[iCrop]

I was told so, by security in the bar at the top of the Bonaventure Hotel in Los Angeles.

I took my wife to downtown L.A. this past weekend for her birthday. Friday night we went to the rotating bar at the top of the Bonaventure to take photos of the city lights. We got a table next to the window and I set up my K20D on a tripod between our table and the window. The camera was about the height of the table, in no one’s way. I started taking photos as we waited for drinks. There were groups of people coming in and out also taking photos, with point and shoot cameras, my wife included. After about ½ hour a security guard came up to me and said I couldn’t take photos with a professional camera on a tripod. I said OK, is it OK if I shoot without the tripod? He just repeated, take it off the tripod. So I took that to mean OK off the tripod, not on. So I put the tripod away and took more photos for about 20 more minutes until the guard's boss comes over and introduces himself. As he asked what my business was, the guard comes up. I replied I was an amateur photographer taking photos for my own enjoyment. To which the guard replies “That’s an amateur professional camera and you can’t use it here. Continue to use it and we’ll escort you out”. So I stopped.

So, get a G10 or Leica D-LUX 4, or some other high end P&S, if you want to take photos of city lights from the bar at the top of the Bonaventure, and don’t take your Professional Pentax.

[flyer]

You could likely sue him (if you have time to loose) for discrimination, since he didn't forbid anybody else to take pictures. You should send the manager a letter of intent, and see what happens. It wouldn't cost much, and it might bring some "fringe" benefits (like a free supper...), and the chance to take some more pictures.

[Nowhere Matt]

It may be just as much the way you use the camera and approach toward the use of the camera that created the resistance from management. And a camera of that size and design will get their attention much easier if you had been using even the mightiest point and shoot.
Similar situation with me when I took our family to an indoor waterpark hotel. Lots of other people with point and shoot and even smaller bridge cameras taking their snapshots and here's me walking around with my K10 going all over getting my snapshots but seemingly I am single out (perhaps it was the off camera strobe, assistants holding reflectors and director's boom) and told either I stop photographing or leave the premises.
"Ok. That's a wrap people. Let's reset tomorrow. Thank you."

[iCrop]

Hi Yves -

A letter to management there has crossed my mind. I can see their point of view, I was after all, on their property. What I find funny is the ingnorance of their security staff for singling me out, and ignoring others who may be able to get good photos without problem. If I ever go there again, I'll just have to take a smaller camera, and leave the Professional one in the bag.

[iCrop]

Hi Matt -

I was being pretty inconspicuous. It took a half hour to get noticed. When I knew I couldn't get a good shot for a while, I'd put my baseball cap on top of the camera to camouflage it. It worked for a while anyway.

[tim71]

“That’s an amateur professional camera and you can’t use it here. Continue to use it and we’ll escort you out”.

"Amateur professional"???

Many premises can have a restrictions on taking pictures or video footage, but these should apply to anybody - even when shooting with a camera phone.

If it is forbidden, then it is forbidden, period! This "classification" thing is pure nonsense...

[iCrop]

Yes Tim, that's what he said. I got a laugh out of that one. Oh, the things you hear from the mouths of the intellectually underprivileged...

I think on this occasion, it was the tripod that caused the problem. If nothing else, it could be considered to be a hazard in a public place. They get sued if someone trips over it or something, not you. Perhaps if you had asked permission prior to setting up, they would have been more accommodating.

[iCrop]

Hi Gary -

The tripod wasn't in the way, just the opposite. And if I had asked ahead of time, they most likely would have told me to take the camera out of the building. At least I got some shots, now all I have to do is get time to look them over. I'm sure they will be quite professional looking...

[JHfwp]

What's sad about this incident, and the others that have been posted lately, is that you were a paying customer with good reason to be there. If nothing else, I think you need to bring their attitude to someone's attention.

What's sad about this incident, and the others that have been posted lately, is that you were a paying customer with good reason to be there. If nothing else, I think you need to bring their attitude to someone's attention.

Yes, I agree. A polite email or letter to the management often works wonders. It may bring attention to ineptitude by the security staff or even make them rethink their policies. As someone said before, you might even get a free supper out of it.
You could sweeten the pot for them by offering a print or two for them to hang or use on their website (along with a photo credit of course).

Mike, the tripod didn't have to be in the way for it to be considered a hazard. The fact that it was there could be against their policy for insurance reasons, that's easier than deciding individual areas where a tripod could be allowed or not, staff aren't paid to think.

[iCrop]

What's sad about this incident, and the others that have been posted lately, is that you were a paying customer with good reason to be there. If nothing else, I think you need to bring their attitude to someone's attention.

Like I've said, I thought about writing them, but I don't think it will be worth it. This is a place that prides itself on its view. Film production companies pay them to be allowed to film there. Someone like me isn't worth their time.

I'm not so much angered by their behavior, as I am humored by their ignorance and quickness to prejudge.

[iCrop]

Mike, the tripod didn't have to be in the way for it to be considered a hazard. The fact that it was there could be against their policy for insurance reasons, that's easier than deciding individual areas where a tripod could be allowed or not, staff aren't paid to think.

Gary, they never mentioned anything about safety. They were more concerned with my ability to capture the images of the view outside their windows.

[SpecialK]

...now all I have to do is get time to look them over. I'm sure they will be quite professional looking...

You must always refer to that hotel as the bastard Bonaventure, same as I refer the the bastard UCBank in Los Angeles (tallest building there). Ahole there would not let me take an exterior picture on a national holiday (4th of July, deserted LA streets) because "they were a business". He was also chasing away touristy P&Sers from the waterfall area at the sidewalk.

[Kguru]

I took my kids to a football (Aussie rule) match, don't remember if it was printed on tickets or posted at stadium's entrance, that no professional cameras allowed. I guess it's necessary because prof photographers probably have to pay a substantial fee for the privileges of working there it'd be unfair to make them compete with spectators wanting to make a photo sale to the newspapers; otoh it wouldn't make sense to ban cameras all together so the compromise is no professional cameras. (I'm still not sure how they draw the line though).

In the hotel case, how about asking its management why P&S are ok but not what they term professional, what do they fear?