| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
News photographer detained at oil spill
Chad Greene, Photographer
 |
Knoxville | TN | USA | Posted: 8:58 AM on 07.29.08 |
->> Galveston County Daily News photographer and Sports Shooter member Kevin M. Cox was detained yesterday for not allowing police to review the photographs on his camera. This is just crazy! I worked with Kevin for a short time and he was never anything but professional, he did the right thing by not giving in to police demands to see the images on site. I hope this is worked out and they publicly apologize to Kevin and the newspaper for their error.
The story can be found here: http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=2ab4b518228a0b7f |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
 |
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 9:13 AM on 07.29.08 |
| ->> read the story, seems kevin came out unscathed. glad he stuck to his guns and refused to let the cops "review" his shoot. it still continues to amaze me how uninformed police officers are about the law. this happens so often it borders on the verge of comedy. I was on a marijuana eradication operation last week and when I got finished the second day one of the cops asked me if I was going by the office to see the major. I looked at him funny and said, "no, why would I do that?" and he said, "well you know the major has to approve all your pictures before they run in the paper." I looked at him a little more than dumbfounded (he was not a rookie) and explained that wasn't how a newspaper worked. he was totally clueless that the guy in charge of the operation wasn't going to get to approve the photos and read the story before it was published. it's a total lack of training on the law enforcement side of the fence and I don't ever think it's going to change. so we fight on........ |
|
Walter Calahan, Photographer
 |
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 9:22 AM on 07.29.08 |
->> This simply gets me angry.
The lawyers for the Galveston newspaper should be jumping down the county governments throats right now.
When will these cops learn that any terrorist who wants to learn about a site can use the internet to glean useful information.
Anyway, while they are detaining a news photographer, someone with a camera hidden from view could have been taking all the pictures they want of this scene.
A simple cell phone camera aimed out a car window can record valuable information, and our Homeland Security Mod Squad is clueless that a picture has been made.
Since when are police trained to evaluate a photograph to determine when security has been compromised? Do all police know what is of 'sensitive nature'?
It's not 10 AM and I'm already talking like a pirate. ARGH. |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
 |
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 9:56 AM on 07.29.08 |
->> It says in the article, "“There’s nothing wrong with asking to see the photos, as long as that’s all it is — a request,”.
If it's just a request, you can say "no" and go about your business. If you say no and they detain you it's more than a request.
This is one of the few times where I think there's an advantage to shooting film for spot news.
Police: "Let me see the back of your camera"
PhoJo: "Sure"
Police: "Where's the screen"
PhoJo: "Jeez, I don't know, it was here a second ago".
All kidding aside, Thanks for taking a stand Kevin. |
|
Jeffrey Haderthauer, Photographer
|
Wichita Falls | TX | USA | Posted: 10:23 AM on 07.29.08 |
->> Kevin-
Welcome to the no-fly list, buddy. |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
 |
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 11:00 AM on 07.29.08 |
| ->> I'm sure Kevin won't be detained from boarding a commercial flight any longer than it takes to perform an extensive body cavity search. |
|
Pat Christman, Photographer
 |
Mankato | MN | USA | Posted: 12:02 PM on 07.29.08 |
->> This statement from the Daily News story disturbs me, a lot:
"Cpl. Tom Robison of the Texas City Police Department, who is also the city’s contact with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, said the police department’s policy is to detain anyone photographing the city’s chemical plants. Police then review photos to see if they pose any threat but do not confiscate cameras or photographs."
So, it's standard practice to detain someone doing a lawful act and search them without probable cause of a crime? In fact, police policy! I'm far from naive, but holy crap! So much for the Constitution.
Thanks Kevin for standing up for that Constitution, and for photographers across the country.
PC |
|
Ian L. Sitren, Photographer
 |
Palm Springs | CA | USA | Posted: 12:15 PM on 07.29.08 |
| ->> Shoot film. |
|
Jim Cayer, Photographer
 |
Long Beach | CA | USA | Posted: 12:56 PM on 07.29.08 |
->> I understand that this is most likely a lack of training and or understanding of their department's policy, but as photographers we know very little if anything about an officer's training, just as the officers know very little if anything about photographer rights.
Things changed after 9-11 and the police have made policies to combat the need for added security. Some of these policies are needed while others are questionable. It's these policies that until questioned and looked at closer, are found to be written wrong. This isn't the first time a policy is written poorly and later changed.
Just as I would believe most here will take the photographers side in this and can completely understand this, I'm going towards the officer's side in this situation. I do this for a couple of reasons. The first being that I'm a member of the LAPD and have been with them for approx 21 years now. I understand first hand what an officer goes through and the type or lack of training we recieve. As officers we encounter situations from the normal to the extreame and have to deal with each and everyone of them. I understand that there are some cops out there who shouldn't be, but we do the best we can with what we have. |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
 |
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 1:53 PM on 07.29.08 |
| ->> Kevin, I think you handled this perfectly. They ask, you said no. Maybe some good can come from this in the form of education/restraining some over eager public servants. Hope every thing works out well for you. |
|
G.M. Andrews, Photographer
 |
Mobile | AL | USA | Posted: 9:29 PM on 07.29.08 |
->> IBTPA (In Before The Police Apologists).
Damn. Too late.
-GMA |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 10:35 PM on 07.29.08 |
->> jim, I truly hate to be a wet blnaket on your statement but quite frankly, it's a total load of horseshit. plain and simple...this whole "Things changed after 9-11 and the police have made policies to combat the need for added security. Some of these policies are needed while others are questionable" is a load of crap. plain and simple. this kind of nonsense has been going on for YEARS before 9-11. the police always love to hide behind some "make everyone afraid" statement" . and now we have "added security"? nonsense!! a MONKEY with a camera attached to it could take all the photos needed for a terrorist attack. your statement here:
' I understand first hand what an officer goes through and the type or lack of training we receive"
speaks to everything ever talked about on this site. LACK OF TRAINING BY POLICE!!!!!! maybe the police should get with the friggin program and realize this isn't a police run state. I know it might be a novel concept to those out there afraid of their own shadow but come on, a journalist shooting photos on the side of the road where any GWC could do a drive by. this my friends is crap. and ANYONE who thinks it's okay, even if you're not a journalist, should be VERY afraid. |
|
Kar Hlava, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 11:37 PM on 07.29.08 |
| ->> I knew there was something fishy about Kevin. He has those shifty eyes. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 11:41 PM on 07.29.08 |
| ->> huh? yikes I give up. did you misunderstand what I was saying because I transposed the letters in blanket? |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
 |
Princeton | IN | USA | Posted: 11:51 PM on 07.29.08 |
| ->> Jim, Chuck makes a good point. New policies or not, the Constitutional right to freedom of the press was not revoked after 9/11. |
|
Michael McNamara, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 11:54 PM on 07.29.08 |
->> Jim, are you kidding? Try working as a journalist sometime, and then back up the cops after you are detained for taking pictures of something while standing on public property.
And saying that officers know little to nothing about photographers' rights holds no water. One of the most serious rights the government has is the right to detain and imprison. If police want to exercise that right properly, they need to understand the law as it applies to the people they want to put handcuffs on. |
|
Luke Sharrett, Student/Intern
 |
Forest | VA | United States | Posted: 12:08 AM on 07.30.08 |
| ->> Its really disturbing how often this is happening. Not only in TX, but all across the country...even in our nation's capital. A few days ago I was threatened with arrest for taking pictures on public property at Union Station in DC. Things are getting ridiculous. |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
John Germ, Photographer
 |
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 9:29 AM on 07.30.08 |
->> I agree detaining is not waranted here, and agree the photographer is absolutely in the right to not show his photos, and I agree it's a training issue.
But, here's the problem - as photographers we are very much attuned to first amendment rights. But, in the spectrum of what a law enforcement officer needs to deal with on a daily basis, I don't think you're EVER going to see a training emphasis placed on photographer's rights. Philisophically, constitutional law is of utmost importance. But, in the reality of day-to-day law enforcement my guess is what limited training dollars any given department has will not (no matter how much you may wish it is different) be spent on educating officers on the rights of photographers.
So, these situations will need to be used as an opportunity to force politicians to have law enforcement educated. |
|
Aaron Rhoads, Photographer
 |
McComb | MS | USA | Posted: 9:37 AM on 07.30.08 |
->> "we know very little if anything about an officer's training,"
Like the training the NYC police officer got beating a suspect who was aleady restrained and on the ground by another officer.
Or the police officer who went out of his way to knock over the bicylcist protester. (As seen on recent videos) |
|
Willis Glassgow, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Florence | SC | USA | Posted: 10:04 AM on 07.30.08 |
->> Folks,
The problem with the police is not just with photographers, but up and down the board. The problem is systemic. The police, along with other emergency crews, are just plain overzealous and will do ANYTHING if they believe they are in the right. Police brutality is on the rise all over the country. Is this because the police are lacking in training? I doubt this very much. In my opinion, it is because they think they can get away with it or have gotten away with it for a long time. Are all policeman guilty of this?...Of course not. Are the majority?....I have no idea. Are there many?......YES and until we can change the system, we are going to have this major problem in our society. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 10:13 AM on 07.30.08 |
->> Willis,
I am going to go out on a limb and say your analysis is a bit naive. There are problems, I am not arguing that. But I think it's very naive to attribute the problems to officers thinking "they can just get away with it". If you are really interested in being part of the solution and not just bashing - talk to local law enforcement administration and look into doing some real analysis - see what law enforcement officers do on a daily basis (not what you think they do) - especially in large urban law enforcement agencies. You may be surprised to find out the problem is a bit more complicated than just people thinking they can get away with something. Spend 6 months in their shoes and get an idea of what the real problems might be - not what they look like from the outside looking in.
Again, I am NOT saying there are not problems. I'm just saying it's naive to attribute the problems to the notion that police are on a power trip. It's not that simple. |
|
Willis Glassgow, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Florence | SC | USA | Posted: 11:38 AM on 07.30.08 |
->> John,
I agree that my opinion of police is in general terms. Being a photojournalist for many years, I worked with police A LOT and know that some of these guys are guys just trying to do their job. The other percentage of police officers are their for other reasons. Too many to name of course. In this format of communication, we have to speak in these general terms. And generally speaking, many policeman are overzealous and feel as though they can get away with anything. Many of the policeman I knew (prior to 9/11), couldn't wait to draw their guns and shoot someone. They would drive at over 100mph, for no reason, other than fun and would do whatever they felt like because, no one would ever say anything. It was common to steal drugs off a drug user, take money and guns off of dealers. If I did not know this was fact, I would never state it. But it happened. Call what ever you want, but this is corruption. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
 |
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 12:35 PM on 07.30.08 |
->> I think it's time for a "photograph a chemical plant" day.
If our homeland security depends on controlling visuals of a chemical plant that anyone walking along the street can see, we are completely screwed.
I don't know what's more depressing - the fact that law enforcement types believe this, or that average people buy into the logic as well. |
|
Aaron Rhoads, Photographer
|
McComb | MS | USA | Posted: 1:13 PM on 07.30.08 |
->> I get depressed about it too.
I can't help but think, like Rome, we too, are giving away our republic to Caesar. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
 |
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 1:14 PM on 07.30.08 |
->> John,
I will suggest the issue is in part, based upon what the officer believes the law to be, rather than what the law is. As an example - though certainly not on the same level, I had a recent experience with an Illinois State Trooper on a traffic issue where he was adamanent that what was done was a violation and he was getting ready to write a citation to my wife. I was on the site by then and calmly asked him if the Illinois Vehicle Code defined something as he was describing it. He was sure it did, but apparently my question introduced just enough doubt (or more likey he really wanted to rub my nose in it) that he returned to his car, grabs a copy of the code out and after 10 minutes of searching, changed his mind on the citation. He was clearly wrong in what he thought the law was.
It's more than interesting to me to note that whenever these cases occur, the photographer is not charged with violating a statute which clearly and unambigously prohibits photographing the subject matter, but rather some nebulous, vague charge is made, as if they are making this up on the fly.
If police departments are going to take the time to educate their personnel on the criticality of defending these installations (surely the individual officer didn't come up with the notion on their own), then they can also take the time and effort to educate them on the basic tenants of the law regarding the rights of citizens and photojournalists to enjoy their constitutional liberties - and standing on a public right of way, taking a photograph of something which is in plain sight is about as basic as it gets.
Furthermore, given the public image problems that many of these forces have, I would think that such training would serve them well.
They are supposed to be enforcing the law - not creating their own version of it. |
|
Aaron Vogel, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Ventura | CA | USA | Posted: 1:47 PM on 07.30.08 |
->> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/06/the_war_on_phot.html -- Blog entry by a security technologist that I think is right on the money about this issue:
"Given that real terrorists, and even wannabe terrorists, don't seem to photograph anything, why is it such pervasive conventional wisdom that terrorists photograph their targets? Why are our fears so great that we have no choice but to be suspicious of any photographer?
Because it's a movie-plot threat."
Read the whole thing; it'll get you to think about things a little differently, and probably make you even more confident in your reasons not to show police your photos. |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
 |
Bloomington | IL | United States | Posted: 2:11 PM on 07.30.08 |
->> Maybe the officers just need some minor training on using Google Maps with the satellite and street view options.
Perhaps they might even see one of the "camera" cars speeding by to update the map.
Surely Google doesn't have any sensitive photos there that the terrorists could use. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
 |
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 2:54 PM on 07.30.08 |
->> What is really funny is that all refinery and chemical plants are required to publish a disaster-worst case scenario report.
It details what could be the worst possible thing that could happen, how much damage would be done, estimate on the loss of life, etc...
This is public record.
It doesn't take a genius to obtain the public report and determine that (edited out so I won't end up on the no-fly list) is among the worst case scenarios.
So why are we worried about photography.
It is a power trip.
I just don't know why cops need basic constitutional rights training after 9/11. Last time I checked, it was the same pre and post.
It is just used as an excuse to exercise power.
Until police are held accountable for their actions this will continue.
The police officer who did this, should be disciplined. A few weeks off unpaid will likely make sure he remembers not to detain a photographer on public property. I am sure the lesson will also be learned by his co-workers. |
|
Ian L. Sitren, Photographer
|
Palm Springs | CA | USA | Posted: 3:31 PM on 07.30.08 |
| ->> History does repeat itself. This is so very much like the late 1960's. |
|
Jim Cayer, Photographer
|
Long Beach | CA | USA | Posted: 4:38 PM on 07.30.08 |
->> Overzealous, police brutality, wow, we must have had a lot of bad contacts with police to feel that way. On the most part you'll find when an officer has to step up the threat level and do what must be done it's because of what the person he has contact did. Everyone here is talking about the lack of training with police, but you all need to understand that the officers you deal with, the guys and gals that do the work are doing what they have been trained and told to do. You think their not trained then talk to thier dept leaders or their city. These people deal with so many situations that are potentially dangerous that their just not up to par with things like a photographer's rights.
Say what you want, I'm fine with that. It isn't the first time and won't be the last. Police very rarely get calls of service so someone can say we did a good job. It's always something bad or negative. We deal with bad people, it's what we do. Weathers it's their job or not or the fact that they took an oath. Officers tend to become calloused towards many things. It's important to be this way so it doesn't come home with them.
Those who have a strong negative feeling about the police, I'm sorry. Were not all bad. Some of us do try to do the best job with the tools we have. I'd really lie to see or hear what Sports Shooter member Kevin M. Cox has to say about this. |
|
Jim Cayer, Photographer
|
Long Beach | CA | USA | Posted: 4:51 PM on 07.30.08 |
->> I just wanted to add this.
I apologize to SportsShooter and those who have responded to this post, but I take this personally, which I know I shouldn't. I can accept how you feel about your rights as a photographer, but with all the dangerous situation we deal with, a photographer's rights is very low on my priority list. Sorry, you may not want to hear that, but that's the way it is. I go to work with one goal in mind and that's to make it home to my family each and every day. I've works the south end (South Central LA) for most of my career on the department, so sorry for having the attitude I have. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 5:00 PM on 07.30.08 |
->> In Ohio, when I worked for the newspapers, I was always grateful to see the Ohio State Highway Patrol.
That is a well-trained department.
They focus on the task at hand and don't worry about the media, knowing that the media has every right to be there.
It can't be a coincidence that OSP never once asked me to stay back or asked me for a press pass, but city cops and county sheriffs always seemed to hassle the media.
One thing I don't understand is what threat is someone with a camera on public property? The sooner police officers realize that it is legal and not a threat they can focus on the real emergency - the oil leak, or whatever issue.
People with cameras worry police because they know if they do something wrong it will end up on TV, YouTube, etc....
If they would focus on their job instead of who is watching them, these stories would be few and far between. |
|
Alicia Wagner Calzada, Photographer
|
San Antonio | TX | USA | Posted: 5:21 PM on 07.30.08 |
->> Jim,
Photographers rights may be very low on YOUR priority list (it is clearly also low on the list of many cops).
But being able to do our jobs without being arrested, harassed or injured by police is very high on OUR priority list. I hope you understand.
Photographers respect cops and we want them to get home to there families too. Believe me, one police funeral is one too many. But this is not about whether cops are deserving of respect. It is about whether police should be able to violate the law. Plain and simple, they shouldn't.
And once you start adopting the mentality that the dangers and difficulties of your job entitles you to break the law, it is a slippery slope. That is how corruption happens. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 5:22 PM on 07.30.08 |
| ->> mike, that is kind of weird huh? here in NC we are usually very happy to go to a wreck or spot news event controlled by our North Carolina Highway Patrol. they go about their business in a professional manner and let you go about your job if YOU'RE acting in a professional manner and not getting in the way. and a response to jim, I totally understand your take but the fact of the matter is the credentialed photojournalist at an accident scene or disaster IS NOT THE BAD GUY. plain and simple, in the past 30+ years I have been witness at far too many accident, crime and disaster scenes where the police actually stop paying attention to doing their jobs to come and hassle working photojournalists who aren't doing anything but shooting photos. and the majority of the time there are members of the public rubbernecking closer than the photographer and the police disregard them to get the cameras. this has only gotten worse after 9/11. and that's why I hope kevin and his paper try and take some kind of legal action against the police department. that seems to be the only thing that gets their attention. |
|
Colter Ray, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
San Marcos | TX | United States | Posted: 5:30 PM on 07.30.08 |
->> "a photographer's rights is very low on my priority list. Sorry, you may not want to hear that, but that's the way it is."
WOW. Making a "priority list" of people's rights.
So that would mean that even though we all have "equal rights" some people's rights are just a little more, you know, important...
I guess I shouldn't be afraid of any of America's enemies trying to bring down our government and take away our basic rights, because hey, we're already doing it to ourselves.
I don't know why I'm even so worried about my rights... I mean, they're so low on the priority list I should just focus on making sure I can somehow scrounge up $70 for the next tank of gas or food for the next week. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 5:51 PM on 07.30.08 |
->> Chuck,
I was saying that the Ohio Highway Patrol is professional and a welcome site to journalists because they know credential journalists are not a threat.
I am not sure why or how Jim or other members of city departments or sheriff offices ever consider a member of the media recording their actions as a threat unless they are worried that their actions are unlawful or against department procedure.
Mike |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 5:56 PM on 07.30.08 |
->> Jim, in a dangerous situation, I can see an officer getting carried away (it's not right and shouldn't happen but can). But come on. This was an oil spill. I don't think the officer was worried about getting home safely. Kevin should not have been detained. Don't you need a have a legal reason to do that before making that decision? I suspect you are a thoughtful considerate officer. This should piss you off more than us. It reflects badly on your profession and is the reason many on here express a negative attitude towards the police.
There are many cases were you could argue for the officer and find me a sympathetic listener, but this doesn't seen to be one of them. |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 6:02 PM on 07.30.08 |
->> "WOW. Making a "priority list" of people's rights."
Coulter, that's not what he said. Try this.
Priority List
1. Go home alive
2 Protect the public from criminals
3 Write tickets
4 Photographers rights
Please excuse #3 as my attempt at humor. And Jim please excuse me if I got your point wrong. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
 |
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 6:30 PM on 07.30.08 |
->> The easiest way for police to properly prioritize photographers' rights is to stop paying so much attention to photographers.
Spending more than 15 seconds checking out a photographer is a sign of a public safety professional who doesn't understand their own job.
Photographers do not pose a credible tactical threat. Period.
--Mark |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
 |
Non Conforming | MA | United States | Posted: 7:10 PM on 07.30.08 |
->> Jim,
It is rare (twice) that a member's post has had me gag dinner back down and leave me speechless for any period of time. This is the 3rd revision of this post as the others would have earned me a full blown censure here.
You sadden me.
4th revision. The explanation for why wasn't really needed. |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington | IL | United States | Posted: 7:36 PM on 07.30.08 |
->> Jim, this is all just common cents. Images from these places are abundant. We aren't capturing anything new.
Are you saying you aren't allowed to think when you on your serve and protect job?
This is so much a DUH, I can't believe we've had over 40 people try to explain it in just this one thread. |
|
Jock Fistick, Photographer
 |
Brussels | Belgium | | Posted: 8:51 PM on 07.30.08 |
->> Jim you wrote - "I go to work with one goal in mind and that's to make it home to my family each and every day."
That is a damn good goal to have!
But please explain to all of us here how a photographer making pictures on public property in any way endangers you - the public or national security?
I think the 2nd amendment to the constitution is of much more threat to you, your fellow officers and the publics general safety than the 1st amendment - especially on the streets of South Central LA.
I for one will sleep better tonight knowing there are men and women who think like you do - that are armed with a badge and a gun - keeping the streets of America safe from dangerous photographers.
Keep up the good work and make sure no photographer keeps you from getting home safely! |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Non Conforming | MA | United States | Posted: 9:33 PM on 07.30.08 |
->> Jock banning guns only takes them out of law abiding hands. I'm not so sure that the 'elements' in south central really give a rodents back side about constitutional law when they're picking a weapon.
Here's a thought, how about everybody just works within the laws that are ALREADY on the books. The 1st 2nd 3rd **4th** and the rest of the amendments. How about we stop trying to pick and choose? Just a thought.
If you've sworn to uphold one then you swore to uphold them all. If you're living in the US you learn to enjoy the protections that some give you and live with the limits that some place one you. There's a process for changing them but in the mean time learning to abide by them would make everyones life so much simpler. |
|
Aaron Rhoads, Photographer
|
McComb | MS | USA | Posted: 9:35 PM on 07.30.08 |
->> "Priority list"
Don't people in authority, like the police, have to take an oath, in part to uphold the law, including the U.S. Constitution. |
|
Ronnie Montgomery, Photographer
 |
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 9:40 PM on 07.30.08 |
| ->> I tell ya what would be sweet is if all of us photographers in the Houston Galveston area protested by heading over to Texas City, cameras in hand, and all started taking pictures of the plant at the same time. Heck, we could even bring a friend for each camera body that we have. |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
|| Sponsor Special Deals
We BUY & TRADE you OLD Gear
|
Available from:
Adorama Camera
|
Price: $0.00 |
Notes:
We all have some cameras & lenses sitting around collecting dust right?...Or you work at a Newspaper that has downsized?...What to do with your excess photographic equipment? Adorama's Used Dept is looking for your used gear to purchase or take in trade. Contact me directly jsnyder@adorama.com or 1-800-223-2500 X2435 and I can fill you in on the details. Cash in your pocket is better than sitting on the shelf, right?
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
