Corroborating the idea that flashes and not photos per se are the problem is the fact that they often will let you take photos as long as you cover up the flash.
It was nice to hear that there’s a definite scientific explanation for it. I always assumed that the museums were just being overly fussy about something that “might” happen. But I also always assumed that it was just due to simple fading from the excess light.
Here’s a link to the Straight Dope proving that they aren’t just jerking your chain.
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mflashphoto.html
I personally stopped complaining about this seemingly pointless rule along about the time I noticed that in the new video store that opened recently, after barely a month of operation, the video boxes that were displayed on the front shelves right next to the big sunny windows had all faded to bleached shades of their original artwork. It’s very odd to see Rambo and Bruce Lee in pastel and sepia.
Having just recently returned from Paris, and I can report my obeservations on the use of flash in the musuems there.
In the Lourve “The use of flash photography is strongly discouraged.” I wonder if when they translated their signs/brochures into English, the French for “No flash photography” translated into the less strongly worded phrase in English. Matt_mcl, any ideas?
In Versailles, the rule was “No flash photography”, and it was widely ignored.
In the other churchs, monuments, etc there were no restrictions on photography at all. People were taking flash photos inside Notre Dame while services were going on! Admittedly, it’s a huge place, and the area where the service was taking place was cordoned off, so if someone was taking a picture of a stained glass window in the back, I don’t it bothered the worshipers too much.
The only exception was at Basilque (sp) de Sacre Couer. There, no photography of any kind was allowed inside the building, and there was a gentleman quietly enfocing the rule. Oh, and I did buy a postcard of the inside for that very reason 
BTW, Paris was awesome and I’d recommend a visit to anyone!
Yes, the UV (and heat) can damage some pigments. Allegedly, there’s a famous naturalist painter of the late 1800’s whose works are kept in drawers at a group of galleries, and only taken out for select persons. He used pigments that were very light-sensitive, and after a few years and a few faded pictures, some art galleries had to take the step of locking them away from the light.
I’ve had two other experiences:
Blenheim Palace (Duke of Marlborough’s joint) forbid photography, flash or otherwise) and videotaping. The tour guide said this was for insurance reasons. I would think that anyone trying to either document the alarm systems or make reference material for forgeries would be able to do the necessary photography on the sly anyway. I noticed that 10 years ago, many of these historical places did not have such restrictions - now they do.
Once about 10 years ago, I was in the Toronto Art Gallery (such as it is). An Italian 16th century marble bust was on loan from a private collector. As I tried to snap a picture of it, a Gallery Guard rushed over and threw herself in my way, displaying that fine Secret Service technique. She explained the owner held the copyright.
Keep in mind, Bill Gates has bought up electronic the “electronic” copyright for many artworks, too. This still doesn’t explain how someone can own the copyright on a work whose artist is dead 4 centuries? But, the photograph of that artwork (the postcard, guide, whatever) can be copyright. (So when does the copyright on “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” expire? Beatrix Potter’s “Peter Rabbit” expired about 5 years ago…)
Another logical explanantion for restrictions - most churches - Sacre Couer, St. Paul’s in London, various small parish churchs - are still real churches, and do not want the tourists to disrupt the atmosphere of the place by climbing on pews or standing in the middle of the centre aisle to get the best shot. The clergy also would prefer tourists go outside to loudly discuss the best locations for dining out, or yesterday’s rude waiter… It only takes a few to spoil it for everyone, eh? I did see one fellow in San Marco in Venice, with his (flashless) camera on a tripod with remote shutter release doing timed exposures; nobody was bothering him. I got the correct time exposure for my manual camera off him, and have one of my best travel shots haning on my wall. York Minster, in York, however didn’t care about pictures or flashes - except “no flashes during services please”.
The Mailbag Article said:
Now just a cotton pickin’ minute here!
The “light” part I can understand – but “heat”? Maybe in the old days of magnesium/aluminum flash bulbs, there would have been a blast of heat (infrared) along with the visible and near-ultraviolet light, sure. But modern cameras all use a xenon flash, which produces hardly any heat. Put your hand right in front of a modern xenon flash. Then set it off. Not very much heat coming off, is there? Certainly not anywhere near as much heat as flash bulbs or disposable flash cubes (which melted when you fired them off).
Methinks the “no heat” reasoning against flash photography is now as outdated as the phonograph record or the distributor-and-points automobile ignition system. The “no light” reasoning still stands, to be sure, but that’s (if you’ll pardon the pun) only half the picture.
Y’know, tracer, come to think of it, the human body produces something like 100 watts of heat… A person standing and looking at a picture for a few minutes would almost have to produce more heat even than one of the old, hot flashbulbs.
tracer, Chronos:
You’re right, a person probably puts out more heat than a modern flash bulb (don’t know about the older flashbulbs), but look at it this way:
The museum makes money by having people come in to look at paintings. They don’t make money (and might even lose money, due to the lost sale of postcards) by people photographing the paintings.
So human heat might damage the painting, but one could argue that what’s the point of having a painting on the wall if no one is allowed to view it?
Right, Arnold, I was just trying to put the heat issue into perspective. And even aside from the impact on postcard sales, the UV in a flash, old or new, can’t exactly be good for a painting, either.
Maybe you tried this with a disposable camera flash? Because I’ve tried putting my hand very close to the flash
of the speedlite I use (once), and there as an appreciable amount of heat generated. Enough so that I don’t want to
repeat the experience.
Modern flashes are much brighter than older flash equipment, so I wouldn’t be surprised if heat is still an issue.
As Johnny Carson would say, “I diiiiiiiid not know that.”