Be aware, in most museums and many churches, photos are not permitted (with or without flash). MAJOR DISAPPOINTMENT! Practice taking pix without aiming and without flash and you can get a few in.

Photo's are not permitted usually to protect the art work in most museums and churches. Flashes lead to deterioration. And they have to restrict cameras with no flashes in some places, because most people either violate the rule or don't know how to turn them off. This is common practice, and one I support and respect, in order to protect and maintain these invaluable treasures of the world.

Why would you practice taking mediocre pictures without flashes when you can buy postcards and books that have professional photo?s of these masterpieces? They are usually cheap and readily accessible wherever you go.

Save your breath, SRC51102. Obviously with a name like "f64club" the "hobby" which apparently has become more of a compulsion in this case has displaced the needs of anyone or anything else on the planet.

I do volunteer work in an art museum in the US and we are instructed to explain to visitors that our no photography policy is in place to protect artists and institutions from violation of their copyright rights. I've never had a visitor react with anything but courtesy and understanding to this explanation. My suggestion would be to put the camera away and enjoy your personal experience with the artwork.

Bootman4U:

You are right, my reply is probably a waste of time. The only thing is-- this issue hits a nerve. I am always appalled at the number of tourists that violate the ?no photography? rule in major museums and churches. I don't understand why you even need a photo--it will never do justice to seeing the real thing in person. I actually went to Florence with someone who did not want to pay the $10 entry fee to see Michelangelo?s David, and asked me to take her camera in and take a photo. Of course I took the camera in for her, and hopefully, she enjoyed the pictures of my feet.

As a photographer, I never take photos, flash or otherwise, when there's a "no photo" rule in the facility. It's called "respect" for the wishes of mmanagement.
It's no different than not smoking where it's requested that you don't.

Possibly some musuems and some churches - but I have asked in both the Louvre and d'Orsay, and non-flash photos are allowed which doesn't seem to be a problem with a digital. At the Momarttan (Monet), we had to check our cameras. Perhaps some day my work will be so precious that no photos are allowed!

There are many place syou can take photos inside, as indicated without flash. And you can actually take some great photos wby using the newer very high speed films. I expeimented with 800 in the Vatican muesums, with just one roll. When I received the developed pictures I was sorry I had not taken more pictures with the 800 speed. Great photos of such a fantastic place. Those photos are constantly remarked upon when I show my trip photos to friends.

A couple responses to some above comments:
SRC51102, you've touched on a subject that photographers and non-photographers always disagree on, i.e., why take a photograph? As a photographer, my response is: "I take pictures of things I want to remember. They can be sights/sites that impress me or I may just want to capture a moment that I saw that was my personal, unique experience." (For a lot more thoughts on this subject, check out the thread "My camera helps me remember better!" which I'm about to bring to the top.)
Lorenzi is quite right about using 800-speed film in museums (where allowed, of course). You can indeed get some wonderful results without flash.

Question for you copyright attorneys out there -
I thought copyrights expired after a certain amount of years....how can Michelangelo or Rembrandt, or the Met or Rijksmuseum for that matter, have copyrights on works of art that are hundereds of years old?

Copyright law varies by country, but AFAIK no country allows copyrights on works that are hundreds of years old. (Though the US seems to be heading that way with its repeated extensions of copyright -- but that's a whole other political discussion.) However, aside from copyright, some institutions may have commercial reproduction rights on older works within their collections or, for example, whose restoration they've funded. And there are some other issues with flash photography, such as deterioration, which has been mentioned, and is especially a problem for textiles or works on paper. And it can be difficult for others to view a work with flashes constantly going on and off.

http://fodors.com/forums/threadselec...p;tid=34422810

Here's a link to the thread that Howard mentioned (which lasts indefinitely, unlike "topping&quot. For those who don't know about this, you simply right click in the title of the thread and click on "Copy shortcut", then paste it here.

Protection of the art works has nothing to do with the No Photos rule in the Sistine Chapel. Since photos (without flash) are allowed in the hallways leading to the chapel, preservation has nothing to do with the rule. The fact is Sony Corp paid for the restoration of the ceiling with the condition that the only photos allowed would be the ones they sold. This is strictly a commercial venture so please don't preach about saving the precious art work. In Florence's Accedemia Museum, photos are not even allowed of the statue of David. How do copyright laws apply here?

To SRC51102 - You are right that photos will never be as good as being there. I take photos to remember my experiences. Do you have photos of your children when they were little? Defense rests.

Interesting thread to me as I recall being in Egypt 2 years ago and being told no flash photos inside old temples, pyramids, etc. It certainly was not copyright protection (I think King Tut's copyrights expired some years ago), and I do not think any photo-related company paid for any resotration. That leaves only 2 explanations I can think of - the first that flash would actually damage the old paint and the second being that that is the way it has always been so it continues. I am not technology-enough-aware to understand why it would matter with the flash from a digital versus print camera - maybe someone can explain.

In any event, scarey looking guards with big automatic weapons were readily issuing warnings to flashers and I even saw them confiscate someones camera.

As far as churches, many religions/denominations prohibit photos altogether during a service (as does my Protestant denomination) which is regularly ignored by attendees at weddings, baptisms, confirmations, etc. This is our of respect for the dignity of the service, rather than some other reason.

A clarification on the no photos rule in the Sistine Chapel. You are not supposed to take any photos--with or without flash! That's the agreement that the museum has with Sony. Even if there was no agreement with Sony, you would probably still not be allowed to take flash photos. There are also some other parts of the Vatican Museum where you can take photographs, but no flash so to to protect the paintings. This is pretty much the case in most museums. The Met in New York strictly enforces the no-flash rule in the parts of the museum where it is in effect.

The want you to buy their post cards instead so they can make profits.

Certain types of light can destroy pigments which make those paintings so lovely. In some places, the museum boards like to make their museums places where people can enjoy the art without the distraction of photo flashes. I think it is a honor and I am thrilled that we have the opportunity to view these wonderful works of art. I don't need a photo.

Yet I HAVE taken photos (only when permitted) that I dearly love -- of people looking at works of art. One of my favorites is from behind Winged Victory -- of a huge mob of people taking pictures of the statue. Another was in the Picasso museum in front of a large piece where some elementary school children were seated on the floor and the teacher was moving them into positions to mimic the painting's composition. It was really cool.

There is a very good reason why flash photography is prohibited. It's called fading and it applies to any tinted surface. The cumulative effect of thousands of flashes over time is as damaging as sunlight. To see how seriously curators take the degradation from light visit the room with the Degas pastels in the Musee d'Orsay.

Using flash in the Sistine Chapel won't do you much good since most flashes are useless past 20 feet.

The "no photos" rule with the statue of David is relatively new. When I visited in 1999, is was OK to photograph, even with flash.

Personally, the insides of churches and museums don't hold much photographic interest for me. I take them if I'm allowed, but I'd rather be outside photographing the street life.

I used to try to sneak pictures when it wasn't allowed (I have few of the Sistine), but now I accept that that's the rule in certain places.