>>> I am arguing that a taxpayer supported museum must, (or at least
    >>> should) be beholden to the needs of the taxpayers who support it.
    >> Right, but tht doens't mean you personal whims should stand in for
    >> "the needs of the taxpayers who support it".
    > Why not? - I'm a taxpayer, aren't I? - My personal needs and wants are
    > what we are talking about here. Sure, I can be voted down my the other
    > taxpayers, and if so, then that's OK. But I shouldn't be tacitly
    > overruled by some petty clerk who is on my payroll.

Again, he's not just on *your* payroll. He has a responsibility to
everyone. Your voice should be heard indeed, but yours is not the only
voice he should be listening to. And I see plenty of rational reasons
why, on listening to all these voices, one might decide a no-tripod or
even a no-photography policy might make complete sense. And even though
I agree your proposal of having a "photographer's hour" makes a lot of
sense to you or me, I can also see many reasons why it might end up not
being the right answer when one looks at the big picture - costs of
opening the museum an extra hour (or inconvenience to others if the hour
is not "extra" but instead taken from the regular hours), copyright
issues, risks issues, liability issues, etc. I'm not saying I think it
*should* go that way, just that I'm not naive enugh to imagine that our
desire to photograph some artwork should trump all other concerns, even
those other concerns are not ones that we personally care about.

---------------
Marc Sabatella
[email protected]

Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/

"Marc Sabatella" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:D4udnRBdh->
*should* go that way, just that I'm not naive enugh to imagine that our
    > desire to photograph some artwork should trump all other concerns, even
    > those other concerns are not ones that we personally care about.


So basically, it comes down to our differing perceptions of the relationship
between the taxpayers and the government. I always view the government with
suspicion, and distrust, and am always willing to pressure them into being
more efficient in providing me with what I want, and you are more willing to
trust that they are doing a good job, and any policy they incorporate must
be the best they can do for you.
Just bear in mind that standing between your elected representatives and
the laws they make are a long line of petty clerks whose job is to implement
those laws. Perhaps our differing perceptions of the government is because
of our different experiences with those clerks that we have had to deal with
in the past. Or, perhaps it is because of the bigger picture, and how
efficiently the government has spent our money in the past.
In my own case, I have grown very cynical during my 70 years of
observation of, "your government in action." - I hope that your experiences
will be better than mine.

"Neil Harrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]. ..
    > "jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:i7nAg.9825$j9.5859@trnddc02...
    >> "Neil Harrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]. ..
    >>> I think all this talk of "prohibiting" or "banning" same-sex marriage
    >>> misses the point. Same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms, an
    >>> oxymoron. For a same-sex couple to demand that their relationship be
    >>> deemed a "marriage" is somewhat like demanding that a cat be officially
    >>> declared a horse.
    >> That may be the "traditional" definition of marriage, but we have seen
    >> other sovereign nations in the EU changing the definition and allowing
    >> marriages between people that formerly were prohibited from contracting
    >> such unions.
    >> In America, all it requires to change the definition id for legislators
    >> to codify it into law or for the Supreme Court to rule that such
    >> marriages are guaranteed constitutional rights. (They have not done this,
    >> but they could).
    >> As this issue divides people in America and around the world, it is going
    >> to have to be decided. We can't have the situation that we have
    >> now--where Massachusetts allows such marriages, but the parties are not
    >> considered legally married when they travel or relocate to other states.
    > I have to agree with that, though the necessity for it seems silly to me.
    > Neil

Some day we'll be making the same comments for plural marriages, bigamy and
incest. It's only a matter of time before some groups start demanding the
"right" to live as they choose. These are strange times, indeed.

"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Neil Harrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]. ..
    >> > There is no controversy whatever in my mind. Marriage means the legal
    >> > union
    >> of a man and a woman. That's what it has always meant. People who want to
    >> redefine the word for some goofy reason or other may do so for their own
    >> amusement,
    > It's not the way, "people" define it, it's the way the state legally
    > defines it that is the problem.

No. The dictionary definition of marriage has always been "the legal union
of a man and a woman." Nothing to do with "the state." The state does not
decide how dictionaries define anything.


    > The gays should have the right to enjoy the exact same legal privileges as
    > do heterosexually married couples.

I keep telling you, homosexuals *do* have exactly the same rights and legal
privileges as anyone else. EXACTLY the same. Any homosexual can marry under
EXACTLY the same conditions as any heterosexual. No state in the union bars
homosexuals from marriage. Many married people are in fact homosexual. This
does not infringe on their marriage rights in any way, though of course
their spouses may not like it and may divorce them because of it.


    > That means all the insurance contracts, taxation contracts, health service
    > contracts, and any other contracts that take into consideration the
    > "married" state, must

All are the same.


    > be applicable to homosexual couples who are, "married".

Homosexual couples are not barred from marriage or any other rights,
provided of course they are not the same sex. I have mentioned that I knew a
homosexual man married to a lesbian, and I'm sure there are others.


    > The simplest way to do that, without creating a mountain of paperwork, is
    > to redefine "marriage"

There you are, you see. It's *you* who want to redefine the term, it's not
something the state is doing.

Neil

"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]. ..
    > "jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:finAg.9829$j9.9753@trnddc02...
    >> "Neil Harrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> Again, it has nothing necessarily to do with "the religious realm."
    >>> Marriage is an institution that's been around for thousands of years,
    >>> legally formalized in the modern world and now having only a tenuous and
    >>> completely optional connection with any church or other religious
    >>> community. Its *definition* remains exactly what it has always been.
    >> Just consider all of the cultures that do not embrace Judeo-Christian
    >> morals. Homosexuality and the notion of same-sex marriage has been
    >> rejected by virtually all of them, including China, the Soviet Union,
    >> Nazi Germany, aboriginal tribes, island populations, Eskimos, Amazons,
    >> etc..
    >> It is inaccurate for anyone to suggest that the bias against same-sex
    >> relationships stems only from religion. If religion were wiped away,
    >> that bias would remain. Mankind has opposed such relationships for a
    >> hundred thousand years. The current situation, compared to the rest of
    >> human history, is like the blink of an eye.
    > And, if you define marriage as a simple legal contract between two people,
    > it should be available to gays as well as straights. the constitution so
    > dictates this.

The Constitution does nothing of the sort.

That's the end of this circular, tiresome, silly argument as far as I'm
concerned.

"Neil Harrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]. ..
    > There you are, you see. It's *you* who want to redefine the term, it's not
    > something the state is doing.
    > Neil

Marriage has a legal definition that varies from state to state. If you
can't understand that, then this conversation is over.

William Graham wrote:
    > "Neil Harrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]. ..
    >> There you are, you see. It's *you* who want to redefine the term, it's not
    >> something the state is doing.
    >> Neil
    >
    > Marriage has a legal definition that varies from state to state. If you
    > can't understand that, then this conversation is over.
    >
    >

I really, really didn't want to get into this debate, but a few words
come to mind.

For many years, it depended on the race of the "man and woman" involved.
Up until the 1960s, it was the "legal union of a man and a woman of the
same race" in many states. Neil's dictionary does not define the laws of
the United States, the individual states, or other countries for that
matter.

As far as it goes, gay marriage, gays in the military, etc. I say, be
careful what you wish for...you may get it!


35mm content:

Now, having just finished what is probably my last roll of Kodachrome 64
(off in the mail in a PK36! who knows how long to get it back), I am old
enough to recall when 100 ASA was about as high as you could get. In
those days, flash or tripod was a requirement for indoor shooting, and
guess what....you couldn't do either in most museums.

There are many obvious reasons for the no flash rule. Tripods disrupt
foot traffic and present a "trip and fall" hazard. Monopods much less
so, and I think an exception should be made for them.

Unfortunately, my slides from the original Getty museum (now reborn as
the Getty Villa) were taken on 5247 in the 1970s and have changed colors
and faded to the point of being useless.

Regards,

DAve

    > So basically, it comes down to our differing perceptions of the
    > relationship between the taxpayers and the government.

Not at all. It comes to how much we believe our own needs happen to
reflect those of the population at large. Put another way, if I were in
charge of a museum, I've yet to hear anything that would even come close
to convincing me a no photography policy wasn't the way to go.

---------------
Marc Sabatella
[email protected]

Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/

Following up to William Graham

    >> words are constantly redefined, sometimes to keep up with the
    >> progress of society. As in this case.
    >Exactly. - That's what the gay's want. A redefining of the word to include
    >them. And that's what they should have, since they are citizens in good
    >standing, and not convicted felons.......

and it will/has happened, as always, some people will not be able
to adapt to change or sometimes simply believe the dictionary
defines the language rather than reports it.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

On 2006-07-31 11:11:58 -0400, [email protected] said:

    > Hello all,
    >
    > I'm off to Italy for a week in August.
    > My camera equipment and tripod will come with me.
    >
    > I've read that a lot of museums will not allow tripods.
    >
    > If this is the case, will they allow monopods, that stand close to the
    > body?
    >
    >
    >
    > Also, does anyone know a shutter speed rule to use with monopods?
    > ie. at 100 ISO, the old 35mm standard for hand held was
    > shutterspeed = 1/focal length of lense.
    >
    > Thanks

They prohibit them for two reasons. One is the danger to others. The
other is to prevent you from taking a marketable photo of perhaps
copyrighted work. Therefore, I suspect any camera support is going to
be an issue.


--
Jim <[email protected]

In article <[email protected]. com>,
[email protected] wrote:

    > I've only heard of image stabilization in video cameras.
    > Not still cameras. Does the Nikon LI, or D70S have
    > image stabilization?
    >
    >
    >
    > Some ask, why a tripod? You should try it sometime in low light.
    > And see the -beautiful- results that come from the environmental
    > lighting.

I have a camera with image stabilization. It's not a substitute for a
tripod.

The bigger problem, besides blurry pics, is the lack of dynamic range.

So if you go inside a cathedral and there is a small light source around
a dome, that light source will often blot out the details of the
architecture which isn't receiving the light.

Try ISO 400 film with a fast(f.2.8 if possible, Wide angle inside
museums)lens, or if digital, set for as fast an ISO as you can get
without creating imaging noise. I was able to use a 'shoulder pod',
which is a collapsible shoulder camera holder, such as 'Bush Hawk',
about $USD 100 in museums, worked well. Tripods can be used in some
smaller museums with a permit, cameras may also require a permit.
Tripod was OK in St. Peter, not in the Vatican museum.

Hello, [email protected]!
You wrote on 7 Aug 2006 16:25:52 -0700:


s> Try ISO 400 film with a fast(f.2.8 if possible, Wide angle
s> inside museums)lens, or if digital, set for as fast an ISO
s> as you can get without creating imaging noise. I was able to
s> use a 'shoulder pod', which is a collapsible shoulder camera
s> holder, such as 'Bush Hawk', about $USD 100 in museums,
s> worked well. Tripods can be used in some smaller museums
s> with a permit, cameras may also require a permit. Tripod was
s> OK in St. Peter, not in the Vatican museum.

What's this film stuff and where do you get it?

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not