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.