids from Milwaukee stumbling on to a graphic nude shot on
a picnic table next to Old Faithfull.

 

I would hope some sense of reason or reasonableness would prevail, but the
view from this side of the planet seems to be that much of the America
Government has lost the ability to be reasonable about anything.

 

The biggest worry in all this is that the Ranger couldn't site the relevant
specific code where the action was in violation.  

 

 

Christopher L. Johnston

Johnston-Namibia c.c.

PO Box 354

Omaruru Namibia

 <mailto:chris@...> chris@...

 

"Sic  parvis magna"

 

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Stonieorl99,

Your post about shooting in the National Parks is disturbing, to say  
the least. It's
become an issue for a number of years now, but the lack of rules  
which allowed
the park ranger to make his own value judgement, based perhaps on his  
personal
religious or moral code is outrageous.

I strongly suggest, if you haven't already done so, that you contact  
ASMP, APA, and
PPof A with this information. They have been steadfast in fighting  
these types of
government abuses, which really are values that a few are trying to  
impose on the many!

And as an aside, it would be nice if you would sign your posts with  
your name. Nobody
likes responding to an email nom-de-plume . If this weren't such an  
important issue,
I would not have written back.

Sincerely,

Clay Price


Posted by: "stonieorl99" stonieorl@...   stonieorl99 wrote:
A few weeks ago, I was issued a citation in a national park for
photographing a model without a permit.
The offense was "failure to obtain permit," 36 CFR 1.6(g)(1);
the citation did not mention the law or
regulation that actually required the permit. The citation imposed a
$150
fine, and required a mandatory court appearance. I might have
contested the
charge, but the court appearance would have been in Salt Lake City,
Utah,
and I live in Florida.......



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Echoing Clayton, sign your bloody post Stonieorl99. 

 

Two, you made a trip all the way to Utah from Florida suggesting that this
wasn't a quick impulse but rather a well planned trip. Checking with the
locals is always a good idea. A quick stop at the ranger's office before
hand or at the very least a call before you left Florida would take of that.
And while I am all for freedom, I don't think that just getting out of your
car at the crowded over look dropping your gown and snapping pictures is a
good thing to do. This may not have been what happened, but if a ranger was
close by, it suggests tat you were NOT in the back country or that far from
where families of many diverse beliefs may have been walking or enjoying
their park. 

 

Plan ahead and get naked : ) 

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Clayton
Price
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 10:42 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Cc: stonieorl@...
Subject: [Digital BW] Re:Be Careful Who You Photograph in National Parks

 

Dear,

Your post about shooting in the National Parks is disturbing, to say 
the least. It's
become an issue for a number of years now, but the lack of rules 
which allowed
the park ranger to make his own value judgement, based perhaps on his 
personal
religious or moral code is outrageous.

I strongly suggest, if you haven't already done so, that you contact 
ASMP, APA, and
PPof A with this information. They have been steadfast in fighting 
these types of
government abuses, which really are values that a few are trying to 
impose on the many!

And as an aside, it would be nice if you would sign your posts with 
your name. Nobody
likes responding to an email nom-de-plume . If this weren't such an 
important issue,
I would not have written back.

Sincerely,

Clay Price

Posted by: "stonieorl99" stonieorl@aol. <mailto:stonieorl%40aol.com> com
stonieorl99 wrote:
A few weeks ago, I was issued a citation in a national park for
photographing a model without a permit.
The offense was "failure to obtain permit," 36 CFR 1.6(g)(1);
the citation did not mention the law or
regulation that actually required the permit. The citation imposed a
$150
fine, and required a mandatory court appearance. I might have
contested the
charge, but the court appearance would have been in Salt Lake City,
Utah,
and I live in Florida.......

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jeez, this is buried. Here is the link for searching for the  
document. plugin the document number DOI-2007-0035-0001. Then click  
on the comments link. http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/ 
main

Here are my comments for what they're worth.

I am distress at the broad and vague language in the proposal to  
redefine the rules for photographing in National Parks. The use of  
the words model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) without defining any context  
puts all visitors to the National Park System at risk of violation.  
All your terms could be easily clarified by adding "for the purpose  
of promoting the sale or use of a product or service." Even this is  
too broad of a net. A commercial photography should be defined as any  
event of filming, photography, videotaping, or recording by other  
means that brings into a National Park equipment and/or persons that  
requires use of the resources of the national park beyond that of a  
casual visitor." This would include bringing in props that could  
restrict or impede the enjoyment of casual visitors. Setting aside  
for the moment the issue of use of resources (which a still or motion  
picture photographer does not consume simply by pointing a camera at  
a scene), having a friend or family member stop and stand to be  
included in a photograph causes no damage or use of national  
resources any more than any visitor to the park. The open ended  
language proposed puts all users of the national parks as suspect and  
thus at the mercy of a ranger's discretion for citation and the  
burden of proof on that user.

The ultimate purpose of the rules seems to me to insure that the  
natural beauty of the park is not compromised for commercial gain  
without compensation and regulation. This can only happen if support  
equipment beyond the usual (i.e. lights, stands, reflectors, but  
should not include tripods, backpacks and other personal equipment  
that many professional and amateurs alike use) and props beyond the  
usual (cars, boats, etc.) that that any other casual user might bring  
with them when enjoying the park (which could with certain types of  
parks include that the same). To put the emphasis on commercial gain  
is a slippery slope. There are photographers that are  
indistinguishable from casual park users who photograph like any  
other park user and whose photographs may at some possible point in  
the future be used commercially. Even a casual user's photographs may  
be use commercially someday. The point is that at best these  
photographs are made purely on speculation. To require a permit to  
photograph simply because there might be a possibility that someone  
some where might make a dollar on his or her photograph is absurd and  
onerous on the people simply enjoying and physically taking nothing  
away or consuming in the park. In light of these facts, "commercial"  
should be defined as assigned work that involves use of the park  
above and beyond that of the casual park visitor as outlined above.

In identifying commercial use of the parks by photographers you tread  
a fine line that could cause unwarranted restrictions on stock  
photographers, artists, and the casual visitor that wishes to enjoy  
the natural beauty of the parks in this nation when they cause not  
one iota of damage or use of our natural resources beyond the right  
to visit them.

Kindest regards,
Hal Gage

I cant believe how prudent people are in USA. affraid to see naked body, but...

Eric Neilsen <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:                               Echoing Clayton, sign your bloody post Stonieorl99. 
 
 Two, you made a trip all the way to Utah from Florida suggesting that this
 wasn't a quick impulse but rather a well planned trip. Checking with the
 locals is always a good idea. A quick stop at the ranger's office before
 hand or at the very least a call before you left Florida would take of that.
 And while I am all for freedom, I don't think that just getting out of your
 car at the crowded over look dropping your gown and snapping pictures is a
 good thing to do. This may not have been what happened, but if a ranger was
 close by, it suggests tat you were NOT in the back country or that far from
 where families of many diverse beliefs may have been walking or enjoying
 their park. 
 
 Plan ahead and get naked : ) 
 
 Eric
 
 Eric Neilsen Photography
 
 4101 Commerce Street
 
 Suite 9
 
 Dallas, TX 75226
 
 http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
 
 http://ericneilsenphotography.com
 
 Skype ejprinter
 
 _____  

 From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
 [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Clayton
 Price
 Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 10:42 AM
 To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
 Cc: stonieorl@...
 Subject: [Digital BW] Re:Be Careful Who You Photograph in National Parks
 
 Dear,
 
 Your post about shooting in the National Parks is disturbing, to say 
 the least. It's
 become an issue for a number of years now, but the lack of rules 
 which allowed
 the park ranger to make his own value judgement, based perhaps on his 
 personal
 religious or moral code is outrageous.
 
 I strongly suggest, if you haven't already done so, that you contact 
 ASMP, APA, and
 PPof A with this information. They have been steadfast in fighting 
 these types of
 government abuses, which really are values that a few are trying to 
 impose on the many!
 
 And as an aside, it would be nice if you would sign your posts with 
 your name. Nobody
 likes responding to an email nom-de-plume . If this weren't such an 
 important issue,
 I would not have written back.
 
 Sincerely,
 
 Clay Price
 
 Posted by: "stonieorl99" stonieorl@aol. <mailto:stonieorl%40aol.com> com
 stonieorl99 wrote:
 A few weeks ago, I was issued a citation in a national park for
 photographing a model without a permit.
 The offense was "failure to obtain permit," 36 CFR 1.6(g)(1);
 the citation did not mention the law or
 regulation that actually required the permit. The citation imposed a
 $150
 fine, and required a mandatory court appearance. I might have
 contested the
 charge, but the court appearance would have been in Salt Lake City,
 Utah,
 and I live in Florida.......
 
 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 
 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 
 
     
                               


 Rob 
  
  
 Incoming and outgoing mail scanned by AVG 
 www.grisoft.com
  


       
---------------------------------
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well, I suppose it could be dangerous to view a naked body. Or did you mean
prudish? 


- Stephen
stephen.sbillard.org

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of RobLee
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 1:26 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re:Be Careful Who You Photograph in National Parks

I cant believe how prudent people are in USA. affraid to see naked body,
but...

Eric Neilsen <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
Echoing Clayton, sign your bloody post Stonieorl99.

Nude Photography can be very dangerous.   I remember one time I was taking 
landscape photographs in the Southwest and had just gotten my clothes off and 
backed into a jumping cholla cactus! hehehehe

Best Wishes,
Mark Nelson

Precision Digital Negatives - The System
PDNPrint Forum at Yahoo Groups
www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com

In a message dated 10/7/07 4:25:36 PM, stephen@... writes:


> 
> 
> 
> Well, I suppose it could be dangerous to view a naked body. Or did you mean
> prudish?
> 
> - Stephen
> stephen.sbillard. st
> 
> 
> 





Best Wishes,
Mark Nelson

Precision Digital Negatives - The System
PDNPrint Forum at Yahoo Groups
www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com






**************************************
 See what's new at http://www.aol.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 10/7/2007 3:46:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
halgage@... writes:

In  identifying commercial use of the parks by photographers you tread  
a  fine line that could cause unwarranted restrictions on stock   
photographers, artists, and the casual visitor that wishes to enjoy   
the natural beauty of the parks in this nation when they cause not   
one iota of damage or use of our natural resources beyond the right   
to visit them.

Kindest regards,
Hal  Gage



I think bureaucrats tend to forget that these resources BELONG to the  
people. Somehow when an organized lobby like SnowMobile distributers get into  the 
picture, all sorts of abuses are permissable, but then that's corporate  
Americe, not just us plain ol' folks. 
If they want to give you a citation for indecent exposure, that's at least  
defendable in court, and there is a burden of proof and a need for offended  
witness evidence, but these vague criteria type of catch-all accusations  smack 
of a different kind of society than was envisioned by our laws.
I'm disturbed by this use of authority, and perhaps we photographers as a  
group, need to get involved in the process.
 
Richard Massie



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

So... did you remember on your way out the door to the ranger if he 
was a Mormon, and if so, how many wives he had?

Steve Karafyllakis


>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few weeks ago, I was issued a citation in a national park for 
> photographing a model without a permit. 
> The offense was "failure to obtain permit," 36 CFR 1.6(g)(1); 
> the citation did not mention the law or 
> regulation that actually required the permit. The citation imposed 
a 
> $150 
> fine, and required a mandatory court appearance. I might have 
> contested the 
> charge, but the court appearance would have been in Salt Lake City, 
> Utah, 
> and I live in Florida.
> 
> The ranger took my camera, tripod, and three exposed rolls of film. 
I 
> was 
> not rude or uncooperative. As a matter of fact, he said if I had 
not 
> been so 
> cooperative he would have made it a lot worse on me.
> 
> After talking to his supervisor, he did return the camera and 
tripod 
> the 
> next day, but kept the film as evidence. He was very courteous, and 
> when we 
> began to chat about it, it came out that the real reason he issued 
> the citation 
> was that my model was nude. Although nudity is legal in national 
> parks (as 
> the ranger himself admitted), he didn't approve personally, and 
this 
> was the 
> strongest citation he could find to issue. By the way, he gave the 
> model the 
> same citation that he gave me, imposing a $150 fine and requiring a 
> court 
> appearance.
> 
> He stated that if I decided to fight the citation, "community 
> standards" 
> would come into play and I would for sure loose the fight (He kept 
my 
> film 
> to prove my shots were not up to "community standards"). He also 
said 
> if I 
> had applied for a permit I would have been denied because of the 
same 
> "community standards."
> 
> I shoot art nudes, sometimes in landscapes. None could possibly be 
> considered 
> pornographic or distasteful. All the shots on the day I was cited 
had 
> the 
> model framing the landscape; all that was visible was her back or 
> side as 
> she looked out over a canyon, and most people would have to look 
> twice to 
> even notice her in the image. By the way, we were in a remote area 
> early in 
> the morning. No one had complained. The ranger apparently had seen 
us 
> as he 
> made routine early morning rounds through the park. It seems the 
> citation 
> was issued solely because of the ranger's personal tastes and his 
> interpretation of "community standards."
> 
> I looked at the NPS web page for permits for Commercial Filming and 
> Still 
> Photography at 
> http://home.nps.gov/applications/digest/permits.cfm?
urlarea=permits, 
> and 
> noticed that photography in national parks requires a permit when;
> 
> "the activity uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a 
part 
> of the 
> location's natural or cultural resources or administrative 
facilities"
> 
> There are no definitions of any of these terms, so it is not clear 
> who is a 
> "model." Looking at the fee schedule at the bottom of the web page, 
> it does 
> not even appear that a permit is needed for still photography 
> involving only 
> a camera and tripod and 1–2 people. After seeing this, I wish I had 
> been 
> able to fight the citation, but I simply could not afford the time 
> and expense. 
> 
> NOW TO THE BOTTOM LINE.
> I just learned that there is a proposed rule formalizing the permit 
> requirements for lands administered by the Bureau of Land 
Management, 
> the 
> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. 
> Reading the 
> proposed rule, especially after my recent experience, I am 
concerned 
> that a 
> "model," "set," or "prop" may be interpreted to mean whatever a 
> particular 
> ranger wants it to be. Perhaps a "model" could even include a 
> photographer's 
> spouse, son, daughter, and dear ole Mom if the ranger disliked 
> something 
> else the photographer was doing. With my delay shutter release, I 
> could have 
> also been a model. [Although not one I would want in my images.]
> Would my model and I have been cited if she had not been nude?
> 
> I have seen suggestions on several forums for definitions 
of "model" 
> and 
> "prop" to be added to the rule:
> 
> Model means a person who poses for filming, photography, 
videotaping, 
> or 
> recording by other means for the purpose of promoting the sale or 
use 
> of a 
> product or service. A commercial-professional model.
> 
> Prop means an object such as a vehicle, boat, article of clothing, 
> food and 
> beverage product, or other commercial article filmed, photographed, 
> videotaped, or recorded by other means to promote its sale or use.
> 
> These seem to be reasonable definitions; had they been in effect, 
> neither my 
> model nor I would have been cited.
> 
> The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 
20, 
> 2007. 
> The description of the rule can be obtained from the GPO Access web 
> site at 
> http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html; search for "filming". The 
> relevant 
> result is fr20au07P.
> 
> I submit this for your information, and encourage you to submit 
> comments on this 
> proposed rule change.
> I personally think this something every American should be 
concerned 

> about and 
> especially every photographer. 
> If you wish to submit a comment re these definitions, the time is 
> short: the 
> rule is open to public comment only until October 19, 2007.
> 
> Again. 
> http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html; search for "filming". The 
> relevant 
> result is fr20au07P
>

In a message dated 10/7/2007 5:33:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
Ender100@... writes:

Nude  Photography can be very dangerous.   I remember one time I was  taking 
landscape photographs in the Southwest and had just gotten my  clothes off 
and 
backed into a jumping cholla cactus! hehehehe

Best  Wishes,
Mark Nelson



You'd probably have had just as much fun with yer clothes on.....
 
Richard Massie



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

well, Richard, actually it was just a joke....

In a message dated 10/7/07 4:50:57 PM, CorrPro96@... writes:


> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a message dated 10/7/2007 5:33:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> Ender100@... writes:
> 
> Nude Photography can be very dangerous. I remember one time I was taking
> landscape photographs in the Southwest and had just gotten my clothes off
> and
> backed into a jumping cholla cactus! hehehehe
> 
> Best Wishes,
> Mark Nelson
> 
> You'd probably have had just as much fun with yer clothes on.....
> 
> Richard Massie
> 
> 
> 





Best Wishes,
Mark Nelson

Precision Digital Negatives - The System
PDNPrint Forum at Yahoo Groups
www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com






**************************************
 See what's new at http://www.aol.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 10/7/2007 5:59:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
Ender100@... writes:

well,  Richard, actually it was just a joke....







************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 10/7/2007 5:59:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
Ender100@... writes:

well,  Richard, actually it was just a joke....



That's what I thought...
 
Richard



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

G'day,

Without comment, the Guidelines for taking photographs at Uluru  
(Ayers Rock) world heritage site in Oz:
http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/uluru/vis-info/pubs/guidelines.pdf


regards,

John Anderson



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-You may mail or hand deliver

comments to National Park Service,

Attn: Lee Dickinson, Special Park

Uses Program Manager, 1849 C Street,

NW., ORG CODE 2460, Washington,

DC 20240.

 

Within that link, this seems to be the appropriate contact person to voice
your concern. 

 

Eric

 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gage Hal
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 2:46 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Be Careful Who You Photograph in National Parks

 

Jeez, this is buried. Here is the link for searching for the 
document. plugin the document number DOI-2007-0035-0001. Then click 
on the comments link. http://www.regulati
<http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/>
ons.gov/fdmspublic/component/ 
main

Here are my comments for what they're worth.

I am distress at the broad and vague language in the proposal to 
redefine the rules for photographing in National Parks. The use of 
the words model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) without defining any context 
puts all visitors to the National Park System at risk of violation. 
All your terms could be easily clarified by adding "for the purpose 
of promoting the sale or use of a product or service." Even this is 
too broad of a net. A commercial photography should be defined as any 
event of filming, photography, videotaping, or recording by other 
means that brings into a National Park equipment and/or persons that 
requires use of the resources of the national park beyond that of a 
casual visitor." This would include bringing in props that could 
restrict or impede the enjoyment of casual visitors. Setting aside 
for the moment the issue of use of resources (which a still or motion 
picture photographer does not consume simply by pointing a camera at 
a scene), having a friend or family member stop and stand to be 
included in a photograph causes no damage or use of national 
resources any more than any visitor to the park. The open ended 
language proposed puts all users of the national parks as suspect and 
thus at the mercy of a ranger's discretion for citation and the 
burden of proof on that user.

The ultimate purpose of the rules seems to me to insure that the 
natural beauty of the park is not compromised for commercial gain 
without compensation and regulation. This can only happen if support 
equipment beyond the usual (i.e. lights, stands, reflectors, but 
should not include tripods, backpacks and other personal equipment 
that many professional and amateurs alike use) and props beyond the 
usual (cars, boats, etc.) that that any other casual user might bring 
with them when enjoying the park (which could with certain types of 
parks include that the same). To put the emphasis on commercial gain 
is a slippery slope. There are photographers that are 
indistinguishable from casual park users who photograph like any 
other park user and whose photographs may at some possible point in 
the future be used commercially. Even a casual user's photographs may 
be use commercially someday. The point is that at best these 
photographs are made purely on speculation. To require a permit to 
photograph simply because there might be a possibility that someone 
some where might make a dollar on his or her photograph is absurd and 
onerous on the people simply enjoying and physically taking nothing 
away or consuming in the park. In light of these facts, "commercial" 
should be defined as assigned work that involves use of the park 
above and beyond that of the casual park visitor as outlined above.

In identifying commercial use of the parks by photographers you tread 
a fine line that could cause unwarranted restrictions on stock 
photographers, artists, and the casual visitor that wishes to enjoy 
the natural beauty of the parks in this nation when they cause not 
one iota of damage or use of our natural resources beyond the right 
to visit them.

Kindest regards,
Hal Gage

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

DOI-2007-0035-0001 , "Making Motion Pictures, Television Productions,
Soundtracks or Taking Still Photographs on Certain Areas Under the
Jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior"

 

It seems clear here the intent is to limit the over use and abuse of public
land by footprints much much larger than the individual photographer.
However, in not excluding that type of person from regulation, it also would
include those types of individual that just don't get "it".  Where "it" is
common sense not to stage a reenactment of some major or minor event without
proper OK. 

 

I don't think the intent, and that is a major consideration in enforcement,
would be to limit the well timed execution of a few frames of still
photography that barely impacted the use of the park by others. That
unsigned photographer that had the run in, should be able to resolve this
without additional fees, but was he really unaware? 

 

Perhaps, he also flew on Southwest airlines and wore an in appropriate T
shirt and traveled with a model that wore a scant amount of cloths.    ; )  

 

 

Eric 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gage Hal
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 2:46 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Be Careful Who You Photograph in National Parks

 

Jeez, this is buried. Here is the link for searching for the 
document. plugin the document number DOI-2007-0035-0001. Then click 
on the comments link. http://www.regulati
<http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/>
ons.gov/fdmspublic/component/ 
main

Here are my comments for what they're worth.

I am distress at the broad and vague language in the proposal to 
redefine the rules for photographing in National Parks. The use of 
the words model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) without defining any context 
puts all visitors to the National Park System at risk of violation. 





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Our mystery spammer seems to me to be blowing smoke. 

He claims the issue was nudity, but his ignoring the detailed
regulations that professional photographers SHOULD know about, and
that HE admits knowing about (though imagines they're invalid).

 Fees are commonly charged for commercial photography or films in most
taxpayer-owned tourist destinations (San Francisco and Manhattan and
National Parks have long been well-known for this). 

The fees (and penalties) pay the taxpayers for the commercial use of
their property (the park). I pay taxes, I own a chunk of National
Park, I expect to be paid when somebody shoots pinups on my property.

Our spammer knew that and is pretending the issue was a prudish Park
Ranger, who he undoubtedly argued with, despite his assertion that
he'd been "cooperative." 

I certainly wouldn't mind nude models near my camp, but our spammer
obviously wobbled describing the situation. Maybe folks wouldn't want
nude models and photographers near their kids camp, especially if the
photographer seemed to be a jerk. 

He left a bug-ridden 3rd-world country (Florida) and came to a better
place (Utah), doesn't want to pay for the privilege or play by the rules. 

The only thing the Ranger MAY have done wrong, if you believe our
spammer, was confiscating equipment...but even that MAY be authorized
, it certainly is for game wardens.

The Mississippi River needs a fence. 

John/Albuquerque






-- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Billard"
<stephen@...> wrote:
>
> Well, I suppose it could be dangerous to view a naked body. Or did
you mean
> prudish? 
> 
> 
> - Stephen
> stephen.sbillard.org
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
RobLee
> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 1:26 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re:Be Careful Who You Photograph in
National Parks

> 
> I cant believe how prudent people are in USA. affraid to see naked body,
> but...
> 
> Eric Neilsen <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
> Echoing Clayton, sign your bloody post Stonieorl99.
>

Posted by: "RobLee" roblee007@...   roblee007 wrote:
I cant believe how prudent people are in USA. affraid to see naked  
body, but...
Rob

Rob, I'm afraid you mixed up your word -  Prudent - many people  
(including the USA) are not -

As a society, I'm afraid many people are  "prurient ", and that fits  
the situation at the park, perfectly!

Clay

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well said. I was left with the feeling that half a story was being told.

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of djon43
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 9:03 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re:Be Careful Who You Photograph in National Parks

 



Our mystery spammer seems to me to be blowing smoke. 

He claims the issue was nudity, but his ignoring the detailed
regulations that professional photographers SHOULD know about, and
that HE admits knowing about (though imagines they're invalid).

Fees are commonly charged for commercial photography or films in most
taxpayer-owned tourist destinations (San Francisco and Manhattan and
National Parks have long been well-known for this). 

The fees (and penalties) pay the taxpayers for the commercial use of
their property (the park). I pay taxes, I own a chunk of National
Park, I expect to be paid when somebody shoots pinups on my property.

Our spammer knew that and is pretending the issue was a prudish Park
Ranger, who he undoubtedly argued with, despite his assertion that
he'd been "cooperative." 

I certainly wouldn't mind nude models near my camp, but our spammer
obviously wobbled describing the situation. Maybe folks wouldn't want
nude models and photographers near their kids camp, especially if the
photographer seemed to be a jerk. 

He left a bug-ridden 3rd-world country (Florida) and came to a better
place (Utah), doesn't want to pay for the privilege or play by the rules. 

The only thing the Ranger MAY have done wrong, if you believe our
spammer, was confiscating equipment...but even that MAY be authorized
, it certainly is for game wardens.

The Mississippi River needs a fence. 

John/Albuquerque

-- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Billard"
<stephen@...> wrote:
>
> Well, I suppose it could be dangerous to view a naked body. Or did
you mean
> prudish? 
> 
> 
> - Stephen
> stephen.sbillard.org
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
RobLee
> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 1:26 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re:Be Careful Who You Photograph in
National Parks
> 
> I cant believe how prudent people are in USA. affraid to see naked body,
> but...
> 
> Eric Neilsen <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
> Echoing Clayton, sign your bloody post Stonieorl99.
>

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The OZ regs are similar to those of Taos Pueblo in New
Mexico, except that the tribal members have not turned
any responsibility over to other governments and do
not allow any photography at all in most areas (you
won't notice that). Several Pueblos don't even allow
visits, though several encourage them, though that is
on the wane because they have not profited by tourism
until recently, with the casinos. Several are making
their Pueblos off limits while enriching cultural
presentations at the casinos.

> 
> I think bureaucrats tend to forget that these resources BELONG to the  
> people. Somehow when an organized lobby like SnowMobile distributers
get into  the 
> picture, all sorts of abuses are permissable, but then that's
corporate  
> Americe, not just us plain ol' folks.

This was not an instance of "plain ol' folks"...this was someone who
pretends not to be aware of regulations, claims the regulations are
not valid nonetheless, blames the Ranger's prudish attitude, hints
that he was not in fact hidden away with his photography, and has
traveled a long distance to make some sort of photo that he doesn't
choose to describe. He spammed without signing. I think he was a jerk
with us and was undoubtedly a jerk with the Ranger, despite claiming
that he was "cooperating." 

One DOES cooperate with Rangers because a) they are there to preserve
something valuable for us b)they are there to protect people from
themselves c) they are there to educate d) they are LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS and not "cooperating" is a crime. That this jerk spammer
thought it wonderful that he cooperated is only a way of saying that
he stopped arguing with the ranger just short of being arrested..IMO.


 
> If they want to give you a citation for indecent exposure, that's at
least  
> defendable in court, and there is a burden of proof and a need for
offended  
> witness evidence, but these vague criteria type of catch-all
accusations  smack 
> of a different kind of society than was envisioned by our laws.
> I'm disturbed by this use of authority, and perhaps we photographers
as a  
> group, need to get involved in the process.

No, we need to smarten up and count or various blessings, not the
least is that some of us treasure our National Parks and the good
people who work there. 

Many of us are well-enough educated to read closely and recognize
deceit: there was plenty of evidence of that in our spammers unsigned
post.

John Kelly

>  
> Richard Massie
> 
> 
> 
> ************************************** See what's new at
http://www.aol.com

> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

He left a bug-ridden 3rd-world country (Florida) and came to a better

place (Utah), doesn't want to pay for the privilege or play by the rules. 



The Mississippi River needs a fence. 



John/Albuquerque


yeah - the mississippi needs a fence to keep u out of our bread basket. meanwhile, keep your aryian wing-nut comments to yourself. 

----- Original Message ----
From: Robert W. Shearer <rwshearer@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2007 5:29:10 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re:Be Careful Who You Photograph in National Parks









  


    
            Well said. I was left with the feeling that half a story was being told.



_____  



From: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com

[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of djon43

Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 9:03 PM

To: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: [Digital BW] Re:Be Careful Who You Photograph in National Parks



Our mystery spammer seems to me to be blowing smoke. 



He claims the issue was nudity, but his ignoring the detailed

regulations that professional photographers SHOULD know about, and

that HE admits knowing about (though imagines they're invalid).



Fees are commonly charged for commercial photography or films in most

taxpayer-owned tourist destinations (San Francisco and Manhattan and

National Parks have long been well-known for this). 



The fees (and penalties) pay the taxpayers for the commercial use of

their property (the park). I pay taxes, I own a chunk of National

Park, I expect to be paid when somebody shoots pinups on my property.



Our spammer knew that and is pretending the issue was a prudish Park

Ranger, who he undoubtedly argued with, despite his assertion that

he'd been "cooperative. " 



I certainly wouldn't mind nude models near my camp, but our spammer

obviously wobbled describing the situation. Maybe folks wouldn't want

nude models and photographers near their kids camp, especially if the

photographer seemed to be a jerk. 



He left a bug-ridden 3rd-world country (Florida) and came to a better

place (Utah), doesn't want to pay for the privilege or play by the rules. 



The only thing the Ranger MAY have done wrong, if you believe our

spammer, was confiscating equipment... but even that MAY be authorized

, it certainly is for game wardens.



The Mississippi River needs a fence. 



John/Albuquerque



-- In DigitalBlackandWhit

<mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhiteThePrin t%40yahoogroups. com>

eThePrint@yahoogrou ps.com, "Stephen Billard"

<stephen@... > wrote:

>

> Well, I suppose it could be dangerous to view a naked body. Or did

you mean

> prudish? 

> 

> 

> - Stephen

> stephen.sbillard. org

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: DigitalBlackandWhit

<mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhiteThePrin t%40yahoogroups. com>

eThePrint@yahoogrou ps.com

> [mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhit

<mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhiteThePrin t%40yahoogroups. com>

eThePrint@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of

RobLee

> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 1:26 PM

> To: DigitalBlackandWhit

<mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhiteThePrin t%40yahoogroups. com>

eThePrint@yahoogrou ps.com

> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re:Be Careful Who You Photograph in

National Parks

> 

> I cant believe how prudent people are in USA. affraid to see naked body,

> but...

> 

> Eric Neilsen <e.neilsen2@ ...> wrote:

> Echoing Clayton, sign your bloody post Stonieorl99.

>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





    
  

    
    




<!--

Clearly, the issues being discussed here are not black and white, nor  
are the choices binary. So can we get back to talking about digital  
black-and-white photography now?

Harry

On Oct 8, 2007, at 7:29 AM, tom wrote:

>
> He left a bug-ridden 3rd-world country (Florida) and came to a better
>
> place (Utah), doesn't want to pay for the privilege or play by the  
> rules.
>
>
>
> The Mississippi River needs a fence.
>
>
>
> John/Albuquerque
>
>
> yeah - the mississippi needs a fence to keep u out of our bread  
> basket. meanwhile, keep your aryian wing-nut comments to yourself.
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Robert W. Shearer <rwshearer@...>
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, October 8, 2007 5:29:10 AM
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re:Be Careful Who You Photograph in  
> National Parks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>             Well said. I was left with the feeling that half a  
> story was being told.
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
>
> From: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
>
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf  
> Of djon43
>
> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 9:03 PM
>
> To: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re:Be Careful Who You Photograph in National  
> Parks
>
>
>
> Our mystery spammer seems to me to be blowing smoke.
>
>
>
> He claims the issue was nudity, but his ignoring the detailed
>
> regulations that professional photographers SHOULD know about, and
>
> that HE admits knowing about (though imagines they're invalid).
>
>
>
> Fees are commonly charged for commercial photography or films in most
>
> taxpayer-owned tourist destinations (San Francisco and Manhattan and
>
> National Parks have long been well-known for this).
>
>
>
> The fees (and penalties) pay the taxpayers for the commercial use of
>
> their property (the park). I pay taxes, I own a chunk of National
>
> Park, I expect to be paid when somebody shoots pinups on my property.
>
>
>
> Our spammer knew that and is pretending the issue was a prudish Park
>
> Ranger, who he undoubtedly argued with, despite his assertion that
>
> he'd been "cooperative. "
>
>
>
> I certainly wouldn't mind nude models near my camp, but our spammer
>
> obviously wobbled describing the situation. Maybe folks wouldn't want
>
> nude models and photographers near their kids camp, especially if the
>
> photographer seemed to be a jerk.
>
>
>
> He left a bug-ridden 3rd-world country (Florida) and came to a better
>
> place (Utah), doesn't want to pay for the privilege or play by the  
> rules.
>
>
>
> The only thing the Ranger MAY have done wrong, if you believe our
>
> spammer, was confiscating equipment... but even that MAY be authorized
>
> , it certainly is for game wardens.
>
>
>
> The Mississippi River needs a fence.
>
>
>
> John/Albuquerque
>
>
>
> -- In DigitalBlackandWhit
>
> <mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhiteThePrin t%40yahoogroups. com>
>
> eThePrint@yahoogrou ps.com, "Stephen Billard"
>
> <stephen@... > wrote:
>
>>
>
>> Well, I suppose it could be dangerous to view a naked body. Or did
>
> you mean
>
>> prudish?
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> - Stephen
>
>> stephen.sbillard. org
>
>>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: DigitalBlackandWhit
>
> <mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhiteThePrin t%40yahoogroups. com>
>
> eThePrint@yahoogrou ps.com
>
>> [mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhit
>
> <mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhiteThePrin t%40yahoogroups. com>
>
> eThePrint@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of
>
> RobLee
>
>> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 1:26 PM
>
>> To: DigitalBlackandWhit
>
> <mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhiteThePrin t%40yahoogroups. com>
>
> eThePrint@yahoogrou ps.com
>
>> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re:Be Careful Who You Photograph in
>
> National Parks
>
>>
>
>> I cant believe how prudent people are in USA. affraid to see naked  
>> body,
>
>> but...
>
>>
>
>> Eric Neilsen <e.neilsen2@ ...> wrote:
>
>> Echoing Clayton, sign your bloody post Stonieorl99.
>
>>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <!--
>
> #ygrp-mkp{
> border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px 0px;padding: 
> 0px 14px;}
> #ygrp-mkp hr{
> border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
> #ygrp-mkp #hd{
> color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height: 
> 122%;margin:10px 0px;}
> #ygrp-mkp #ads{
> margin-bottom:10px;}
> #ygrp-mkp .ad{
> padding:0 0;}
> #ygrp-mkp .ad a{
> color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;}
> -->
>
>
>
> <!--
>
> #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
> font-family:Arial;}
> #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
> margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
> #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
> margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
> -->
>
>
>
> <!--
>
> #ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean,  
> sans-serif;}
> #ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
> #ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica,  
> clean, sans-serif;}
> #ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
> #ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
> #ygrp-text{
> font-family:Georgia;
> }
> #ygrp-text p{
> margin:0 0 1em 0;}
> #ygrp-tpmsgs{
> font-family:Arial;
> clear:both;}
> #ygrp-vitnav{
> padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
> #ygrp-vitnav a{
> padding:0 1px;}
> #ygrp-actbar{
> clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text- 
> align:right;}
> #ygrp-actbar .left{
> float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
> .bld{font-weight:bold;}
> #ygrp-grft{
> font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
> #ygrp-ft{
> font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
> padding:5px 0;
> }
> #ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
> padding-bottom:10px;}
>
> #ygrp-vital{
> background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
> #ygrp-vital #vithd{
> font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text- 
> transform:uppercase;}
> #ygrp-vital ul{
> padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
> #ygrp-vital ul li{
> list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
> }
> #ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
> font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text- 
> align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
> #ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
> font-weight:bold;}
> #ygrp-vital a{
> text-decoration:none;}
>
> #ygrp-vital a:hover{
> text-decoration:underline;}
>
> #ygrp-sponsor #hd{
> color:#999;font-size:77%;}
> #ygrp-sponsor #ov{
> padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}
> #ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
> padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}
> #ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
> list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}
> #ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
> text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}
> #ygrp-sponsor #nc{
> background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}
> #ygrp-sponsor .ad{
> padding:8px 0;}
> #ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
> font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size: 
> 100%;line-height:122%;}
> #ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
> text-decoration:none;}
> #ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
> text-decoration:underline;}
> #ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
> margin:0;}
> o{font-size:0;}
> .MsoNormal{
> margin:0 0 0 0;}
> #ygrp-text tt{
> font-size:120%;}
> blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
> .replbq{margin:4;}
> -->
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> ______________
> Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your  
> story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
> http://sims.yahoo.com/
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you  
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by  
> visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages  
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed  
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules  
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the  
> group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines”  
> in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “ 
> OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL  
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,  
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER  
> INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL  
> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF  
> SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE  
> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO  
> OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR  
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO  
> GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steven 
Karafyllakis" <stevekphoto@...> wrote:
>
> So... did you remember on your way out the door to the ranger if he 
> was a Mormon, and if so, how many wives he had?
> 
> Steve Karafyllakis
> 


Steve:

I'm not Mormon, or even religious, but that type of rot is not called 
for here.

Paul Glombick

Why don't you just get off your Florida kick? In fact you might just try to 
get over your seeming obsession with race entirely. I don't think anyone 
cares what "third world" means to you or what the racial make-up of your 
state is. If you have something to say about digital b&w printing by all 
means say it. Otherwise please keep your racial views and your prejudices 
against  Floridians to yourself.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "djon43" <djon43@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 9:12 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re:Be Careful Who You Photograph in National Parks



Tom, you're right, I sounded racist. Bad.

I was thinking about that spamming Floridian who, despite his obvious
ignorance, presumed superiority over a National Park Ranger. The
Ranger was obviously trying to do his job, whether perfectly or
imperfectly.

"3rd-world" does imply race to some folks, not to others (or to me).
Means something different in the West and BBC (I listen to too much of
that) than to you.

 My state is over half Indian and Hispanic, and most of the Hispanic
trace back in America several generations or more. Despite border with
Mexico we  have fewer foreign immigrants than most states. Few of us
leave, so Florida in particular should feel safe :-)

"Aryan," btw, not "arian." "you" not "u" :-)

John

> The Mississippi River needs a fence.
>

> John/Albuquerque

> yeah - the mississippi needs a fence to keep u out of our bread
basket. meanwhile, keep your aryian wing-nut comments to yourself.

>
>             Well said. I was left with the feeling that half a story
was being told.
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
>
> From: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
>
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf
Of djon43
>
> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 9:03 PM
>
> To: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re:Be Careful Who You Photograph in National Parks
>
>
>
> Our mystery spammer seems to me to be blowing smoke.
>
>
>
> He claims the issue was nudity, but his ignoring the detailed
>
> regulations that professional photographers SHOULD know about, and
>
> that HE admits knowing about (though imagines they're invalid).
>
>
>
> Fees are commonly charged for commercial photography or films in most
>
> taxpayer-owned tourist destinations (San Francisco and Manhattan and
>
> National Parks have long been well-known for this).
>
>
>
> The fees (and penalties) pay the taxpayers for the commercial use of
>
> their property (the park). I pay taxes, I own a chunk of National
>
> Park, I expect to be paid when somebody shoots pinups on my property.
>
>
>
> Our spammer knew that and is pretending the issue was a prudish Park
>
> Ranger, who he undoubtedly argued with, despite his assertion that
>
> he'd been "cooperative. "
>
>
>
> I certainly wouldn't mind nude models near my camp, but our spammer
>
> obviously wobbled describing the situation. Maybe folks wouldn't want
>
> nude models and photographers near their kids camp, especially if the
>
> photographer seemed to be a jerk.
>
>
>
> He left a bug-ridden 3rd-world country (Florida) and came to a better
>
> place (Utah), doesn't want to pay for the privilege or play by the
rules.
>
>
>
> The only thing the Ranger MAY have done wrong, if you believe our
>
> spammer, was confiscating equipment... but even that MAY be authorized
>
> , it certainly is for game wardens.
>
>
>
> The Mississippi River needs a fence.
>
>
>
> John/Albuquerque
>
>
>
> -- In DigitalBlackandWhit
>
> <mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhiteThePrin t%40yahoogroups. com>
>
> eThePrint@yahoogrou ps.com, "Stephen Billard"
>
> <stephen@ > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Well, I suppose it could be dangerous to view a naked body. Or did
>
> you mean
>
> > prudish?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > - Stephen
>
> > stephen.sbillard. org
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhit
>
> <mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhiteThePrin t%40yahoogroups. com>
>
> eThePrint@yahoogrou ps.com
>
> > [mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhit
>
> <mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhiteThePrin t%40yahoogroups. com>
>
> eThePrint@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of
>
> RobLee
>
> > Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 1:26 PM
>
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhit
>
> <mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhiteThePrin t%40yahoogroups. com>
>
> eThePrint@yahoogrou ps.com
>
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re:Be Careful Who You Photograph in
>
> National Parks
>
> >
>
> > I cant believe how prudent people are in USA. affraid to see naked
body,
>
> > but...
>
> >
>
> > Eric Neilsen <e.neilsen2@ ...> wrote:
>
> > Echoing Clayton, sign your bloody post Stonieorl99.
>
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <!--
>
> #ygrp-mkp{
> border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px
0px;padding:0px 14px;}
> #ygrp-mkp hr{
> border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
> #ygrp-mkp #hd{
>
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0px;}
> #ygrp-mkp #ads{
> margin-bottom:10px;}
> #ygrp-mkp .ad{
> padding:0 0;}
> #ygrp-mkp .ad a{
> color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;}
> -->
>
>
>
> <!--
>
> #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
> font-family:Arial;}
> #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
> margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
> #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
> margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
> -->
>
>
>
> <!--
>
> #ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}
> #ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
> #ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica,
clean, sans-serif;}
> #ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
> #ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
> #ygrp-text{
> font-family:Georgia;
> }
> #ygrp-text p{
> margin:0 0 1em 0;}
> #ygrp-tpmsgs{
> font-family:Arial;
> clear:both;}
> #ygrp-vitnav{
> padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
> #ygrp-vitnav a{
> padding:0 1px;}
> #ygrp-actbar{
> clear:both;margin:25px
0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}
> #ygrp-actbar .left{
> float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
> .bld{font-weight:bold;}
> #ygrp-grft{
> font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
> #ygrp-ft{
> font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
> padding:5px 0;
> }
> #ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
> padding-bottom:10px;}
>
> #ygrp-vital{
> background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
> #ygrp-vital #vithd{
>
font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:uppercase;}
> #ygrp-vital ul{
> padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
> #ygrp-vital ul li{
> list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
> }
> #ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
>
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
> #ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
> font-weight:bold;}
> #ygrp-vital a{
> text-decoration:none;}
>
> #ygrp-vital a:hover{
> text-decoration:underline;}
>
> #ygrp-sponsor #hd{
> color:#999;font-size:77%;}
> #ygrp-sponsor #ov{
> padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}
> #ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
> padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}
> #ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
> list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}
> #ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
> text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}
> #ygrp-sponsor #nc{
> background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}
> #ygrp-sponsor .ad{
> padding:8px 0;}
> #ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
>
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%;}
> #ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
> text-decoration:none;}
> #ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
> text-decoration:underline;}
> #ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
> margin:0;}
> o{font-size:0;}
> .MsoNormal{
> margin:0 0 0 0;}
> #ygrp-text tt{
> font-size:120%;}
> blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
> .replbq{margin:4;}
> -->
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your
story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
> http://sims.yahoo.com/
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and 
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU 
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY 
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, 
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE 
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY 
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY 
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Tom, you're right, I sounded racist. Bad. 

I was thinking about that spamming Floridian who, despite his obvious
ignorance, presumed superiority over a National Park Ranger. The
Ranger was obviously trying to do his job, whether perfectly or
imperfectly. 
 
"3rd-world" does imply race to some folks, not to others (or to me).
Means something different in the West and BBC (I listen to too much of
that) than to you. 

 My state is over half Indian and Hispanic, and most of the Hispanic
trace back in America several generations or more. Despite border with
Mexico we  have fewer foreign immigrants than most states. Few of us
leave, so Florida in particular should feel safe :-)

"Aryan," btw, not "arian." "you" not "u" :-)

John
 
> The Mississippi River needs a fence. 
> 
 
> John/Albuquerque
 
> yeah - the mississippi needs a fence to keep u out of our bread
basket. meanwhile, keep your aryian wing-nut comments to yourself. 
  
>     
>             Well said. I was left with the feeling that half a story
was being told.
> 
> 
> 
> _____  
> 
> 
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
> 
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf
Of djon43
> 
> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 9:03 PM
> 
> To: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
> 
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re:Be Careful Who You Photograph in National Parks
> 
> 
> 
> Our mystery spammer seems to me to be blowing smoke. 
> 
> 
> 
> He claims the issue was nudity, but his ignoring the detailed
> 
> regulations that professional photographers SHOULD know about, and
> 
> that HE admits knowing about (though imagines they're invalid).
> 
> 
> 
> Fees are commonly charged for commercial photography or films in most
> 
> taxpayer-owned tourist destinations (San Francisco and Manhattan and
> 
> National Parks have long been well-known for this). 
> 
> 
> 
> The fees (and penalties) pay the taxpayers for the commercial use of
> 
> their property (the park). I pay taxes, I own a chunk of National
> 
> Park, I expect to be paid when somebody shoots pinups on my property.
> 
> 
> 
> Our spammer knew that and is pretending the issue was a prudish Park
> 
> Ranger, who he undoubtedly argued with, despite his assertion that
> 
> he'd been "cooperative. " 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly wouldn't mind nude models near my camp, but our spammer
> 
> obviously wobbled describing the situation. Maybe folks wouldn't want
> 
> nude models and photographers near their kids camp, especially if the
> 
> photographer seemed to be a jerk. 
> 
> 
> 
> He left a bug-ridden 3rd-world country (Florida) and came to a better
> 
> place (Utah), doesn't want to pay for the privilege or play by the
rules. 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing the Ranger MAY have done wrong, if you believe our
> 
> spammer, was confiscating equipment... but even that MAY be authorized
> 
> , it certainly is for game wardens.
> 
> 
> 
> The Mississippi River needs a fence. 
> 
> 
> 
> John/Albuquerque
> 
> 
> 
> -- In DigitalBlackandWhit
> 
> <mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhiteThePrin t%40yahoogroups. com>
> 
> eThePrint@yahoogrou ps.com, "Stephen Billard"
> 
> <stephen@ > wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > Well, I suppose it could be dangerous to view a naked body. Or did
> 
> you mean
> 
> > prudish? 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > - Stephen
> 
> > stephen.sbillard. org
> 
> > 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> 
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhit
> 
> <mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhiteThePrin t%40yahoogroups. com>
> 
> eThePrint@yahoogrou ps.com
> 
> > [mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhit
> 
> <mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhiteThePrin t%40yahoogroups. com>
> 
> eThePrint@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of
> 
> RobLee
> 
> > Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 1:26 PM
> 
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhit
> 
> <mailto:DigitalBlac kandWhiteThePrin t%40yahoogroups. com>
> 
> eThePrint@yahoogrou ps.com
> 
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re:Be Careful Who You Photograph in
> 
> National Parks
> 
> > 
> 
> > I cant believe how prudent people are in USA. affraid to see naked
body,
> 
> > but...
> 
> > 
> 
> > Eric Neilsen <e.neilsen2@ ...> wrote:
> 
> > Echoing Clayton, sign your bloody post Stonieorl99.
> 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
>   
> 
>     
>     
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <!--
> 
> #ygrp-mkp{
> border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:14px
0px;padding:0px 14px;}
> #ygrp-mkp hr{
> border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
> #ygrp-mkp #hd{
>
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:bold;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0px;}
> #ygrp-mkp #ads{
> margin-bottom:10px;}
> #ygrp-mkp .ad{
> padding:0 0;}
> #ygrp-mkp .ad a{
> color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;}
> -->
> 
> 
> 
> <!--
> 
> #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc{
> font-family:Arial;}
> #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd{
> margin:10px 0px;font-weight:bold;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
> #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad{
> margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
> -->
> 
> 
> 
> <!--
> 
> #ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}
> #ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
> #ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial, helvetica,
clean, sans-serif;}
> #ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}
> #ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}
> #ygrp-text{
> font-family:Georgia;
> }
> #ygrp-text p{
> margin:0 0 1em 0;}
> #ygrp-tpmsgs{
> font-family:Arial;
> clear:both;}
> #ygrp-vitnav{
> padding-top:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}
> #ygrp-vitnav a{
> padding:0 1px;}
> #ygrp-actbar{
> clear:both;margin:25px
0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}
> #ygrp-actbar .left{
> float:left;white-space:nowrap;}
> .bld{font-weight:bold;}
> #ygrp-grft{
> font-family:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}
> #ygrp-ft{
> font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;
> padding:5px 0;
> }
> #ygrp-mlmsg #logo{
> padding-bottom:10px;}
> 
> #ygrp-vital{
> background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}
> #ygrp-vital #vithd{
>
font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transform:uppercase;}
> #ygrp-vital ul{
> padding:0;margin:2px 0;}
> #ygrp-vital ul li{
> list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;
> }
> #ygrp-vital ul li .ct{
>
font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;padding-right:.5em;}
> #ygrp-vital ul li .cat{
> font-weight:bold;}
> #ygrp-vital a{
> text-decoration:none;}
> 
> #ygrp-vital a:hover{
> text-decoration:underline;}
> 
> #ygrp-sponsor #hd{
> color:#999;font-size:77%;}
> #ygrp-sponsor #ov{
> padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}
> #ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{
> padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}
> #ygrp-sponsor #ov li{
> list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}
> #ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
> text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}
> #ygrp-sponsor #nc{
> background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}
> #ygrp-sponsor .ad{
> padding:8px 0;}
> #ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{
>
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height:122%;}
> #ygrp-sponsor .ad a{
> text-decoration:none;}
> #ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{
> text-decoration:underline;}
> #ygrp-sponsor .ad p{
> margin:0;}
> o{font-size:0;}
> .MsoNormal{
> margin:0 0 0 0;}
> #ygrp-text tt{
> font-size:120%;}
> blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}
> .replbq{margin:4;}
> -->
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>        
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your
story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.

> http://sims.yahoo.com/  
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

John, As a previous ten year resident of Taos, NM , up north we would use
4th world rather than third world. : )   However without more discussion and
conversation with the "unsigned" it is a bit over the top. 

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of djon43
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 8:13 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re:Be Careful Who You Photograph in National Parks

 


Tom, you're right, I sounded racist. Bad. 

I was thinking about that spamming Floridian who, despite his obvious
ignorance, presumed superiority over a National Park Ranger. The
Ranger was obviously trying to do his job, whether perfectly or
imperfectly. 

"3rd-world" does imply race to some folks, not to others (or to me).
Means something different in the West and BBC (I listen to too much of
that) than to you. 

My state is over half Indian and Hispanic, and most of the Hispanic
trace back in America several generations or more. Despite border with
Mexico we have fewer foreign immigrants than most states. Few of us
leave, so Florida in particular should feel safe :-)

"Aryan," btw, not "arian." "you" not "u" :-)

John

,_._,___ 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

john, i don't need u t 2pt out my typo. typical of somebody that has to get n the last word. take
this as my last word 2 u.

t

>
> "Aryan," btw, not "arian." "you" not "u" :-)
> 
> John
> 
> ,_._,___ 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more!
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658

Eric, do you have any upcoming platinum seminars (Winter 07) ?

Been using digital negatives? I've seen some fine examples here
recently, surprisingly originating in fairly humble digicams.

fyi I was the California sales manager for Colenta for several years,
working from San Francisco. You may know Colenta from your Ciba work. 

I think you beat me from CA to NM by 5 years.

John

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen"
<e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
>
> John, As a previous ten year resident of Taos, NM , up north we
would use
> 4th world rather than third world. : )   However without more
discussion and
> conversation with the "unsigned" it is a bit over the top. 
> 
>  
> 
> Eric
> 
>  
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 
> 4101 Commerce Street
> 
> Suite 9
> 
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 
> http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
> 
> http://ericneilsenphotography.com
> 
> Skype ejprinter
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
djon43

> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 8:13 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re:Be Careful Who You Photograph in National Parks
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Tom, you're right, I sounded racist. Bad. 
> 
> I was thinking about that spamming Floridian who, despite his obvious
> ignorance, presumed superiority over a National Park Ranger. The
> Ranger was obviously trying to do his job, whether perfectly or
> imperfectly. 
> 
> "3rd-world" does imply race to some folks, not to others (or to me).
> Means something different in the West and BBC (I listen to too much of
> that) than to you. 
> 
> My state is over half Indian and Hispanic, and most of the Hispanic
> trace back in America several generations or more. Despite border with
> Mexico we have fewer foreign immigrants than most states. Few of us
> leave, so Florida in particular should feel safe :-)
> 
> "Aryan," btw, not "arian." "you" not "u" :-)
> 
> John
> 
> ,_._,___ 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

In order to keep this digital, I wonder what camera the moron who decided to
take nude photos in a public place was using? Was he planning an emulating
an Ansel Adams print? Call it Naked Mountain! It is always amazing to me
when someone criticizes inappropriate or down right stupid behavior, someone
calls him or her a racist. The accusation attempts to replace intelligent
dialogue and is used by people with no intelligent answer.

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of tom
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 10:53 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re:Be Careful Who You Photograph in National Parks

 

john, i don't need u t 2pt out my typo. typical of somebody that has to get
n the last word. take
this as my last word 2 u.

t

>
> "Aryan," btw, not "arian." "you" not "u" :-)
> 
> John
> 
> ,_._,___ 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 

__________________________________________________________
Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings,
and more!
http://tv.yahoo. <http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658> com/collections/3658


 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]