Camera allowed/ or not?

Old Jul 17th, 2007, 12:10 PM
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?

GoPlanB is offline  
Old Jul 17th, 2007, 12:23 PM
  #2  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,969
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
greg is offline  
Old Jul 17th, 2007, 12:27 PM
  #3  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I nkow the Scavi tour at Vatican does not allow cameras.
jamikins is offline  
Old Jul 17th, 2007, 12:40 PM
  #4  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 22,926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Michael is offline  
Old Jul 17th, 2007, 12:49 PM
  #5  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Linda431 is offline  
Old Jul 17th, 2007, 12:56 PM
  #6  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

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.
smueller is offline  
Old Jul 17th, 2007, 01:12 PM
  #7  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You cannot take pictures of David inside the Accademia in Florence or the Galleria Borghese.
sandi_travelnut is offline  
Old Jul 17th, 2007, 02:26 PM
  #8  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"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.
Nonconformist is offline  
Old Jul 17th, 2007, 03:38 PM
  #9  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
smueller- Total disrespect for where you are. Adding to the "ugly American" image quite nicely.
sandi_travelnut is offline  
Old Jul 17th, 2007, 03:46 PM
  #10  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
<< I set it on "Museum Mode,">>

folks, I think (s)he was putting you on
robjame is offline  
Old Jul 17th, 2007, 03:55 PM
  #11  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 18,468
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
basingstoke2 is online now  
Old Jul 17th, 2007, 04:04 PM
  #12  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 49,560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
StCirq is offline  
Old Jul 17th, 2007, 06:50 PM
  #13  
twk
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
twk is offline  
Old Jul 17th, 2007, 07:46 PM
  #14  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,880
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
Bill_H is offline  
Old Jul 17th, 2007, 10:13 PM
  #15  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The list of allowed and disallowed places is very long, and there are few reliable general rules.
AnthonyGA is offline  
Old Jul 17th, 2007, 10:54 PM
  #16  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
dawnnoelm is offline  
Old Jul 18th, 2007, 12:25 AM
  #17  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
quokka is offline  
Old Jul 18th, 2007, 01:24 AM
  #18  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 8,351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
hetismij is offline  
Old Jul 19th, 2007, 09:19 AM
  #19  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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).
AnthonyGA is offline  
Old Jul 19th, 2007, 10:21 AM
  #20  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
queener is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -