It’s not unusual for flash photography to be prohibited around old documents, paintings, and other artifacts that can fade. But does a camera flash really pose any hazard to things like bronze or stone sculptures?
A museum guard reminded me of the museum’s no flash policy today, in a section filled with ancient Asian sculptures. I am respectful of their policies. I wouldn’t dream of using a flash, simply because they asked me not to. But I am curious if a little light really poses any hazard to metal and stone.
AFAIK, the no flash photography thing (actually ‘no photography’ in my experience) is done for a number of reasons:
-To avoid delicate works of art being damaged
-For the comfort of other patrons
-That the museum/gallery/artist doesn’t want people taking inferior photographs of the exhibits - a crappy picture might portray the subject as being crappy.
-So that they can sell picture postcards of the exhibits in the gift shop
-(Tenuous) for reasons of security - photographs might show not only the exhibits, but details of the security vulnerabilities etc.
I concur with mange trout. If the museum allows it in some areas and not in others, someone will forget (either intentionally or genuinely) and take flash photos in other area which will have deleterious effects. By having one policy, they cut down on the chances of that happening, it also saves the security staff a lot of hassle explaining the intracicies of such a policy to every idiot who refuses to follow directions.
That is interesting that the museum would allow people to take pictures in the first place.
The last museum security guard who I called a guard, quickly reminded me that she was an “officer” not a guard. Anyway, if somebody is being told to enforce a no flash policy, he or she would probably not stop to think if the item would be hurt with a flash in each instance, he/she would probably just enforce the rule.
The small museum where I work does not allow photography. I don’t think that the items would be injured by a few bursts of light. There are not that many people going through and taking photographs. Asking people to not take pictures of the artifacts is, to me, more of a way to control ownership of the images. A museum may not own the copyrights to an artifact on display. Or, as the previous posters said, they may be making money by selling their own images. We have so few visitors that I am usually able to ask each person who asks to take a picture if they plan to use it for “personal use.” If they only want a picture for a scrap book, I usually let them go ahead and take it.
Cameras create lots of traffic jams in museums. Taking photographs is especially difficult in small or crowded museums. Other visitors have to stop to avoid getting in the photograph.
It’s better to have a no-flash (or, more usually, no photography at all) rule throughout, rather than selectively enforcing per exhibit. Plus, do you think the guards know what will and won’t be hurt by the flash? They’re just repeating what they were told to say.
Most museums prohibit photography so they can sell pictures of the exhibits without any competition.
Once (in a small county historical museum) I was told by the woman at the desk, in a very rude tone, not to take any pictures because “the flash damages the old documents.” My camera* didn’t have a flash (thinking it might is excusable, I guess, as most modern ones do); but my main problem with her statement was that many of the precious, fragile old documents were sitting in a glass case directly under a window, in full sun. I think she just forgot the real reason for the no-photography rule (if there was one; I wouldn’t be surprised if she made it up just to feel powerful). Of course, that same place had a bustle dress on a mannequin backwards…
*I was carrying it around town, taking pictures of the old buildings.
I was at the National Gallery of Art in DC when someone started taking flash pictures of the oil paintings. I asked the guard about it, and he said that unless it was stated otherwise they alowed flash photography in all of their permanent collections. They generally don’t allow photography of any kind if its a special exhibit, but thats due to copyright/ownership issues.
I haven’t been to a lot of meuseums other than the ones in DC, but so far I have been very impressed with the guards at the art muesuems. I was at the Renwick gallery on a slow day (actually it was 9/17/01), and I got about an hour long tour from a gaurd. Very detailed, and a lot of intersting information… I’ve also asked random questions while at the National Gallery, and always gotten a good response (try asking captitol security a question sometime )
I was taking photographs for a school project once in the St Louis museum and using an autofocus camera that threw out a dim red light to autofocus, and I was told that anything that gave off light was not allowed. The reason the guard told me was that flashbulb light damages the paintings, and to make things easier “artificial light” is prohibited everywhere.
…
Which, was really the smarter thing to do anyway (-not use the autofocus feature). Because this was when I found that if I did use autofocus and I photographed anything inside a glass case, about 50% of the time the camera would be focused on a reflection on the glass case, and not the item inside. -And about antoher 25% of the time, the camera somehow focused on neither the case reflection, or the real target, but somewhere in-between… So it’s really best to use a manual setting, and just set up your shots yourself.
~
That a lot of stone items do contain traces of or even large sections of paint, enamel, and other original colourings that the museum may fear is damaged by the light. Many famous white-appearing sculptures and monuments were once painted, especially Greek and Roman ones.
Well, hey, I wasn’t trying to take crappy pictures. Unfortunately, the triple threat of the dim lighting, the no-flash rule, and the no-tripod rule pretty much guaranteed that my pictures turned out that way.
Which is all OK, anyway. I wasn’t desperate to get pictures of Vishnu et. al, I just thought the statues would make interesting subjects while I practiced with the camera. And admission to the museum is free, so I’ve got nothing at all to be bitter about. Except maybe that no-tripod rule - obviously a few inconsiderate clods must have choked up some high-traffic areas once upon a time, and consequently spoiled things for everyone. But that’s not the museum’s fault.
The idea that the blanket “no flash” rule was intended partly to keep the rules simple had occurred to me. But their photography policies are surprisingly complex; the guards are required to distinguish between photography-allowed and no-photography-allowed galleries. The guards (at this museum, at least) are not the aloof bunch of wage-grinders that you might expect; they are smart, alert, and many of them are truly interested in the art they’re protecting. Still, the simplification offered by a blanket rule might be part of the reason.
That hadn’t occurred to me. I didn’t notice anything obvious along these lines, but it may make sense to err on the side of caution, on the chance that future examinations might find pigments of some sort.
A suggestion for those trying to get around no-flash photography or tripod rules, try a monopod. Not a perfect solution but it allows you to get some shots you might not hand held.
I surprised to learn that the Louvre does not allow photography of any kind in the Mona Lisa room. Apparently, that rule is not very well enforced, as when I was last there (in 1996, though), everybody was taking pictures, some flash, some none. I have a picture (minus flash) myself, and you can see all the spectators taking photos.
In certain museums (the Centre Pompidou being one, IIRC) they allow you to buy photography passes for an extra charge (something like 5 Euro.) Take that information for what it’s worth. In other museums, they expressly forbid you from taking ANY kinds of photographs, flash/no flash, tripod/no tripod, without express permission from the museum. Somehow, I’m skeptical that painting deterioration is the primary reason behind these policies. Mangetout’s other explanations seem more more plausible to me, regardless of what the SDMB archive might say.
Of course not, but having said yes to your request to take pictures of the highest quality, taste and composition, how can the museum then say no to me when I shamble in there with my instamatic?
Another thing about flash photograpy is that, as a method of illumination, it can actually be physically damaging to very delicate items - the sudden, intense burst of energy from a flash at quite close range can result in actual physical shock to the subject - I very much doubt this would be at all significant when the subject is a lump of granite, but when we’re talking about a delicate pencil sketch, the slight but sudden thermal expansion caused by illumination by a flash at close range could actually be enough to dislodge tiny particles of graphite from the paper.
Anyway, if somebody is being told to enforce a no flash policy, he or she would probably not stop to think if the item would be hurt with a flash in each instance, he/she would probably just enforce the rule.
)
Unfortunately, the triple threat of the dim lighting, the no-flash rule, and the no-tripod rule pretty much guaranteed that my pictures turned out that way.