Camera allowed/ or not?
 

My recent hobby is photography and especially love to take close up pictures of scrulptures and paintings. I am no doubt a novice in this field.

What is debilitating is that I cannot focus too well on the wide screens of the small carmeras and have to look through the view finder in those big Canon cameras to take pictures.
When traveling to Rome, Florence, Venice, Milan and Paris, I really would like to know which tourists sites allow you to take pcitures or not.
Or which type of camera is a better choice, the light hand wide screen or the heavy Canon ones with memory card?

Let me ask you this: if you know which tourist sites do not allow you to take pictures, does it change your plan? If not, this information will not be useful to you.

Here is my observation. The place that official forbid taking pictures clearly show signs. They come in various levels. Some do not allow flash photographies, but video and no-flash photos are ok. Others prohibit all photographies. Most places let you keep your camera with you anyway.

But the enforcement is something else. For example, the Sistine Chapel is supposed to be no photo area, but there are no shortage of tourists taking pictures of all kind despite constant yelling by the guards.

I nkow the Scavi tour at Vatican does not allow cameras.

The Louvre allows pictures in the sculpture galleries but not in the painting galleries. The Musée des premiers arts, aka MQB, seems to have no restrictions on photographs. The policy seems to vary from museum to museum. Ask when you purchase your ticket. In some instances, you may have to pay extra to take photographs.

To answer your question, just take the camera and look for signs to tell you if pictures are allowed.

We were at the Louvre in May and I got so tired of ducking out of the way of Japanese tourists trying to take pictures of a different groups of people standing in front of various statues and sculptures.

And please don't pile on because I singeled out the Japanese. It just happened that they were the only ones doing it and it seemed to be at every thing I wanted to see. I honestly wanted to ask them if they wanted to actually SEE these works of art or show their friends back home that they were there.
Go to the museum store and buy a book.

There. I feel better.

I have a pocket-size Nikon Coolpix (in addition to my standard D70s). It is great for indoor shots where photography is "not allowed." It is smaller than the palm of my hand and can be used discreetly. I set it on "Museum Mode," which quickly takes ten non-flash shots and uses an algorithm to identify and save the image with the least amount of blur. I stabilize the camera against a post, etc. I have gotten many shots this way, including a few while standing very close to museum staff that had no clue what was going on.

You cannot take pictures of David inside the Accademia in Florence or the Galleria Borghese.

"I have a pocket-size Nikon Coolpix (in addition to my standard D70s). It is great for indoor shots where photography is "not allowed." It is smaller than the palm of my hand and can be used discreetly. I set it on "Museum Mode," which quickly takes ten non-flash shots and uses an algorithm to identify and save the image with the least amount of blur. I stabilize the camera against a post, etc. I have gotten many shots this way, including a few while standing very close to museum staff that had no clue what was going on.
"

I think that's an appalling attitude.

smueller- Total disrespect for where you are. Adding to the "ugly American" image quite nicely.

<< I set it on "Museum Mode,">>

folks, I think (s)he was putting you on

Putting on about what? Museum mode? There is such a thing and it is very useful for taking pictures when you do not want a flash or any camera noise.

There are literally thousands of "tourist sites" in the places you'll be visiting. It's silly to think anyone could list all the ones where photography isn't allowed.

There will be signs. Heed them.

I have a Nikon Coolpix and can verify that it does have a museum mode. However, I always try to observe the signs and only take photos where permitted. You almost never are allowed to do flash photography, and even where you are, the flash on your typical point and shoot is almost useless except at very close range.

Flash photography is harmful to paintings, so that's a definite no-no at art museums. But, in the last 20 years, most museums have banned non-flash photography not because of any danger to the items on display, but rather, in order to maximize the value of their copyright and eliminate unauthorized copies of art works or artifiacts.

We were just in Paris and photographed paintings at the d'Orsay and Picasso museums without any problems ... flash is not allowed so having a lens with IS or VR (image stabilizing terms for Canon and Nikon) is great, as is a camera with low noise so you can switch to higher ISO settings if necessary.

I was using a 24-105 f/4 Canon lens with IS and a low noise dSLR (1D Mark II) so I could shoot even the Degas pastels kept in extremely low light. This lens gives you about 3 f/stops of motion reduction. The oil paintings were easier to photograph than the pastels or watercolors since the ambient light levels were much higher.

Bill

The list of allowed and disallowed places is very long, and there are few reliable general rules.

While in the Sistine Chapel - there were clearly signs that stated no picture taking. Unfortunately, there were hundreds (it seemed) of people just flashing away. At that rate - in years there will be no Sistine Chapel to view. I found it disguisting.

Flash does harm, especially to frescoes(!!!!), textiles and anything on paper. Many people, even those who consider themselves 'art lovers', don't know or, worse, don't care. PLEASE take that seriously. Believe an art historian. Otherwise you're helping to damage and destroy invaluable treasures of art.

Because of that museums and churches have to forbid photography alltogether. If someone lifts up a camera you don't know in advance whether or not the flash will be used. When it is, it's too late. Those general rules are there because of the ignorants' flashes.

That copyright and postcard selling nonsense is a lame tourist excuse.

I don't understand why you have trouble focussing - the camera has autofocus which will do the job for you. Most people with sight problems find the LCD screens on compact cameras a boon as they have trouble looking through the viewfinder of an SLR (whatever the make - but try a Pentax - they have very good viewfinders).
What camera do you have now for your recent hobby? All cameras have memory cards no matter what type they are.
If you don't mind carrying an SLR then go for that - maybe the new Olympus which is small and light would suit you otherwise try out compacts and see which is best suited to you.
If photography is forbidden then respect that and just enjoy the sculptures for what they are - works of art not photography subjects.

Flash does not harm art; that is a persistent but incorrect myth.

Actual scientific studies have revealed that the enemy of such things as paintings, drawings, and other art forms containing pigment and dyes is not flash photography specifically, but all light, whatever its source.

The normal artificial or natural light used to illuminate art in museums is thousands of times more harmful to the art than a photographic flash. Photo flashes deliver only a very small amount of light, but they do it over a very short period of time, which means that they are bright, but brief. However, artwork is sensitive to total light exposure only—it doesn't matter whether the exposure is fast or slow, only the total amount matters.

The amount of light delivered by a flash is equivalent to about one or two seconds of natural shade. Thus, the natural light falling on most works of art is damaging them so much already that flash really doesn't make any different.

This is a good example of an urban legend that just won't die. And museum curators like to keep it alive because it gives them an excuse for prohibiting photographs and selling photos in the gift shop.

By the way, the most damaging wavelength of light is ultraviolet. Daylight is filled with it, but the light from a flash doesn't contain it (because the cover of the flash absorbs it).

Perhaps photos damage works of art, perhaps not.... I don't know - I just know that hordes of tourists trying to push to the front to grab a pix is truly annoying -- it's so much more enjoyable to leisurely stroll through a museum and enjoy the works with others doing the same - rather than trying to dodge the obnoxious pix takers (granted, there are polite ones but it's still annoying). Buy the postcard in the gift shop.

okay, as long as we are venting, I take occasional photos with a good Olympus with the flash off, when allowed, of some stained glass windows in churches, or interior architecture, as I find that interesting.

But I have never once taken or wanted to take a photo of a work of art like a painting. What on earth is the point of this? I really don't understand why anyone wants a photo of a work of art. It's not the same as looking at it in person, if so, you wouldn't be going to the museum in the first place, you'd buy a coffee table book. I think it's just to prove you've been there and because a lot of folks doing this don't even really know why they are doing it, but think that's what you are supposed to do on vacation so you can show people when you are home what museums you've been in.

I have bought some nice posters for reproductions that I've framed, but I bought them in the museum shop and they were a lot larger. Photos of paintings are really the thing I understand least-- why anyone does that.

Photography is allowed at almost all outdoor sights. And many indoor sights allow photography without a tripod or without a flash. Some museums don;t allow photos of certain galleries (paintings, tapestries etc) to prevent damage.

Has any tourist ever taken a really good photograph? Most pics I am forced to view are of unidentifiable people in front of something...Have you ever taken a photography course?

GSteed...YES

I refer you to Clifton's photos, shared on another thread in this forum:

http://www.trekearth.com/members/Cli...frica/Morocco/

GSteed -

Yes - a lot of travelers actually know how to take pictures. Some of us are quite good at it - not that every shot is perfect - but as with professional photo shoots - if you take enough some are bound to come out lookng great unless you're hopeless.

(And without any photo training a couple of mine have been pubished in travel newsletters - but then I generally do at least 100 photos a day when on vacation.)

i had great results taking pictures without a flash in a couple of art museums using my digital camera - something that I would never have been able to do with my film SLR. Just look for signs to see where it is allowed. In the museums I was in (it was in the US), the paintings i couldn't take pictures of had copyright restrictions.

"I really don't understand why anyone wants a photo of a work of art. It's not the same as looking at it in person,"

I've seen people in museums whizzing by paintings and taking shots of them with their little cameras.
The always remind me of a line from by Wendell Berry,
"He showed his vacation to his camera, which pictured it... But he would not be in it, he would never be in it."

And really, what is the point of having a snapshot of a Van Gogh??

Photos like that are "proof pictures," that prove that the person taking the photo has been to this or that famous place. That's the only reason people take them.

Why is looking through the view finder "debilitating"? I never use the view finder?

Anthony -- not at all the 'only' reason. Saying this shortshrifts others' way of enjoying the vacation even AFTER they return and it's otherwise a dimming memory, where one could not see everything. To each his own, but for some it's a tangible memory of our own encounter and with more detail to enjoy after the fact.

We're so used to seeing pictures on postcards and in books, picture-perfect, all the same, interchangeable, and we say THESE are The Pictures and you should not want more than that.

Not so. Also, I almost never take photos of friends in front of anything, except if they want one to send to family etc.

But it's important to me to record my own experience of how I saw something in reality, how the picture looked to me in its habitat :-) from where I stood or sat -- what it looks like when it's not just a perfect rendition in a book; what all the details were that I couldn't soak in during the short time we are able to be there.

In the Sistine Chapel, I sat and enjoyed it for long periods of time, just looking but I also wanted the more defined memories as well. People all around were quietly shooting and there were no flashes (and you explained pretty well re the flash effects pro- and con). I never use flash inside.

They escorted out people who were using fancy DSLRs, especially with good zoom lenses which would take pictures that could compete with copyrighted huge gorgeous photos in books and on the Net.

They let those with small cameras stay but asked people not to take more photos. It used to be allowed in the chapel, some say, until a company in Japan paid for the restoration and apparently applied a copyright for doing so. Definitely with The David - people were allowed easily to take non-flash photos before the restoration/cleansing of the statue 2 years ago.

I sat down and talked with the guards at the Accademia, who did their duty but didn't really enforce the rules if people were not using flash. We go once in our lifetimes, and our own photo memories are important to some of us, from our own perspective. They told me they didn't know why the rules changed but that it was probably because of concern that those who don't know better will accidentally flash a picture and that's distracting. In the meantime, people were busily videotaping and quietly shooting when not just staring mouths agape at this beautiful sculpture. I was there for 1-1/2 hours just enjoying it, bowled over by what Michelangelo did from one single slab which others had set aside as "useless" including that same dismissal by da Vinci. It is awesome. I have a video documentary of it and saw it before I went but it could not compare with being there and seeing it from one's own perspective in real life. Our own photos will approximate it in our own memories more than a picture by someone else in a book taken from a totally different vantage point we could never have anyway. The guards were very nice in our conversation.

Re the main question, Uffizi does not allow photos of any kind and they watch you carefully. Reflections are awful anyway.

Photos aren't allowed in the Accademia but it's not particularly enforced even when the guards are there. Siena's Museum allows no pictures of any kind, but in the beautiful cathedral they do allow non-flash. In St. Peter's church, even flash is allowed.

One thing about viewing with LCD screen -- you can still be aware of the whole scene instead of that tiny area inside a viewfinder.

- Andrys

In addition to the various legal and conservation-related reasons for ruling out photography in museums, there is the fact that it is annoying to someone who wants to LOOK at the works to be surrounded by artparazzi. Even worse, to have to get out of their way.

To take truly close, detail photos of paintings requires conditions not available in the galleries of a museum: macro lens and positioning, lighting.

There are a million photo ops outside the museums: fountains, sculpture, architecture, people. Take whatever museums do allow photos as a bonus, and yield to the rules in the others.

By the way, a lot of people have trouble focusing and framing well using digital displays and choose to stick with a good view finder.

Good luck, and have a great time shooting - you won't miss those surreptitious gallery shots when you get home.

When we visited the Musee D'Orsay last October, there was a couple who insisted on taking a photo of each in front of every painting of note! It was really frustrating.

I must confess that several of their photos ended up with portions of my body whizzing through them.

At no point did they stand back and just enjoy the paintings.

At the Louvre, they have a sign saying that photographs of all art work is on-line. I think that is a great idea.

These museums and galleries are just so busy, and will only get more crowded, there just isn't the capacity to allow each person to film their own art catalogue.

And don't get me started on the total disregard for other people's enjoyment by those who use flash photography, let alone the impact on the artwork.

Dear AnthonyGA,

>Flash does not harm art; that is a persistent but incorrect myth.

Having spent over a dozen years in the study of the science of art conservation, I must most respectfully rise to assure you that that statement is utterly and totally incorrect.

Although you might feel that one flash is a mere drop in the bucket compared to 300 years of natural light, you might wish to consider the effect of ten thousand flashes per day.

((I))

Sacre Coeur does not allow photography. I actually liked that because it made for a nicer experience than Notre Dame because you didn't have people snapping pictures all around you while trying to enjoy the experience.

Not to mention the generally bad quality of flash photos in a big space like a church.

Reminds me of watching an event like the Olympic opening ceremonies, with camera flashes constantly going off in the stadium ... knowing that the flash has a range of about 10 feet, and that those thousands of pictures will (mostly) be tossed (or with the digital age, never printed.)

I love to bring home photos. But we'd all be better off if we'd learn to actually SEE the things we're looking at and take in the detail. How many people come home with a raft of snapshots they don't quite recognize? ("Harry, is that Rome or Paris?" "Looks like Grand Central Station ...")

"there is the fact that it is annoying to someone who wants to LOOK at the works to be surrounded by artparazzi. Even worse, to have to get out of their way."

I truly hate this, and have had many visits ruined by all this photphraphy. They hold up traffic, block access to art, and there is nothing more appalling than being in a church or cathedral and see people flashing away, even during a service.

Restoring something does not make it eligible for a new copyright. Copyright applies only to tangible recordings of original creative work (at least in theory, although greed has continually pushed the envelope).

<<It used to be allowed in the chapel, some say, until a company in Japan paid for the restoration and apparently applied a copyright for doing so.>>

The people who paid for the restoration (I'm not looking it up right now, but it seems like Fuji film was part of it, also a publisher, maybe even a broadcaster) did have temporary exclusive rights. Not copyright, per se, but rights to photograph the work and reproduce photos of the restored work. It's not that the work in question itself has a copyright - it's that the owner of the work (in this case the Vatican) contracted with only one company to photograph it. Those photos are NEW works of art and do have a copyright. (Just like a new recording of Beethoven's Fur Elise.) Anyway, we could assign the same rights to someone who wanted to photograph our living rooms - any takers?

I don't believe that the photo rule in the chapel (other than those "Pro" quality cameras, which still will not produce publishable "art book" results without proper lighting and satbilization) has to do with that deal. BTW, note that no one will keep you from taking a photo in Piazza San Pietro (yet - if it's ever thought to become a security issue, watch out. It's already gotten to the point where you can be detained for taking snapshots on or of ferries and much other public transport or facilities in the US - no matter how photogenic!)

A different perspective... I recently returned from Russia, took numerous pictures of pictures at the Hermitage (they charge extra for the privilege, which I gladly paid, no flash). I immensely enjoyed taking the photos and have immensely enjoyed looking at them since I came home. We each experience things differently. I could make the same argument about taking pictures of the Eiffel Tower or anything else you see on vacation - don't take pictures, you'll enjoy it more if you just look at it and buy a book. The fact is some of us enjoy the act of taking the pictures - of composing the shot and trying to capture what the mind's eye is seeing. It's an art form. And I don't get the holier-than-thou attitude that enjoying the art without taking pictures is superior to enjoying the art while taking pictures. Who appointed you (those of you who are dissing all the photographers as missing the point of the art) as the ultimate authority on the best way to enjoy something? It seems rather judgmental to assume that every photographer is taking pictures just to prove he/she was there or whatever. Probably many are - but not all. Personally, I enjoy it and it enhances my enjoyment of the art - makes it more personal for me to focus on it with my camera, look for a good angle, and capture the memory to take home. So if you deliberately step in front of me when I'm doing no harm, paid for the privilege, am not using flash, and am not breaking any rules - in order to mess up my picture, YOU are the one who is rude not me!
That said, I agree photographers can be annoying! But frankly, I've seen people in museums who hold up the line, block other people's views, and so on who AREN'T taking pictures.
Just thought I'd present an opposing view.
I think I'll go look at my pictures and relive the enjoyment... which, by the way, a postcard would not quite capture.

DH has been a professional photographer for about 30 years. I can't experience the world the way he does; it wouldn't mean anything to me. He loves to experience life, and especially travel, through the lens of a camera. I guess we are all different that way.

DH is generally very considerate of all other visitors. The worst tourists with cameras I've ever experienced were two "freelancers" who took over a Native American cliff dwelling in Arizona.

None of the other visitors could experience the place in the peace and tranquility it called for. I was furious and asked the park ranger there to do something about it. They had their gear laying all over the ancient dwelling, took up all the room in the cramped space, and were just generally photo pigs. The ranger didn't do a thing, and I was shocked.

And yes, I've taken a photo class. I'm also constantly exposed to fine photography, and I can think of at least one really quality photo that I've taken. Or as a Pulitzer winning acquaintance of mine likes to say, "made," as in "I made this photograph." I guess I think that photographer is a pretentious twit.

My late sister was a great amateur photographer who took wonderful photographs, and took several classes.

Don't know why I went on about this; just living in photo world, I guess.