>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......

just imagine that every visitor bring a huge tripod in a musum! I
think authorities are afraid damages .......

mojtaba

Following up to [email protected]

    >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.

a lot depends on you, but I only use it to improve on hand held
for telephoto shots, its not really much use for long exposures.
--
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

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

    > 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.

Point taken that you aren't the person who asked before his trip to
Italy.

Curators have an obligation to the art, first, and then to all the
people who may be seeing the art in 2009, 2100, and so forth. Their
mission isn't a liberal one, but a conservative one. If they want to
let you set up a tripod, it's by grace and favor. You've paid to have
the right to see the art.

If I wanted to try to take a tripod into a museum anywhere, I'd ask
first and make sure I had documentation with me that it was okay.

Now to killfile all the crossposted crap that doesn't have anything to
do with digital photography.

--
Rebecca Ore

William Graham wrote:

    >
    > "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.

If you truly can do better than the commercial photos then I would think
that museums would be clamoring for the use of your talents rather than you
going as a supplicant to them.

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

William Graham wrote:
    > 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.
    >
That's a rather odd use of the word 'liberal'.

Following up to S Viemeister

    >To disallow them because they may be misused is a typically liberal
    >> viewpoint.
    >>
    >That's a rather odd use of the word 'liberal'.

it certainly is.
--
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 Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:11:25 +0100, The Reid
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to S Viemeister
    >>To disallow them because they may be misused is a typically liberal
    >>> viewpoint.
    >>>
    >>That's a rather odd use of the word 'liberal'.
    >it certainly is.

What would "apply liberally" mean in the USA do you think?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

"Mojtaba" <[email protected]> wrote
    > just imagine that every visitor bring a huge tripod in a musum! I
    > think authorities are afraid damages .......

One was [Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court] John
Robert's majority opinion that rejected the government's
application of federal narcotics law to stop a Brazil-based
religious group from importing a hallucinogenic tea for
use in its rituals. "The government's argument echoes
the classic rejoinder of bureaucrats throughout history:
If I make an exception for you, I'll have to make one
for everybody, so no exceptions,"

"His Hipness, John G. Roberts"
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
NY Times July 9, 2006

In article <[email protected]>,
deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu (Dave Frightens Me) wrote:

    > *From:* Dave Frightens Me <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu>
    > *Date:* Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:55:25 +0200
    >
    > On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:11:25 +0100, The Reid
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Following up to S Viemeister
    > >
    > >>To disallow them because they may be misused is a typically liberal
    > >>> viewpoint.
    > >>>
    > >>That's a rather odd use of the word 'liberal'.
    > >
    > >it certainly is.
    >
    > What would "apply liberally" mean in the USA do you think?

Apply for a job in the expectation of getting four weeks' holiday?

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:05:53 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>,
    >deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu (Dave Frightens Me) wrote:
    >> *From:* Dave Frightens Me <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu>
    >> *Date:* Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:55:25 +0200
    >>
    >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:11:25 +0100, The Reid
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Following up to S Viemeister
    >> >
    >> >>To disallow them because they may be misused is a typically liberal
    >> >>> viewpoint.
    >> >>>
    >> >>That's a rather odd use of the word 'liberal'.
    >> >
    >> >it certainly is.
    >>
    >> What would "apply liberally" mean in the USA do you think?
    >Apply for a job in the expectation of getting four weeks' holiday?

So little?
--

Martin

Following up to Dave Frightens Me

    >>>That's a rather odd use of the word 'liberal'.
    >>it certainly is.
    >What would "apply liberally" mean in the USA do you think?

to a right winger in a red state it possibly just means the same
as communist - just bad :-)
--
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

"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]. ..
    > "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.
Personally, I'm pretty convinced by Rebecca's arguments. So once a person
wielding a tripod has destroyed a priceless, irreplaceable art work, then
you punish them?

I think your tax dollars paid for you to look at the paintings or whatever.
You don't have an inalienable right to photograph them.

In fact, why do you want to photograph them? Just to prove you've been
there? Why, won't people believe you? You can usually buy high-quality
slides of museum artworks. And maybe now CDs with digital pictures.

Marianne, who's really bugged by people using flash in museums

    > 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.

Nonsense. (We've been through this one over and over again). The
light flux on the subject from a flash is typically equivalent to 1/60
of a second of direct sunlight, and the spectrum is the same as that
of sunlight. Thousands of flashes a day for millennia would have no
discernible effect on anything a museum exposes to public view, since
ordinary custodial handling since any art object was created will
already have exposed it to hours or years of direct sun. (The silliest
example I know is the Kariye museum in Istanbul, where the frescoes
have been exposed to sunlight through glassless windows for over 1000
years, and they still invoke the flash-might-fade-them urban legend).

The rule dates back to when flash was done by bulb or powder. Bulbs
could explode showering the area with broken glass and burning foil;
powder was like firing off dynamite and photographers sometimes died
using it. It would be nuts to allow such a risk, but the light output
wasn't the issue. And electronic flash tubes don't blow up.

Flash *does* damage other people's experience of the art. That alone
is a good reason to ban it in museums, but the idea that there is any
conservation issue is utter bollocks.

============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557

Jack Campin - bogus address wrote:
    >> 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.
    >
    > Nonsense. (We've been through this one over and over again). The
    > light flux on the subject from a flash is typically equivalent to 1/60
    > of a second of direct sunlight, and the spectrum is the same as that
    > of sunlight. Thousands of flashes a day for millennia would have no
    > discernible effect on anything a museum exposes to public view, since
    > ordinary custodial handling since any art object was created will
    > already have exposed it to hours or years of direct sun. (The silliest
    > example I know is the Kariye museum in Istanbul, where the frescoes
    > have been exposed to sunlight through glassless windows for over 1000
    > years, and they still invoke the flash-might-fade-them urban legend).
    >
    > The rule dates back to when flash was done by bulb or powder. Bulbs
    > could explode showering the area with broken glass and burning foil;
    > powder was like firing off dynamite and photographers sometimes died
    > using it. It would be nuts to allow such a risk, but the light output
    > wasn't the issue. And electronic flash tubes don't blow up.
    >
    > Flash *does* damage other people's experience of the art. That alone
    > is a good reason to ban it in museums, but the idea that there is any
    > conservation issue is utter bollocks.

Very interesting take on this, Jack. I'd disagree, though, that most
museums have allowed their works to be exposed to direct sunlight.

--
John McWilliams

"My wife said, 'It's either me or the ham radio. There's not enough room
for both of us.' Over."

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

If you truly can do better than the commercial photos then I would think
    > that museums would be clamoring for the use of your talents rather than
    > you
    > going as a supplicant to them.
Ha! - They might, but I am not a professional photographer, nor do I aspire
to be one. I am 70, and a retired engineer. I also play the trumpet for a
local community band, and I don't want to do that as a profession either. At
this stage of my life, all I want to do is kick back and pursue my hobbies
in peace. The surest way to ruin a nice hobby is to start doing it for
money. Because then you have to do it the way other people want it done,
instead of the way you like to do it.