> 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.

Not just ISO 100 - any ISO. Higher ISO just makes it easier to achieve
the desired shutter speed.

If you're using a camera with less than 35mm "full frame" sensor, then
this rule of thumb should be subjected to the same crop factor that
applies to angle of view and so forth. That is, at 50mm on a camera
with a 1.5X crop factor, your angle of view is that of 75mm on a 35mm
camera, so 1/75 is going to be what you shoot for.

In practice, though, the advantages of digital here are that you can
freely make several attempts at getting a steady shot without wasting
film, and check the results on your LCD and keep at it until you get
something you like. So I find that the basic 1 / focal length still
works for me in many cases - it just might take a few shots before I
nail it. If I keep at it long enough, I can do even better than that,
and I've got notoriously shake hands. Combined with the fact that msot
DSLR's have usable ISO 800 and often 1600 or even 3200, and you can
probably do OK without the pod if you've got a reasonably fast lens.

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

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

Thanks all for your comments.


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.

Much better than a flash. Sharp. In focus. Not blurred.
Full tonal range. Lit all the way through the frame.
No hot spots.

A good tripod was one of the best investments I ever made.


jeremy wrote:
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected] oups.com...
    > > 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
    > >
    > One solution that has recently become available is to bring along a camera
    > with image stabilization. That might render the issue moot.

PeterL wrote:
    > It's not
    > possible to sneak a tripod or monopod into a museum if they don't allow
    > it.

I wonder if a Chest-pod counts as a tripod/monopod?

[email protected] wrote:

    > 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?



You've gotten a lot of replies to your question, but I'll add a general
comment. Many museums (maybe even most museums) don't allow photography at
all.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

[email protected] writes:

    > I've only heard of image stabilization in video cameras.
    > Not still cameras. Does the Nikon LI, or D70S have
    > image stabilization?

Nikon has some lenses with image stabilization (Vibration Reduction in
Nikon's marketing speak). The 18-200 lens that gets mentioned from
time to time has VR.

The other advice is to borrow guard's stools, lie down on the floor,
lean cameras against walls. The thing the museums go the most nuts
about is flash since the cummulative effects of that damage fragile
colors and fabrics. Tripods users simply take up too much space and
time in front of pictures, I suspect.

I've shot in Philadelphia museums with an old 35 mm film camera, no
flash, and was able to lie down on the floor, borrow a guard's stool,
and prop the camera against the walls while the guards were chasing
down tourists with little autoflash cameras.

Ask the guards what's okay.

Also, ask in writing or email about bringing in a tripod. You might
be able to do this before regular hours for a contribution to the
museum's fund, or something, but I think you'd want to arrange this
before showing up at the museum.

The more interesting shots are of people looking at art. I need to go back
with the digital and take more of those. As someone else said,
shooting the pictures themselves isn't going to work out as well for
getting good copies of the pictures as buying the postcards and books.

--
Rebecca Ore

Marc Sabatella wrote:

    >> 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.
    >
    > Not just ISO 100 - any ISO. Higher ISO just makes it easier to achieve
    > the desired shutter speed.
    >
    > If you're using a camera with less than 35mm "full frame" sensor, then
    > this rule of thumb should be subjected to the same crop factor that
    > applies to angle of view and so forth. That is, at 50mm on a camera
    > with a 1.5X crop factor, your angle of view is that of 75mm on a 35mm
    > camera, so 1/75 is going to be what you shoot for.
    >
    > In practice, though, the advantages of digital here are that you can
    > freely make several attempts at getting a steady shot without wasting
    > film, and check the results on your LCD and keep at it until you get
    > something you like. So I find that the basic 1 / focal length still
    > works for me in many cases - it just might take a few shots before I
    > nail it. If I keep at it long enough, I can do even better than that,
    > and I've got notoriously shake hands. Combined with the fact that msot
    > DSLR's have usable ISO 800 and often 1600 or even 3200, and you can
    > probably do OK without the pod if you've got a reasonably fast lens.

Set for continuous, take your best brace, take a deep breath, start letting
it out, press and hold the shutter and complete the exhalation, hold,
breath, release then erase the ones that are blurred. Somewhere in there
you'll get a sharp one <g>.

    >
    > ---------------
    > Marc Sabatella
    > [email protected]
    >
    > Music, art, & educational materials
    > Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
    > http://www.outsideshore.com/

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"bmoag" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] .net...
    > Most do not allow any form of pod or flash.
    > However regulations against use of pods and flash are not always enforced
in
    > the face of uncooperative tourist hordes, especcially those of the
    > adolescent variety.

Yeah, but the flash actually damages the objects. The rule on tripods is
simply because they can cause an obstruction, flash is another matter
altogether.

So you and I both might use a tripod, with permission or by tacit consent.
But if you use a flash, I might be the one slapping you upside the head.


Peter

"Rebecca Ore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[SNIP]
    > The more interesting shots are of people looking at art. I need to go
    > back with the digital and take more of those.

Good point. One of my favourite Quai D'Orsay pictures is of a group of
bemused onlookers in front of the Dejeuner sur le Plage, with the focus very
much on the people, not the painting. Everyone, after all, already knows
what the painting looks like!


Peter

"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "bmoag" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected] .net...
    >> Most do not allow any form of pod or flash.
    >> However regulations against use of pods and flash are not always enforced
    > in
    >> the face of uncooperative tourist hordes, especcially those of the
    >> adolescent variety.
    > Yeah, but the flash actually damages the objects. The rule on tripods is
    > simply because they can cause an obstruction, flash is another matter
    > altogether.
    > So you and I both might use a tripod, with permission or by tacit consent.
    > But if you use a flash, I might be the one slapping you upside the head.
    > Peter
But generally, the reason for the tripod is just so one doesn't need to use
a flash.....If flashes damage the paintings, then the obvious answer is to
allow/encourage the use of tripods. - It's too bad that more museum
directors aren't photographers......

"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]. ..
    > "Doug Payne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > On 31/07/2006 11:11 AM, [email protected] wrote:
    > >
    > >> 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?
    > >
    > > If you really must have one, play the physically-disabled card and
    > > get a hiking pole with a camera screw mount on top. Affect a really
    > > nasty limp and tell 'em you need the "cane" to be able to walk.
    > Why walk? - Have a "nurse" wheel you through the museum in a
    > special wheelchair that has your camera mounted inside one of the
    > electronic, "life support" boxes attached to the chair....She can carry
    > spare film cartridges inside her, "first aid kit"......
    > Just how bad do you want these pictures, anyway?

This is Italy we're talking about: forget the nurse, get a nun...


Peter

"William Graham" <[email protected]> writes:

    > But generally, the reason for the tripod is just so one doesn't need to use
    > a flash.....If flashes damage the paintings, then the obvious answer is to
    > allow/encourage the use of tripods. - It's too bad that more museum
    > directors aren't photographers......

People setting up tripods in front of painting can obstruct the view
for other patrons. People carrying tripods can hit them against
various things, some of which are more valuable than a digital
Hasseblad.

I've been in museums with a popular show (Cezanne, Philadelphia) where
doing this probably would have had the tripod knocked over and the
camera accidently or not crushed.

The other thing is that if you're just shooting the paintings, the
museum can do a better job of that than you can -- by putting them in
copy stands or photographing them with large format cameras where the
back can be tilted to match the painting's hanging tilt (and won't do
this more than once every decade or so). They also would like you to
buy their prints, which helps support the museum.

Shooting people looking at the paintings doesn't hurt the sales of
their posters and postcards. If you're doing that, and aren't
plonking a tripod in front of paintings, you might find the museum
will work with you.

People shooting flash at painting is just plain stupid since most art
is either varnished or under glass and will bounce the flash right
back at the lens. Most of the tourists who run into museums with
point and flash cameras aren't really intelligent about photography.

--
Rebecca Ore

"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
...
    >> > If you really must have one, play the physically-disabled card and
    >> > get a hiking pole with a camera screw mount on top.

LOL. Or a special three legged walker ...
--

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

"Rebecca Ore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "William Graham" <[email protected]> writes:
    >> But generally, the reason for the tripod is just so one doesn't need to
    >> use
    >> a flash.....If flashes damage the paintings, then the obvious answer is
    >> to
    >> allow/encourage the use of tripods. - It's too bad that more museum
    >> directors aren't photographers......
    > People setting up tripods in front of painting can obstruct the view
    > for other patrons. People carrying tripods can hit them against
    > various things, some of which are more valuable than a digital
    > Hasseblad.
    > I've been in museums with a popular show (Cezanne, Philadelphia) where
    > doing this probably would have had the tripod knocked over and the
    > camera accidently or not crushed.
    > The other thing is that if you're just shooting the paintings, the
    > museum can do a better job of that than you can -- by putting them in
    > copy stands or photographing them with large format cameras where the
    > back can be tilted to match the painting's hanging tilt (and won't do
    > this more than once every decade or so). They also would like you to
    > buy their prints, which helps support the museum.
    > Shooting people looking at the paintings doesn't hurt the sales of
    > their posters and postcards. If you're doing that, and aren't
    > plonking a tripod in front of paintings, you might find the museum
    > will work with you.
    > People shooting flash at painting is just plain stupid since most art
    > is either varnished or under glass and will bounce the flash right
    > back at the lens. Most of the tourists who run into museums with
    > point and flash cameras aren't really intelligent about photography.
    > --
    > Rebecca Ore

If the museum is private, then they can make any rules they want. But if the
art works are purchased by my tax dollars, then they should allow the use of
tripods. To disallow them because they may be misused is a typically liberal
viewpoint. First, let them be misused, and then punish the offender for it.
Don't punish everyone on the off chance that they may offend. - If the
museum is especially busy and crowded, then I can understand suspending the
use of a tripod during those peak hours. But to suspend their use at all
times, when there are periods when the museum is almost empty is wrong.

"William Graham" <[email protected]> writes:

    >> Shooting people looking at the paintings doesn't hurt the sales of
    >> their posters and postcards. If you're doing that, and aren't
    >> plonking a tripod in front of paintings, you might find the museum
    >> will work with you.

    > If the museum is private, then they can make any rules they want. But if the
    > art works are purchased by my tax dollars, then they should allow the use of
    > tripods. To disallow them because they may be misused is a typically liberal
    > viewpoint. First, let them be misused, and then punish the offender for it.
    > Don't punish everyone on the off chance that they may offend. - If the
    > museum is especially busy and crowded, then I can understand suspending the
    > use of a tripod during those peak hours. But to suspend their use at all
    > times, when there are periods when the museum is almost empty is wrong.

I believe you said you were going to Italy, where your tax dollars
paid zip for museums unless you've worked there and paid taxes in the
past. I suggested that you write to the museums you're planning to
visit and see if they will let you pay them for the privilege of
bringing a tripod into the museum.

If you want an exception made, write the museums, call the museums,
and find out if you can get permission to bring a tripod in.
Otherwise, more comments on this will smell of the troll.


--
Rebecca Ore

"Rebecca Ore" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "William Graham" <[email protected]> writes:
    >>> Shooting people looking at the paintings doesn't hurt the sales of
    >>> their posters and postcards. If you're doing that, and aren't
    >>> plonking a tripod in front of paintings, you might find the museum
    >>> will work with you.
    >> If the museum is private, then they can make any rules they want. But if
    >> the
    >> art works are purchased by my tax dollars, then they should allow the use
    >> of
    >> tripods. To disallow them because they may be misused is a typically
    >> liberal
    >> viewpoint. First, let them be misused, and then punish the offender for
    >> it.
    >> Don't punish everyone on the off chance that they may offend. - If the
    >> museum is especially busy and crowded, then I can understand suspending
    >> the
    >> use of a tripod during those peak hours. But to suspend their use at all
    >> times, when there are periods when the museum is almost empty is wrong.
    > I believe you said you were going to Italy, where your tax dollars
    > paid zip for museums unless you've worked there and paid taxes in the
    > past. I suggested that you write to the museums you're planning to
    > visit and see if they will let you pay them for the privilege of
    > bringing a tripod into the museum.
    > If you want an exception made, write the museums, call the museums,
    > and find out if you can get permission to bring a tripod in.
    > Otherwise, more comments on this will smell of the troll.
    > --
    > Rebecca Ore

I am neither a troll, nor the one who originally posted that he was going to
Italy to visit the museums....
My comment on the rights of the taxpayer concerning the museums is still
valid, whether they are Italian museums or American museums.
When I visit museums here in the US, I use my 75-150 zoom portrait lens,
and set up against the far wall, as far from the painting/work of art as I
can get. I interfere with no one. When the path is clear, then I take my
picture. It the museum is so busy that the path is never clear, then I
probably won't be there, or I will have left my camera back in the car.
In any case, I seldom take paintings, since (as you say) prints are
available at the museum's front office, or in most framing shops. But I can
take statues and other works of art better than the available commercial
photographs, or I wouldn't be wasting my time.