Slashdot Mirror
Ban On Photographing Near Gulf Oil Booms
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."
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.
The reports of journalists being more unofficially banned from beaches where BP contractors are "cleaning" up the oil or from flying over the affected areas of the gulf.
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.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
FTFY.
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.
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
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.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Where the hell is the editorial review? The title and summary of the slashdot article have nothing to do with the linked article. Do you people not read the linked articles? What a waste of time.
That's very difficult to imagine - even Cthulhu has some principles.
Yeah, he's opposed to deep water drilling, for a start.
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)
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.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Actually, yes there is. 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.
This space intentionally left blank.