NO TRIPODS for photography - but painters easels OK?

[Willie]

Two friends recently returned from a West Coast trip. They visited a number of old Missions on the trip and some old towns/semi ghost/tourist towns as well.

At least four places they were told NO TRIPODS for photography. Asking about it they watched a number of painters with easels set up in the places they were interested in. No tripods for photography, but painters were OK?

Anyone understand the reasoning behind this one? Maybe because there are so many more photographers? Don't think there are all that many willing to set up a tripod for a view camera, but I don't visit those places and just don't know. My friends never got a rational explanation for it. Just know they won't be going back there and will visit Oregon or Washington instead next time.

[Drew Wiley]

Legally depends on exactly where on mission grounds you are - namely, who is legally in charge. I know this because for decades my sister held the landscaping contract for gardens at Mission San Juan Bautista, legally operated by the State Parks dept. But the buildings themselves were under diocese jurisdiction, so whatever the resident Priest decided was the operative rule. In that case, there was no sign telling you the boundary line. A perimeter garden patch might be owned by the State, but flower beds adjacent to the adobe buildings, by the Church. Only in the sanctuary was there a posted a notice not to take unauthorized pictures when anything was in session. Weddings were common. In that specific case, the local Padre was a friendly guy and I had no problem using a tripod anywhere. But I was careful to use rubber feet on my tripod rather than spiked feet. It's been awhile, but in Missions frequently inundated by tourists, rules tended to be understandably uptight; but at remoter missions, nobody seemed to pay attention. There is also a more recent "politically-correct" reason for revising rules. And I gotta be a little careful stating it cause I don't want this to turn this into an argue fest. But at the moment there is an enormous amount of controversy over the canonization of Father Junipero Serra. I don't care to comment here on who was a good guy and who a bad guy among the Spanish back then; but the controversy itself has brought in a number of activists demanding respect for certain native American stereotypes, like not wanting their "souls captured" using a camera. I grew up with Calif. Indians, have studied them a great deal, and never heard of anything like that. But there is a noisy group of neo or pseudo Indians who make that claim. I worked with one of them. So my intent is not to induce ridicule for a blatant misrepresentation of aboriginal attitudes, but simply to answer your question about seemingly arbitrary rules. I realize some of this explanation is not logical, but neither is the premise itself. Maybe less of your soul gets captured using a typical
handheld cellphone than a serious tripod camera. Dunno. Can you get ten at once using an 8x10 camera? But that pseudo
Indian I know who's involved in that kind of activism came from the Dakotas, not Calif.

[Mark Sawyer]

It shouldn't be too hard to put a Ries or Bogen head on a painter's easel...

[Bruce Watson]

Anyone understand the reasoning behind this one?

Prejudice needs a reason?

[Two23]

...but the controversy itself has brought in a number of activists demanding respect for certain native American stereotypes, like not wanting their "souls captured" using a camera. I grew up with Calif. Indians, have studied them a great deal, and never heard of anything like that. But there is a noisy group of neo or pseudo Indians who make that claim. ...

I would show them a book about Edward Curtis' work & life, and then ask them, "What the hell?"



Kent in SD

[Drew Wiley]

I love Curtis' images, but they were not only staged, but he had the habit of carrying various costumes around and dressing up his subjects in regalia totally unrelated to local tribal costume. Reminds me of young Monache Paiute kids in my old neighborhood dressing up as eastern Iroquois warriors and putting on some make-believe dance for casino customers, then off to the pizza parlor. Their actual ancestors wore next to nothing, and I have tintypes to prove it. The local tribes were extremely hygienic and routinely bathed in streams and rivers, made deodorants from plants, and couldn't stand the smell of the white miners who started arriving. The just didn't have much use for clothes. I could relate a lot of analogous stories. There's a colony of wannabee Indians across the river up there who weave baskets looking like something from Aaron Brother's Craft store, none of whom even remotely resembles an actual Indian; and they teach all kinds of ridiculous stereotypes about Indian life. Ironically, just a mile away there is an actual school of ancestral customs and language which was started by two full-blooded locals who were my cross-country running pals in high school. And the last living authentic local basket maker was a friend of my mother's and had her work film-documented by the Smithsonian. Those baskets can sell upwards of $50,000 apiece, that is, if any are remaining the mafia didn't steal to sell on the black market, or aren't otherwise locked up in museums. It gets silly. Now there's a group of wannabees re-enacting solstice ceremonies over on the coast where the tribes never practiced any agriculture until they were forced onto missions, and even then wouldn't be involved in some Druid-like solstice ceremony. "New age" stuff. Southwestern and Mesoamerican tribes held astronomical calendar events; but they planted corn and didn't have an abundance of shellfish and other marine life at their feet all year long. Some people have a vivid imagination as well as a bone to pick, I guess. But don't get angry at the folks who manage
the missions as themselves basically museums; they've just trying to dodge unnecessary squabbles. Some vandalism has
already occurred over the Junipero Serra controversy.

[Eric Woodbury]

When I was in Turkey, "camera with legs" meant you were a professional. In that case, they didn't want you to compete with 'their' photographers selling their postcards and books. But you could make an appointment 30 days in advance for a 4-hour window.

In the US, it is usually because tripods are a trip hazard.

You might try a bean bag or, if enough light, a monopod.

[John Kasaian]

Could be their insurance, could be the taint of commercial photography. Nowadays there are also security concerns as Drew mentioned.
It's hard to say.
With churches my SOP is to always write them in advance for permission on whatever date I'm planning on because they often have very full calendars and the bride might not appreciate me crashing her big day.

[BrianShaw]

At Mission San Juan Capistrano, owned and operated by the Roman Catholic Church, I was told that the tripod ban was because it’s a sign of professional photography. So I used a monopod with a Speed Graphic and had a lot of explaining to do but successfully carried on. On another visit a Hassy on tripod went unnoticed despite the sing regarding tripods at the entrance

[vinny]

Photography isn't art.