St Petersburg, Russia

[Kenmo1]

Just a word of warning to anyone doing a Baltic cruise which usually means a visit to St Petersburg. We read the Horizon the night before our first day there and it clearly said that you are not allowed to take photos on the quayside and in the immigration hall. It said there would be a hefty fine. I read it out to my husband and then we both promptly forgot the next morning when another passenger asked my husband to take a photo of her with the Aurora in the background. She wasn't satisfied with just one and ended up asking for four in total. We realised what we had done and next morning I got my husband to go through immigration the next day (you have to do it each time you get off) in case his photo flashed up on their computers as having broken the rules. I thought if he got carted off I could head straight back to the ship to try and sort out the fine - I'm a really caring person like that.

[Boris+]

We were given exactly the same warning when we were in St Petersburg. Some other passengers were on the quayside (I think they had done a morning excursion and were heading back to the ship for lunch etc), and they decided to take some photographs. We watched them stand on the quayside and the focused on the ship for their photographs. Some men in uniform came along, there was much arm waving, the camera was 'dropped' on the floor by the men in uniform and the passengers had to go with them into the customs building.

Em

[Kenmo1]

Crikey, Boris - we were lucky then. What really annoyed us was the fact the woman kept on wanting more taken. The sun was very bright and shining on the camera so it was very difficult for my husband to see what he was taking. Presumably that rule also applied to taking photos from on board while we were in port but it didn't stop the ship photographers taking photos at the bottom of the gangplank.

[Manoverboard]

The Ship's photographers had perhaps purchased an ' Official ' Visa for taking said photographs.

[david63]

With the ship's photographers it was probably more a case of what (or to be more precise - what was not) in the background.