Taking Photos Allowed or Not...
 

Just thought I'd start a thread with some observations regarding picture-taking and the rules...<BR>I have a Fuji Finepix 4900Z - a fine digital camera that has a 2.4Mp sensor but produces 4Mp pictures (due to sensor configuration). It can be set to 125 to 800 ASA (ISO) and 3sec to 1/1000sec shutter. The Zoom is 6X (35-210 equivalent for 35mm). It will do manual or fully automatic or anything in between. Typically, unless I'm pushing the limit, I use "automatic" mode.<BR> Most churches in Rome and other cities allow cameras. St. Peter's is wide open, no limits. Of course, it is all frescoes, not paintings, so fairly immune to damage from the ultraviolet in flashes. Many have "no flash" requests; most churches remind people not to disturb services in progress.<BR> Many museums say "no photos"; to some extent, this is or is not honored. The Vatican museums were wide open - but the Sistine Chapel is "no photos". We rushed through the suggested route to get there early after opening; nobody bothered me (I didn't use flash). One fellow was even videotaping openly. By the time we visited the entire Vatican Museums and returned to the chapel, it was crowded and the guards were being busybodies. They were shooing the tourists sitting on the little step in front of the altar; but crowded means more people to hide behind.<BR>The hard part of taking these photos is aiming, and holding a camera steady for the 1/20 to 1/4 second required for a no-flash exposure. The Last Supper is about 1/8 f2.8, better lit than I expected. Practice, practice, practice.<BR> Some places like Siena's Duomo post "no photo" signs but make no effort to stop you. The Firenze Academia let me snap away at Michaelangelo's Slaves, but stopped me as I was lining up on David. Step behind a pillar... In Pisa, people were even using flashes in the Cathedral. Where I can, I use a little 6" tripod that you can sit on a chair or hold against a pillar to get a steady shot. I use self-timer of 2 seconds to ensure that the camera isn't shaking from pushing the button. (No remote or shutter-release cable options on my camera.)<BR>When I was in Venice 2 years ago, there was a tourist with a similar little tripod for interior shots of St. Mark's - 2 sec at F/8 for ASA125 on a sunny day. This year (2001) there seemed to be more attendants paying more attention to what people were doing.<BR>Also, some outdoor shots did not turn out as well as they could because it was a cool foggy cold front, some days.<BR>Also, digital cameras don't do night shots very well. Unlike a film camera, the longer you expose digitals, the more "snow" or "noise" the picture develops, instead of accumulating light like film. My camera has a maximum exposure of 3 sec. For shots like the Collosseum or Ponte Vecchio lit at night, it was just fine. <BR><BR>There were some places - like St. Sebatian's catacombs - where it seemed that picture taking in defiance of the request not to would seem inappropriate. <BR><BR>One down-side of Digital - I typically filled one of my 64Mb SM-cards each day; I brought my laptop on the trip to download the pictures each night. Fortunately my camera, laptop, and CD-Wrier/MP3CD player all have 100-240V adapters, so I did not need a voltage converter - but did use an octopus plug to charge them all each night.<BR><BR>Anyone else have thoughts or ideas on photography?

The "no photo" signs often mean "no flash" because of the degrading of the art work it produces. Not sure why you think that doesn't hurt frescoes.<BR>Took my digital (3.3MP) and reduced resolution by one stop so that on a 64Meg card I got 199 images, which I could edit as I went. Am VERY pleased with the outcome after many years of lugging heavy SLRs and backup P&S.<BR>I have a Photoshow zip drive to download to (no computer required) which is about the size of a large VHS tape--very portable. You can store pics and/or show on a TV. Decided not to take it to France this trip because of voltage concerns and not being thoroughly acquainted with it. I did fine with 3 memory cards.<BR>I took most of my interior pictures with available light because that is, of course, how we see it--not with a flash cone.<BR>The other thing I am enjoying about digital is that I don't have a stack of 300 photos to contend with storing. I NEVER thought I would feel this way about digital.

I just returned from Italy and was a little surprised at how many churches and museums had no photo policies, rather than just no flash. I adhered to the policies as found and bought postcards. I didn't feel like switching out 100 speed for 400 or 800 for a few shots, especially when photos were not allowed. I saw very very few people not going by the signs posted. I did get good hand-held shots with 100/400 speed film in Florence's baptistry, Duomo, and Santa Croce, along with St. Peters, San Giovanni in Laterano, and Santa Maria Maggiori in Rome. There was enough light in della Salute in Venice to get a photo of the large painting behind the altar with 100 speed film. I will admit if I had seen many others taking photos in the other places, I might have tried a couple, but my camera is not very inconspicuous. I was very pleased with the interior shots I got, compared to past Europe trips with a point and shoot camera. I now use a Canon A2 and a Canon EOS-5. I have prime lenses, but the widest aperture on the lenses I used for the trip was 3.5. This proved adequate most of the time. I generally shoot on aperture priority mode, so I just set the aperture for as much depth of field as the comparable shutter speed would allow with most scenics. I didn't attempt any shots in the Sistine Chapel, although I wouldn't think it would be all that hard to pull off with the right film. I have seen many personal photos on the Web of David and the Sistine Chapel. I knew ahead of time about photography prohibitions regarding the latter but was surprised about David. It is not really the same, but I took lots of very good shots of the David on Piazza Signoria and bought a postcard of the real one. The only thing that irritates me about any of the restrictions is that sometimes it is done just so the place can sell posters and postcards. A sign in one place stated it this way.

Kodak film is the answer to everything. Forget Fugi and use Kodak and try and keep the 3,000 people that are getting layed off at Chirstmas a break. Take tons of pictures and buy tons of cameras, just use Kodak.

Hi, Maurice: Just returned from 17 days in Italy. We used a Nikon digital camera. The only place we were forbidden to photo was the Sistine Chapel. The rest (including the Accademia in Florence)allowed non-flash photography, and our Nikon Coolpix 775 came through admirably. Some great interior shots - the camera corrected for lack of flash.<BR><BR>I think some museum guards interpret the photography issue in their own way.<BR><BR>Mary Kay

Those are not frescoes in St. Peters, they are mosaics. (Fresco is the technique used by Michaelangelo on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. It can be damaged by flashes.) The mosaics (many tiny tiles) duplicating the original paintings in St. Peters were a brilliant inspiration which has kept the originals safe. The technique was clearly perfected by the school of artists employed by the Vatican.

Must be my Alzheimer's setting in. Yes, I meant mosaics - coloured glass and stone is immune to fading the way pigment can.<BR>I think the storage technology (like zip drives) is evolving; by next year there will be hand-sized products like ImageBank or Digital Wallet or Terapin Mine that will do hassle-free downloads on the road.<BR>Kodak does have some good products - I seriously considered a camera of theirs, since they were the only ones with a programmable interface. But, in the end 6x zoom was a better choice than the ability to do unattended time-lapse photography.<BR>Definitely, better than film.

We just got back from a 7-week trip, all over Europe plus Cairo, with a digital camera, a Kodak 290Z. Loved it! Storage of the digital photos was a concern, since we have no laptop, nor one of those Digital Wallet storage gizmos, which is expensive.<BR>We had a 16 MB and and a 64 MB card, and filled both several times. We found three photo processing shops to upload the files to CD: one in Montpellier, France, one in Bari, Italy and one in Pireas, Greece (near Athens). We also found just one cybercafe that would agree to upload files directly from the camera to storage space on my website using their computer. That place was Le Web Bar in Paris. One of the photo techs recommended we buy a generic and not a Kodak Flashcard, since for that you need Kodak software.<BR>WE took an adapter so we could use the high speed recharger. In spite of the adapter, the charger got fried wwhen we plugged it in, so we had to buy a European adapter. <BR>Some of these are on the Fodor's picture page <BR>http://geocities.com/dhfsbf/fodorite/pictures.htm<BR>under "Dina and Blair's Roman Empire Tour"<BR>Just one photo misfortune. A sad story!<BR>We were at the Pyramids when a small swarm of Egyptian schoolgirls about 13 years old surrounded us, calling out the few English words they knew, "Welcome to Egypt! Fantastic! Hello! Fantastic!" One introduced herself and several others, including a teacher and two small boys. I offered them a postcard of my hometown (Seattle) whiich they snatched like it was cash, and my some illustrated business cards (I am a bellydancer) which they squabbled over. They insisted their teacher take her camera out and photograph us all together. Then my husband aimed the digital camera while they posed, giggling. After we said good-bye and walked away, my husband said, "You're gonna kill me." He'd forgotten to recharge, and at that very moment the batteries had run out!!!!

I asked about the battery charging issue before we went and someone suggested that I might be able to use the bathroom shaver plug for the recharger and it worked. We did not leave it plugged in unless we were in the room, however. I had gone prepared just to buy batteries.

Hi to all,<BR>As pointed out above the pictures in St Peter's are not frescoes, they are in fact mosaics. The reason being that all the flashes were detoriating the art work so the Vatican had them all removed and put in their Art Gallery or in other Basilicas for safe keeping. The Sistine Chapel is "no flash" and "no photos". The reason "no flash" is to protect the wonderful frescoes and to ensure that they are there for many more generations to enjoy!!!<BR>The reason for "no photos" at all is because Nippon who provided the funding for the restoration work have exclusive rights to all pictures in the Sistine Chapel.<BR>I am a tour guide there and it really frustrates me to see people taking flashes (even though signs forbid it and their is also an audio announcement forbidding it). People think this is clever and that they have achieved something special.<BR>NO! All they do is ruin what is there and this could mean that others in the future may not be able to see them. Also if it becomes a really big problem ith people abusing the rule, then everyone will eventually be made to check their cameras in. Can you imagine the queues at the check in and check out if this ever happened!!<BR>Please, please be respectful and follow the rules. They are there for a reason. Buy a postcard instead.<BR>Marianna

Rules is rules: if "no flash" is posted, then thems the rules. As Marianna pointed out, what right do I have to jeopardize a work of art? Oooh I'm so important that I can deny future generations the beauty of a da Vinci fresco? Jheesh...<BR><BR>Even if there are no posted signs (like in small churches not on the tourist map), common sense says "don't use flash" - whether it's to protect the artwork, or to show respect.<BR><BR>I'll try no-flash photos, even with 200 or 400 speed film...and buy back-up postcards. If the photos come out, great. If not, oh well... I have a wonderful photo of Venus de Milo just in natural light, and another of workmen in Versailles. If I'd used a flash, I don't think the photos would have been as good. I also have a photo of all black, with about 6 yellow lights - not a freakin' clue what it is (an example of "oh well"), but I used it as a mat for another picture "yeah, I meant to take that picture just like that"...<BR><BR>No-flash works really well in sunlit rooms with mirrors, like the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles - and a flash just reflects off the mirrors anyway and makes a big white blob.<BR><BR>

I too have been amazed at the number of<BR>people who think it's clever to take a <BR>flash photograph when a museum supervisor's back is turned. I've seen it happen in the Uffizi, the Louvre and - worst of all - during Mass in the cathedral in Assisi. It seems to me that for some people it's not enough to experience works of art - they have to prove that they were there by photographing them themselves. Are they the same people who like to experience their entire holiday through a camera lens? You know the type - they're so busy taking the photograph or using their video camera, that they never give themselves the chance to really see what's in front of them. Then they get home and bore people to death with endless photos/videos of their latest trip.

Can someone recommend a good website for learning about digital cameras? We are going to Italy in April and I am interested in a digital camera to take with us. I am a complete novice though! Thanks. Sandy

Sandi, you can go to www.photo.net and do a search on digital cameras. I'm sure you'll find more than you want.<BR><BR>Digitals are looking better everyday, but most of the lower end ones have serious lag time...meaning that when you press the button it can sometimes take several seconds for the camera to actually take the shot, which is not too good for anything but buildings.<BR><BR>Along the same lines, the between-shots processor time in the camera is too long. You'll be eating a ton of batteries, too, because if you want to edit shots all day, and use flash, they don't last long.<BR><BR>A lot of the digital claims are nothing but marketing hype. Very few models are capable of producing a shot that can be enlarged over 8 x 10, and that's pushing it. Believe me, I've tried.<BR><BR>I know it sounds like an attractive way to go, but do you really want to spend your precious traveling time downloading photos to a computer, or searching out an internet cafe to upload? Especially when film is readily available?<BR><BR>Digital may be the way to go in the future, but unless you have one of the higher-end models from Nikon or Canon, with interchangeable lenses, you're presently better off with good old film...my opinion of course.<BR><BR>Lots of travel photos: http://www.jimtardio.com

Oh, I forgot. Please obey the rules pertaining to flash photography. All you do is ruin it for everyone else down the road.<BR><BR>I'm guilty of violating the Sistine Chapel's no photography rule, but that rule is based on a business deal with the Japanese. It has nothing to do with hurting the artwork. I didn't use flash, however. Even so, the ceiling is too far away for flash to effective.<BR><BR>When I shot the statue of David, there were no rules at all for photography. You could shoot all you want with or without flash...not the case anymore.<BR><BR>I don't like to shoot in churches and museums anyway. You're not going to get a shot that's better than a post card, or those strips of slides they sell.<BR><BR>Save your film, or your pixels, for the street life.

I'm with elvira on this one.<BR>I use 200 ASA film only -- when I'm inside I either lean on someone/ something and/or hold my breath. The pictures maynot be razor sharp -- but they have a softness that often reflects the actual light in those interiors.

Sandy here is a good website for learning about digital photography--not particularly about cameras.<BR>http://www.cliffshade.com/dpfwiw/<BR><BR>Some of what Jim says is true and he is certainly entitled to his opinion. there can be lag time--there are things that can be done to minimize it. I am at a point in my life (after about 50 years of 35MM photography) that I don't require many 8X10's, but my digital will give me a very acceptable one. The convenience of not having to deal with 400 pictures from a trip by the stack but rather by the thumbnail on my computer is a big plus. I can also make an album of my journal with some small illustrative photos. I can take pictures of things I wouldn't before--my dessert in a French restaurant, the decorated butter dish on our barge in Burgundy--etc. And when I custom enlarge and crop my pictures I don't miss my 210 SLR telephoto lens. And I really didn't miss the heavy camera and lens around my neck. Loved using available light/no flash all the time for the mood of the pictures. This was the first time relying explicitly on my digital--2 weeks in France. Recharged batteries only once even after doing some serious editing. It is manageable.

I agree - "no flash" is there for a reason. I highly admire those works of art and would not want them damaged. "No photo" seems to be an arbitrary rule, and I would use my judgement; I would find taking pictures during a Mass (or as mentioned above, in the catacombs)rude. We di buy lots of postcards too, but as an example - what has changed in the Accademia? "David" stood outdoors in weather and sunlight for centuries before being ensconsed in the Accademia. Is this a "buy-our-postcards" money grab?<BR>Then there's the issue of the "stupid tourist" syndrome. (We've all met them). <BR>"He took a picture - why can't I?" <BR>"He didn't use-a flash"<BR>"So, what difference does that make? He still took a photo, just like me."<BR>Eventually, it becomes easier to say "no photos!"<BR>Like everything to do with being a guest, you have to avoid doing things that are trully offensive.<BR><BR>Yes, there is an "autofocus" lag that's more pronounced on digitals. On my Fuji 4900 it's typically about 1/2 sec to 1 sec. This is enough to ruin some action opportunity shots if you don't preplan. You can prefocus - push the shutter half-way beforehand.<BR><BR>As I said earlier - my charger said "100-240V"; it worked fine with a plug adapter. This is a small plastic chunk about 1" by 1" by 1/2", with the European round prongs and a NA socket. It just converted the physical plug without doing voltage conversion. I had a 3-way NA octopus plugged into that to handle the camera, laptop, and CD drive (all 100-240V power bricks). Worked just fine!

Ok call me a moron when it comes to all this digital camera talk. I am in the market for one. What does everyone recommend and why? How did you all learn so much about them?. Just by taking photos and playing around with them? ANy help would be appreciated. Maybe someone can offer a free tutorial.

I must say how appaled I am at the insensitivity of many of the replies here. If the church is signed no photos, it is not your place to justify why you are an exception. If you think that you don't need to follow the "no photo" policy just because it is based on someone's business deal, who are you to break the rules. Have you ever heard of ethics and morality? What makes you so important.<BR><BR>The point of travel, I feel, is to feel the life and experience of being somewhere else; to get into a different lifestyle and a different rythym. To be a guest in someone else's land and to have respect for what that represents is the key thing you get. What is being expresssed here is a competitiveness and boorishness that makes me sad for the selfishness of my fellow Fodorites.<BR><BR>If the sign says no photos, you have the right to complain, to not go in, to stage a street protest, and even, *gasp!*, trash the place on the message boards here and elsewhere. What you do not have the right to do is take a photo.<BR><BR>Play nice. Share. Take turns. If you bring candy, bring enough for everybody. Respect others.

What's the attraction of digital photography? If you have the right camera...<BR>-I took over 1Gb (1300+) pictures in 21 days, not counting the hundred or so I deleted.<BR>-I can review the pictures immediately (yes, on a tiny screen) to see if it is passable. If not, delete and try again.<BR>-I can take the same picture a dozen times (Like I did of the Leaning Tower, waiting for the right twilight lighting). After all, extra digits are free.<BR>-Only pay for printing the ones I want. In Canada, a roll of film works out to 33cents a photo (4x6) and digital prints ordered on-line, 50 cents. But, how many film shots are wasted or irrelevant? If the answer is 1 in 3, you break even.<BR>-you can make a slide show, burn it to CD, and send to the relatives. The software is available (Haven't tried it yet) to make a CD slide show playable on some DVD players.<BR>-camera buffs can now enter the "next model, next month, bigger, faster" rat race that computer buffs have enjoyed for years.<BR><BR>As to the discussion - "no photo" rules... The Catholic church does NOT ban photographs (not the same way Muslims interpret it) so any rule is local arbitrariness. <BR>I said earlier, there are some circumstances where photos are intrusive and inappropriate, like say a funeral - but that wouldn't apply to a room full of paying tourists being herded through an "attraction". But, to flaunt the rules in an obvious manner is being deliberately provocative.<BR>It's a judgement call. If I am personally asked to turn it off, put it away, I would do so without argument.

Please don't get me wrong, digitals are great tools. With the way that airline X-ray policies are going, that may be the ONLY way to go in to future. And they now have very large capacity cards that hold several hundred images. I can't wait for the day when they match 35mm film cameras. And I'm certainly not trying to tell folks what, or how, to shoot or not shoot. I apologize if I came off that way.<BR><BR>I know what you mean about carrying heavy equipment, Gretchen. It get's old fast.<BR><BR>And please, Dean, don't come here and call people names..."boorish, selfish, lacking morality and ethics"...just because we (I) don't live up to your personal ideals concerning travel. We all have our own reasons for visiting foreign lands. I'm happy that you're secure enough in yours to preach them to others.<BR><BR>I'll say it again, please obey all the posted rules concerning photography. I make a portion of my living at it, and I play by the rules.<BR><BR>I didn't like sneaking a shot in the Sistine Chapel, and, believe me, my Catholic upbringing had me feeling guilty the rest of the day. If you can imagine a one-time alter boy who was educated by nuns, think of the guilt I suffered at breaking a rule in the Pope's backyard.

I always thought "no photos" meant taking out the variable of people "forgetting" to turn off the flash -- if cameras aren't allowed, flash isn't an issue. <BR><BR>But I also get very upset when people take photos (and use flash) and I'm not. Not for morality issues, just 'cause they're getting a better photo. ;-)

Hi Jim<BR><BR>I am glad you think that breaking clearly posted rules so you can have a phhoto doesn't fall under the ruberic of "selfish". Discussing how selfish one is and how to best break the rules clearly fits my definition of "boorish". And clearly my rant on the lack of ethics and morality in this behavior was intended to rile some folk up. But I don't think that following rules, especially when we are guests in other peoples house of worship is a personal philosophy. But unfortunately these days thinking that one shold follow the requests of our hosts is a personal philosophy.<BR><BR>I'm just glad they haven't put up a no spitting sign in the Sistine<BR><BR>

Of course you're right, Dean.<BR>&lt;p&gt;<BR>My apologies to you and the Sistine Chapel.

For the SLR Photo folks who think their equipment is superior to point and shoots, you should have caught the making of the 2001 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Calendar show on TV recently. They used a photographer they had not used before, and was quite shocked when he showed up with a $200 point and shoot(no interchangeable lenses). They asked him why and he said his eye sight wasn't as good as it once was, and it was hard to focus. He also said it's the composition of the subject that counts. And yes they did use his work. Here at KSC where I work we recently sent 50 nikons and 300 lenses to excess. Now using all digital Sonys and Kodaks.

I absolutely love my digital Olympus C2100 zoom - it's 2.1 megapix and I have made quite acceptable 8x10s. I have over the years had about 10 film cameras (mostly nikons) and never thought I would really like digital - but my poor nikon is very lonely now, all alone in the closet never getting taken out.<BR>I am wondering about storage for traveling. Can't bring a lap top and know I'll need more than a few memory cards. Has anyone used the digital wallet? I've heard it's great but would like more first hand information. Thanks

Ann, my Olympus is a 3.3 so I could drop my resolution down one notch and still have very acceptable pictures. I have recently gotten a Photoshow (wish I knew about the digital Wallet). Our son has used it and it is very good--you can edit, remove red-eye, show the pics on a TV. It is about the size of a VHS tape. I was concerned about voltage issues in using it (in France--didn't really have the right converter) and opted for reducing resolution aand purchasing another 32meg card (non-Olympus and only $30). I ended up taking about 300 pictures (on 64,32 and 16 meg cards--about 3 times as many as at HQ), doing some editing as I went. I did take my good P&S as a backup and took about 30 pictures, mostly of folks on our barge. I was able to re-charge my batteries using the shaver plug on the hotel hairdryer.<BR>I also echo all you said about your SLR being lonesome in the closet!!

I'm curious: When did the no-photo rule concerning Michelangelo's David at the Accademdia go into effect? It wasn't in November, 1999.

I was there this Sept. 2001 and the Accademia was preventing photots of David. I lined up and shot several pictures of the unfinished slaves, but as I was lining up for David, the museum guard(? attendant?) stopped me.<BR><BR>I have beeen thinking about digital wallets. If you want to know about the details of these, check out the forums in www.dpreview.com a digital photography review site. (Let's hear it for forums!) I view the technology as "almost there". Maybe next year; a few of the next generation will also be 20Gb MP3 players - for those boring times on the train.<BR><BR>I would be interested in hearing people's opinions about obeying the no-photo rules, without getting into invective. Breaking rules may be considered "boorish" or "selfish", or not. It depends on your point of view. There is a country (currently being bombed for other offenses) where it was considered it immoral that women wear nail polish - so immoral that it was OK by their rules to pull the offending nails out with pliers. Would you agree with these rules? I don't. (Yes this is an extreme example).<BR><BR>All rules are relative? Do you think you behaviour is offensive? Is it offending others who see it? Is it hurting anyone else? <BR>By these standards I feel - if I flaunt my violation of the rules, or argue with anyone who stops me - yes, I am offending appearances - and half of politeness is about appearances. If I use a flash, I am hurting priceless treasures. By hurting someone's treasures, I hurt them. <BR>A rule with no apparent logic suggests either I don't see the logic (please explain, then) or it's one of those bureaucratic creations that any MBA would be proud of.<BR>When the gates to some houses in Pompeii are locked - I don't climb over, because - logically - they may have some reason. Maybe there are floor or tile repairs, or something else, I may damage. So - stay out. Non-flash photo of something I'm allowed to look at anyway, taken for my own enjoyment, not for profit - where's the harm?

Maurice, I'm guessing here, but I think the reason why churches starting posting 'no photo' rules was twofold.<BR><BR>First, a large majority of the simplest cameras have 'automatic flash' features which, even if they can be turned off, the user doesn't seem to know how. It could be that the art gallery or church just decided to keep things simple, and simply state that photos were banned altogether. I don't think that in this instance they'd really mind someone who knew what they were doing, as you clearly do, but you seem to be in the minority (ever watch people use flashes on subjects more than 9 feet away? )_<BR><BR>The other reason might be purely atmospheric. I know of a church in Germany where they feel that photo taking imposes a 'tourist attraction' atmosphere on a religious site. And of course, if you were in the Sistine, you probably heard the guards calling out "Silenzio!"

I agree. As others have said, it probably is easier to say "no photo" than to tell someone to turn off their flash. "Photo" (foto) is the same in any language.<BR><BR>I like the sign some churches post - "Please remember this is a place of worship, and treat it with respect".<BR>

All this discussion about photography in Italy hits the mark for me because I'm going for the first time next spring. Was curious where we can/cannot photograph, and am also considering my first digital camera, so many of those questions are already answered.<BR><BR>My biggest question is about using tripods, however. Due to the size and weight of my panoramic cameras, they require a solid tripod. I presume this is not allowed inside any museums or churches.<BR><BR>What about outside areas, including Pompeii? I was surprised when we were not allowed to use a tripod in Ephesus, Turkey and am wondering if they are disallowed in similar ancient ruins in Italy.<BR><BR>Thanks for any info!<BR><BR>LJ<BR>

LJ, you might want to do a search on www.photo.net to see if anyone has discussed using tripods at Pompei. I saw very little use of tripods in a recent trip to Italy and none at the ruins in Rome, but I don't remember any signs about tripod use in the ruins. It does seem that tripod restrictions at such sites are common, and I have seen this in some non-European countries. At Mayan sites in Mexico, for example, unless you pay for a permit.

LJ, most people who take tripods regret do so...not because of restrictions placed on their use, but rather they felt that the few good shots that the tripod afforded them wasn't worth the inconvenience of lugging the tripod around!

After reading your posts, I have a question. It’s not meant to provoke. I’m interested in understanding why you take photos in museums. I’ve seen people do it and have always wondered about it. I’m an art history major. Usually I become so involved with looking at the painting, sculpture or fresco that the last thing I would remember is to take a photograph. I've rarely seen a photograph that can capture the detail or nuances of a painting. <BR><BR>Is it because the books are so expensive? <BR>

I have considerable interest in art as well as you, Jennifer, and enjoy photographing works of art for several reasons:<BR><BR>-there might not be a good reproduction of a work available<BR><BR>-it is useful to see a work's size (in relation to a viewer)<BR><BR>-sometimes the settings of paintings are quite dramatic--Goya's "The Executions on Pr&iacute;ncipe P&iacute;o Hill" in the Prado is an outstanding example of how lighting can dramatize the appearence of a painting<BR><BR>-sometimes the sign next to a painting can reveal much about the work and its history--for instance in the New Tretyakov in Moscow many of the avant-garde works have signs that say "Donated by George Costakis 1977". In reality Costakis had to give up 90% of his collection in order to emigrate from the Soviet Union.<BR><BR>-sometimes there is a detail that, again, a reproduction would not make visible, for instance at one show of "Space Art" in Barcelona last year, there was a Malevich from the State Russian Museum's collection that had "1937" painted on the front. The work was from 1917, but it was catalogued in 1937, and the painting was considered so lacking in merit that the acquisition year was placed on the front, visible to all, not on the size or back.

What Marc said. Plus, it is part of the trip, and if you want to document your experience for the old photo album it only makes sense to at least take a couple of shots in a museum if allowed. You may not get postcard quality shots most of the time, but I don't think that is the point for most people who shoot in museums. That said, I generally don't take many photos in museums because it does distract me from the real purpose of the visit, and I know most just won't be of high enough quality to satisfy me. I mostly get shots of people admiring the art or shots of a gallery, rather than single works.

I'll add a brief comment to the two excellent responses made by Marc and Dan to Jennifer's question: I'll take some pictures in a museum because, as a photographer, the results photos will be part of MY experience.

I'll agree with Howard. I can buy a postcard almost anywhere in Italy; I can buy a book here in Canada. Those pictures are usually variously enhanced. The photo is my experience, my view.