John David Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Having seen today's (or was it last week or perhaps last year) news headlines.... Yellow car owned by old man who lives in a privately owned cottage, which just happens to be next to the most photographed row of houses in the world. He has no garage, no back yard and I doubt that the local council would grant planning permission for him to build a pre-fab concrete garage next to his house. So, he parks his car, legally, outside the front of his home. It seems to be upsetting a few people, especially a local semi-pro photographer who is indignant about the amount of extra working time he has to spend "photoshopping" the car out. A local photographer comments that "The National Trust isn't entirely happy about it, but they can't do anything about it". Now all this Ker-fuffle gave me an idea. Since the NT charge photographers and inordinate amount to obtain a licence for editorial photography on their property, which includes hundreds of miles of British coastline, thousands of acres of British landscape, countryside and properties,..... Wouldn't it be fun to photo bomb NT properties by taking photographs of ugly cars which are parked legally, and photographed legally from a public place, which just happens to have an NT property in the background.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Gloucestershire Echo Jan 18th 2015. Arlington row, Bilbury. I have an image with that yellow car in my port. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John David Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 Port? You own a port? Do tell.... is it Dover? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Not keen on NT policy, but they can't prevent you taking and selling photos from public rights of way, so photos of the coastline or countryside from public paths are surely not on the prohibited list? My interpretation is that it's photos of their maintained properties and taken from their land that are subject to that ruling, but, again, shots taken from a public highway or a right of way should be excluded. Indeed it gives me great pleasure to exploit that loophole at every opportunity. Edit - Mail online article about that yellow car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Not keen on NT policy, but they can't prevent you taking and selling photos from public rights of way, so photos of the coastline or countryside from public paths are surely not on the prohibited list? My interpretation is that it's photos of their maintained properties and taken from their land that are subject to that ruling, but, again, shots taken from a public highway or a right of way should be excluded. Indeed it gives me great pleasure to exploit that loophole at every opportunity. I too enjoy exploiting NT from public rights of way. Their policy was why I gave up membership and rarely visit NT properties. They behave too much like old fashioned aristocratic landowners. The seem to forget that they only have the properties in trust on behalf of the people of the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 If anything of mine has NT in the caption it also has 'taken from the public ROW'. Otherwise it doesn't have NT in the keywords at all, nudge nudge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 If I remember correctly, the NT did try something in the way of images on the coastline but got shouted at loudly by people saying how utterly ridiculous it was to try and stop people taking photos there. There are no signs or any entrance fee to pay when walking along the coast so what are they going to say? It would never get anywhere if they tried. As for the car. I saw the article in the Daily Mail. Having photographed the row of houses myself it's not that difficult to get an image without the car in it. There aren't a lot of angles but it's not an impossible situation. I have my own situation if I photograph Salisbury cathedral across the water meadows. In front of the cathedral is a large house. Parked outside is always a camper van. It looks ugly but there is nothing I can do about it and I don't Photoshop it out either. It's there, I live with it. The bloke with the yellow car has every right to park on his property. As the residents quite rightly said "this ain't Disney!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Yarvin Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Am I the only one who likes the car? The scene is nothing but an old postcard without some touch of modernity. The guy is welcomed to park his car on my block should he choose to drive across the ocean on his next trip to the States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlbertSnapper Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I live not too far from Bibury where this is happening, also in an old row of Cotswold terrace cottages, are all Grade 2 listed (protected properties - can't use/have plastic guttering/ satelite dish/ double glazed windows/ dayglo orange front door etc. etc.). The moaning local photographer mentioned in the article should be thankful it's just a yellow car (that can move!), and not like where I live, where the council keep erecting more pointless roadsigns in an area where you can barely do more than 20mph (because narrow, bend, junction,....). Too much street furniture = visual pollution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russell Watkins Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Port? You own a port? Do tell.... is it Dover? No. It's his carport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 If, as the OP says, it is indeed the most photographed row of houses in the world, it must be over-represented in stock libraries . . . so assuming it doesn't constantly change, would any stock photographer even be interested in shooting it, car or no car? dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 If, as the OP says, it is indeed the most photographed row of houses in the world, it must be over-represented in stock libraries . . . so assuming it doesn't constantly change, would any stock photographer even be interested in shooting it, car or no car? dd In a word, yes. One of my images from there sold to an Australian company for just under $1k if memory serves. You could say the same about the Eiffel Tower in Paris. There must be millions up on millions of photos of that and yet it still sells! PS Just seen in my sales this morning that just sold not one but two images of the Eiffel Tower shot last year. Never not photograph something because it's been to death. There is always hope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 If, as the OP says, it is indeed the most photographed row of houses in the world, it must be over-represented in stock libraries . . . so assuming it doesn't constantly change, would any stock photographer even be interested in shooting it, car or no car? dd In a word, yes. One of my images from there sold to an Australian company for just under $1k if memory serves. You could say the same about the Eiffel Tower in Paris. There must be millions up on millions of photos of that and yet it still sells! PS Just seen in my sales this morning that just sold not one but two images of the Eiffel Tower shot last year. Never not photograph something because it's been to death. There is always hope it was London to a brick on that many contributors had sold images of over-represented subjects--that is always going to happen . . . but as a strategy, I still maintain that it is commercially weak, especially for those who complain here so often about lack of sales, perhaps doubly especially if contributing to an unedited collection. IMO, the commercially-aware answer is "Yes, if you can present that location in a new and/or unique way". dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Yes, I agree Dusty. That's what I am trying to do with Paris. I have a number of lines of enquiry on various places that will get me shots that just aren't out there. It's hard a lot of the time though as it may be that you are visiting somewhere and only have one opportunity to get something. What do you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Yes, I agree Dusty. That's what I am trying to do with Paris. I have a number of lines of enquiry on various places that will get me shots that just aren't out there. It's hard a lot of the time though as it may be that you are visiting somewhere and only have one opportunity to get something. What do you do? I think grabbing a shot within a tiny window of opportunity is one thing, having a shooting strategy is another. I too have grab-shots of iconic locations, but only when I didn't have the time or opportunity otherwise to investigate a different viewpoint/presentation. Good luck with the different views of le tour. dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Thanks Dusty. I have some amazing places in the pipeline. Highly unlikely they will end up here but still, you shouldn't keep all your eggs in one basket! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 In a few years time people will see the photos and say what a cute old-fashioned yellow car and try to recreate the scene My thought too... I don't necessarily refrain from photographing, say, an iconic building that's covered in scaffolding. A quirky shot, rather than the standard view, may be just what someone is looking for... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 While at Arlington Row and the yellow car was parked there I put on a wide lens and took a photo of the gentleman's cottage without the car in the picture. Allan EDIT: port = portfolio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Thanks Dusty. I have some amazing places in the pipeline. Highly unlikely they will end up here but still, you shouldn't keep all your eggs in one basket! I know . . . we both frequent another place where I have seen your musings on this exact matter :-) dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Estall Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I have a cunning plan! Wait patiently (as is my normal practice) until the gentleman nips off on a shopping trip, grab a few nice shots and then install my yellow camper-van in the abandoned spot and annoy everybody: retired dentist, National Trust and as many coach-loads of tourists as possible. I have a comfortable camera platform on the top of the van where I could sit for hours soaking up the bad vibes. or does that sound just too mean-spirited? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jools Elliott Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Thanks Dusty. I have some amazing places in the pipeline. Highly unlikely they will end up here but still, you shouldn't keep all your eggs in one basket! I know . . . we both frequent another place where I have seen your musings on this exact matter :-) dd We do? I'm intrigued now! PM me so I know what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.