Garvan Gardens Charge Photographers $50 now

Just FYI for anyone wanting to go to the gardens at Hot Springs - they have a new photo policy - $50 per day fee to take pictures of the flowers. This is for anyone who might ever plan to sell or publish a photo. This was originally set up to cover portraits and weddings (in fact, the fee includes three "clients" that can come in with you - but none of those can be other photographers! If you go alone, it is still $50.), but they are now saying it applies to basically any photographer. It is on the honor system, but if you took pictures without paying the fee and eventually sold a portrait or wedding photo or nature photo then you would have been fibbing. It basically means any serious photographer. (I'm not serious, I try to be funny, but they would charge me anyway, ha!) I suspect if you snuck in and then spent several hours using a tripod and macro lens you would get into trouble - you are required to wear the pass on a string around your neck that is visible at all times to garden staff so they know how has paid and who has not.

I hate to see this happen - it is nothing but great advertising for them to have photographers showing off this beautiful garden, as I have been doing for years. And if it was strictly private I would be more understanding, but it is owned by the University of Arkansas, which is a state school and supported by our tax dollars. I don't mind paying an entrance fee like everyone else, but this is a bite in the ass to photographers - writers don't have a special fee for sitting in the garden and writing about the experience. Song composers don't - well, you get the point...

That is a shame, I can understand when you do a wedding portrait or something that is going to interfere with others enjoyment but a lone photographer capturing the beauty is hardly offensive.

Feeble minds cannot comprehend the true results of their actions.

hmm, does the extra fee allow you to shoot at any times when it's not open to the public? earlier in the AM, etc? i have heard of situations similar to this at other gardens.

Things like this are a real bite in the butt. Photographers seem to be held to some different standards than other hobbyists or professionals. Like every time we take a picture we are going to sell it and get rich! Something about having a camera in your hand that makes others think you owe them something if you use it. As you pointed out Tim they don't understand the free publicity they actually receive from people taking pictures. Everyone always has their hand out anymore. I have paid hundreds of dollars for access and opportunity to take and sell pictures from land owned by the Nature Conservancy. I don't mind this, this area is actually used for biological research so there are much tighter restrictions. I have learned much from them and understand the restrictions that must be put on such places. But a garden facility that is open to the public, that's ridiculous.

I would suggest every time a photographer encounters fees like this just to walk around and take pictures they point out to those in charge the actual "benefit" we provide for them, for Free!

Poetic justice would be if they wanted to buy one of the pictures you took in the Gardens, and then you could charge them twice your going rate.

This is for normal public hours only - no special access. They do charge a normal entrance fee (unless you have a membership at another garden), but as far as I know only photographers are accessed this extra fee per visit. Certainly not the first time that photographers have been discriminated against, it is just sad that this hits so close to home. It certainly would be understandable to pay for special access - I would expect that. Oh, and their policy says they discourage you coming on weekends, only during the week! And you must be approved in advanced - you can't just show up at the door and expect to get in. Of course, the way around this is to simply tell them that you are NOT a pro and NEVER plan to publish anything and that you are just shooting these for your OWN use. Of course, technically speaking, posting a photo on this web page qualifies as "publishing" it. 'Tis a can of worms. It is a beautiful gardens, but it is the principle of the thing.

It would not surprise me if more and more places like this charge photographers extra fees, which is kind of funny because I would bet that at least 95% of all adults would have a camera with them (even if it is only their phone), and if you just happen to want to get really high quality images by using a dslr and tripod, you are discriminated against even if you never plan to sell anything.

That has been the policy at the Fort Worth Botanical Gardens for several years now. You must register to take pictures anywhere in the gardens or a policeman will make you leave. Notion seems to be catching on.

And if you plan on shooting wildflowers at Smith Creek on April 10-11, bring your checkbook - it might cost you $25. More info here . People must think there's a lot of money in photographing mother nature.

After a little research, I found that April 10-11 will be kind of a workshop, led by Harvey Williams, Michael Dougherty, Paul Caldwell, and Bob Shull. So, dates other than April 10-11 should be free.

That stinks about Smith Creek. I have been wanting to shoot more flowers this Spring. I guess I will just have to visit Smith Creek on the 9th and 12th instead.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to that workshop - you can hike in and photograph all you want at Smith Creek that weekend. It is just if you go with the workshop the fee is $25. Harvey has kind of stepped in with exclusive rights to the road there - he gets to drive his four-wheeler in anytime he wants. We should have an unofficial gathering there and hike in before them...

I had a similar experience at the Myraid Botanical Garden in OKC last summer. When I paid my admission fee, they noted I had a camera/tripod and told me it would be an extra $25 to tote the tripod inside. When I asked why, they told me they'd had problems with wedding photographers and their entourages in the past obstructing the walkways (the gardens are inside a domed structure). I looked around and told her I obviously didn't have a wedding entourage with me, it was the middle of the week, during the daytime, and no one was even there! (In fact, the entire time I was at the garden, I saw maybe 3 people.) No exceptions, I was told. I unhappily left my tripod at the front desk, and had to take handheld photos. It seems the general public feels if you use a tripod, you're a "real" photographer and can afford to shell out extra bucks. It really ticks me off and it's sad to see it happening in more and more places

My husband & I visited these gardens a few years ago. Guess if we visit again, I'll probably leave the camera in the car It's a shame, it's a beautiful area.

Cash strapped states are looking for creative ways to raise cash. Kansas is now proposing to tax soda pop... Heck, they'll probably start taxing anyone who owns a "professional" camera next

As far as I know they don't charge anything extra for painters - I know some of them who have a lot more equipment than I work with, and take up more space. And RANDY you are correct - they don't charge the fee to poets either! It really is the wedding and portrait group they are targeting - with good reason - but the rest of us with cameras get caught up in the net. Certainly is a discriminating policy against photographers. The copy of this policy that I was sent was actually dated 2002. I have a feeling they are just now enforcing it - never heard of it until now.

Tim, I'm all for the unofficial gathering ahead of them idea.

I just got a note from the marketing director of Garvan Gardens. She said that they "have an obligation to protect the state's property" by charging photographers this fee. So she is inferring that if we got in for the standard fee that we would damage the place, as opposed to painters and other artists?

They won't have to worry about me tearing anything up down there, because I won't be there.

When you get b.s. for an explanation it's worse than getting no explanation at all. An obligation to protect the state's property? Pffttt. Why can't they just tell the truth and say they want a piece of the action?

The gardens, I'm sure, are beautiful. But really, I have absolutely no desire to go pay to see beautiful. I can do that for free in this entire state! I've never been to the gardens, and probably never will, especially with this "fee" in place. I'm in for the impromptu "hike" into Smith Creek btw!

Here is the actual wording from their website...

"*Note: A photography fee applies to photographers who are selling photos for profit or publication. This photo fee and policy also applies to any bridal photos, family portraits, etc. taken by professional or amateur photographers. However, there is no photo fee for visitors who want to take personal photos to remember thier visit."

The big question is, would they believe that someone like me, who has no intention to sell photos I would take there, is not a professional if I try to walk in with my camera gear and tripod?

$50.00 is ridiculous. For that price you should be able to pick out a bouquet of the best flowers for your lady...

$25.00 for a workshop is pretty cheap, but I've never been to a workshop period. Other people just slow you down! I could never charge less than $100.00 per head to deal with beginners out in the woods- at Bedfords I get to play with gear half the time.

I'd rather go into Smith Creek the day before the whole world is there trampling the flowers.