Flash photography in Museums?

I recently returned from a vacation to Greece, and there was a universal prohibition against using flash photography in the museums I went to (National Archeological museum in Athens, main museum in Iraklion, Crete, etc.).

Why did they do this? I believe their justification was that flashes damage the art.

  1. I remember a story, I believe from “Surely You’re Joking Mr. Feynman” that Feynman watched the Trinity test with his naked eye from behind a car winshield, saying that only ultra violet rays could damage the eye, not visible light, and that the glass would stop the UV. Assuming this is true, objects behind glass would not be damaged even if camera strobes produced UV, correct?

  2. Do camera flashes produce UV? If not, then objects not behind glass are ok, too.

Also, (and this may be evidence that more than a technical factor is involved with photo prohibitions) you were not allowed to pose in front of some famous pieces like “The little jockey”, or the Zeus (Poseidon?) of Euboea. I usually think the explanation “The museum wants to sell its postcards” is too cynical, but starting to wonder…

Actually, yes. The flash can damage artwork. See…

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mflashphoto.html

Nawww, that’s a legitimate concern. Good photographs of famous images can have substantial value. The owner of the artwork also owns the rights to all reproductions (generally speaking - they’re not going to stop you from sketching Rodin’s Thinker). If anyone is going to profit from the sale of an artwork’s reproduction, it should be the artwork’s owner, not some pro photographer who pays the $20 museum entry fee, shoots good pictures of all the best artwork (easy to do with a good camera and flash), and then sells posters on his web page.

The solution, of course, is to plan ahead and when you know you’ll be on a museum-heavy itinerary, to pack some high-speed film and make sure you have a camera that you can manually shut off the autoflash.

I have plenty of pictures where flash photography wasn’t allowed (but regular photographs are fine); a few are a little blurry, but they turn out much better than most people expect.

While in Greece a few years ago I too attempted to take flash photographs in museums (where permitted). What I ended up with was a lot of images of the flash reflected in the glass. You pro-photogs would probably get better results.

Regardless, the flash can damage delicate pigments in ancient works of art. And as stated before, the museums earn a great deal of dracmas from the sale of books, posters and postcards, so why should they make it any easier for anyone else? Additionally, all that flashing is extremely annoying to other museum patrons.

I have a few hundred photos that I took in that very musuem. I found that if you use 400 speed (ASA 400) film and don’t shake like an aspen leaf, the pics come out just fine. I even got some really good close-ups using the “macro” mode. As long as there’s no flash, they generally didn’t seem to mind with the exception of a very few objects.

FYI, I used a Samsung autofocus. I add this because I didn’t have the big photo bag with “pro” looking gear; I suspect because I looked like an idiot tourist (and I do this quite well), they paid me little mind. They made most people check their big bags for rasons they cared not to go into, but I suspect it was to keep professional grade equipment out. Once, they made me check the leather camera wallet-thingie, but let me take the camera and pockets full of film in.

I do think the prohibition on high quality equipment is to “sell postcards” or the equivalent thereof. Like sets of slides which are copyrighted, and hence can’r be made into prints unless you find someone willing to overlook the copyright laws, etc.

The idea that even flash photography damages the artwork in the Athens national Museum is silly, not because it is or isnt true, but because it is one of poorest-conserving museums I have seen anywhere. One picture I have (shot out into a courtyard) is of art awaiting “conservation” —it’s sitting outdoors in the sun, rain, smog, etc. I beleive that parts or all of the museum isn’t airconditoned --they just use open windows, and those who have been to Athens know the smog there is like LA in the alte 1960’s —horrid.

I was told that the reason they won’t let you photograph certian objects is that “they haven’t been published yet”, by which I took it to mean the research and so on hadn’t been publsihed by the musuem and the associated scholars yet; since it’s their object, they get first dibs on making their scholarly careers using it.

Objects that were off limits were a new Kore that still had traces of paint on it, and their lekythoi (which I may have misspelled here).

I’d like to try taking no-flash pictures with one of these new digital cameras.

BTW, the Getty Musuem in LA (one of the world’s absolute best by far) never gave me any grief anbout pictures, even with a flash. But taking flash pictures of oil paintings generally produces beautiful pictures ofthe frames only, as the flash usually bounces off the varnish over the painting, amking it look almost like a blank canvas in a good frame. Point here is that flashes must not cause damage to the artwork, because if anyone knows about conservation it IS the Getty!

You get pretty much the same results as with film. Both types of camera have pretty much the same low light limitations.

I was at the Getty yesterday, and they were ok with photos, but not flash. It is bad, especially for paintings (which might explain the attention paid especially to polychromed statues and vessels) and works on paper-- prints shouldnt even be kept in lit places, which is why print rooms will have some rotation of the displays so that the works can spend most of their time in drawers, and why the light in most museums is generally dim-- it’s not for the romance. Flash is a whole lot of photons at once-- not a nice thing to do to paper.
JCHeckler, If I find out that you took a flash photo of that Dieric Bouts distemper painting on linen I’m going to scream.

The trick is to separate the flash a long distance from the film plane. Mount your camera on a sturdy tripod directly in front of the artwork. If the artwork is flat (painting or print), make sure that your film plane is parallel with the artwork so that there is no distortion. hold your flash (or flashes) 45 degrees off to the side(s), connecting them to the camera with cables or a radio slave. Properly exposed, you’ll get great pictures with no glare. Now run like hell when the security guard sees what you’re doing.

Except some digital cameras allow you to change the “film speed” (gain) of the sensor for each shot. If you set the gain too high you get a grainy picture, but that’s better than a blurry picture.

True, but it’s pretty much the same as using ASA 400 film. TANSTAAFL. Only on the much more expensive models do you get anything above 400.

Mate, you should see the Egyptian National Museum in Cairo. I rained when I was there and they were fratically putting plastic sheets over priceless exhibits to keep the water dripping off the leaky roof off.

The whole place was quite simply a discrace.

I meant it saves you from carrying two cameras - one with regular film and one with fast film - because you can adjust the gain for each shot. Yes, it is the same as having a fast film.

Actually it’s possible to improve both quality and sensitivity - all you need is a larger CCD. Expensive though.

Kamandi – You’re 100% right. The hitch is that to do this, you’d need a special set up way more elaborate than what you can carry in your pocket.

Kipper – You’re also right. I forgot about Cairo. I saw on TV where some young women were “consering” the flaking paint and so on on the famous bust of Nefertitti with their fingers and super glue. They mean well, but… Maybe the Getty would like to spring to fund a world-wide conservation program, or at least training for such.

I’ll have to check my pictures for the distemper painting --Bouts or whatever. I think I didn’t use the flash on it, if I did take the picture at all.