I'm visiting London in June and plan on going to all the regular places. I completely understand the "no photography" rule at various museums/churches/etc and I plan to obey them. My question is, however, at places where photography is not allowed, can I still bring in my cameras (because they are in my day bag and I want them with me for other points during the day)?

I ask because that has happened to me in Washinton DC a few times, where the honor system ("I swear I won't take any pictures&quot doesn't work and the security guards who check the bags tell me I can't even come in with my camera.

I just returned from London this week. When I came into Kennsington Palace they asked me to open my bag. I did and they saw my camera. They told me photography was not allowed, but they did allow me to bring in my camera. At other places nobody ever tried to tell me not to bring in my camera, although photography wasn't allowed. I don't think you'll have a problem.

They will search your bag upon entry,but they wont take your camera off you. Its assumed you wont take photo's inside.

Yes you can carry your camera. And don't assume you can't take pictures lots of places. Most of the museums in London do allow photography.

The only place I remember being forbidden from taking my camera was into Old Bailey - I just had to see a bit of a trial and the barristers with the wigs and all. I seem to remember there is a pub across the street that may keep it for you behind the bar for a small price.

Thanks for all of the help. I feel better knowing I can keep my cameras with me (feel naked without them on trips, plus I love being able to capture the feeling of the place and experience it again and again at home).

Going back you your OP, what exactly is the reason that (non-flash) photos are forbidden? Is it a copyright thing?

OP -- I'm curious about where were you forbidden to take a camera in Washington -- museums? Supreme Court? bureau of engraving? I've never encountered that problem at any Smithsonian facility or the National Gallery of Art.

I have never had a problem with my camera in the major places in DC. I have had slight run-ins in various office buildings for Representatives / Senators - understandable really, but I didn't want to go all the way back to my hotel to drop it off. Also, some smaller buildings, churches. Can't remember which.

OK, thanks for that clarification.

In my experience, where I've seen signs forbidding flash photography but allowing non-flash pictures I've always been horrified at how many people seem too stupid (or unwilling) to work out how to turn the flash off on their cameras - they just shoot in automatic mode (which, of course, fires the flash in darker interiors).

In one place the reasoning behind no flash was in order to preserve 12th C frescoes that were fragile. In just our group of 12 people three idiots fired their flash, one of them more than once.

The guide quickly intervened.

I think this is what may lead SOME places to just ban ALL photography. And to be honest, without a flash it's hard to get decent pics anyway (unless you're using a tripod, and most visitors aren't). Better to spend a few pennies on the official postcards...

I think that flashes can damage some artifacts.

Also, they are really bloody annoying for everyone else around. One might be alright, but imagine them going off constantly around you.

I understand the flash ban -- I'm told the light damages some of the art. But why the ban on non-flash, such as at the Accadmia, where David is?

Maybe they're worried about flash and, as one poster said, it's just easier to ban all photography.

In response to j_999_9 question: I once asked someone who was working at a National Trust property the same question. He told me that when even non-flash photography was allowed, sometimes thieves would pretend to be tourists and take pictures to document what was worth stealing, as well as the security system and its weaknesses, then come in and clean the place out. Hence the ban on all photography.