Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
Aug 1st 2006 | 7:29 am
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"Mojtaba" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>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
That's probably true, but it is also true that I have frequently spent many
hours in tourist spots, and very seldom seen even one tripod....The idea
that there would be dozens of them in a museum at any given time is hard for
me to imagine.....I was over at one of our favorite coastal cities about a
week ago, when the weather was very hot, and it was quite crowded. I was the
only person I saw all day that had a camera at all, much less a tripod.
I think that if I were operating a museum, I would set aside an hour or
so every day, (probably the first hour after opening in the morning) for
photographers with tripods. There is seldom much of a crowd during this
hour, and I would put up a portable sign at the entrance that said,
"Photographers with tripods have the right of way." After the first hour, I
would remove the sign, and the permission to use tripods.....
news:[email protected]...
>>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
That's probably true, but it is also true that I have frequently spent many
hours in tourist spots, and very seldom seen even one tripod....The idea
that there would be dozens of them in a museum at any given time is hard for
me to imagine.....I was over at one of our favorite coastal cities about a
week ago, when the weather was very hot, and it was quite crowded. I was the
only person I saw all day that had a camera at all, much less a tripod.
I think that if I were operating a museum, I would set aside an hour or
so every day, (probably the first hour after opening in the morning) for
photographers with tripods. There is seldom much of a crowd during this
hour, and I would put up a portable sign at the entrance that said,
"Photographers with tripods have the right of way." After the first hour, I
would remove the sign, and the permission to use tripods.....
Aug 1st 2006 | 7:43 am
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"Mimi" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
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.
Why do you want to photograph anything? - You can usually buy high quality
slides of most any scene there is, so why be a photographer? - Just let the
"expert" professionals do it for you. And, by the way, why are you posting
to a photographic group is you are not interested in photography?
> Marianne, who's really bugged by people using flash in museums
I wouldn't use, "flash in museums". That's why I would use a tripod. It
substitutes for the flash. If you don't have enough available light, then
you have to take a time exposure, and that's why you need a tripod. Flash
pictures are harsh and generally of poor quality anyway. Available light is
much better, and the presence of the camera doesn't hurt the artwork, since
it is sitting under the available light all day anyway, cameras or not. I
don't see people swinging their tripods around tearing up the artwork, but I
guess that's just me. There is a measure of intolerance given to
photographers in general, and it seems to just be a cross we have to bear.
If you want to deamonize us badly enough, I am sure that you will find a way
to do it. It really is a very nice and quite passive hobby. I think you
should give it a try.......
>
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.
Why do you want to photograph anything? - You can usually buy high quality
slides of most any scene there is, so why be a photographer? - Just let the
"expert" professionals do it for you. And, by the way, why are you posting
to a photographic group is you are not interested in photography?
> Marianne, who's really bugged by people using flash in museums
I wouldn't use, "flash in museums". That's why I would use a tripod. It
substitutes for the flash. If you don't have enough available light, then
you have to take a time exposure, and that's why you need a tripod. Flash
pictures are harsh and generally of poor quality anyway. Available light is
much better, and the presence of the camera doesn't hurt the artwork, since
it is sitting under the available light all day anyway, cameras or not. I
don't see people swinging their tripods around tearing up the artwork, but I
guess that's just me. There is a measure of intolerance given to
photographers in general, and it seems to just be a cross we have to bear.
If you want to deamonize us badly enough, I am sure that you will find a way
to do it. It really is a very nice and quite passive hobby. I think you
should give it a try.......
>
Aug 1st 2006 | 7:47 am
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"Jack Campin - bogus address" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> 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.
Be careful! - You are going to get in big trouble if you continue to use
common sense to belittle the conventional stupidity of the general
population....
news:[email protected]...
>> 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.
Be careful! - You are going to get in big trouble if you continue to use
common sense to belittle the conventional stupidity of the general
population....
Aug 1st 2006 | 7:49 am
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"William Graham" <[email protected]> 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.
What makes "your" tax dollars more important than the tax dollars of the
millions of others who may not want tripods interfering with their walk
through of the museum? As a photographer, sure, I sometimes wish I
could set up a tripod in places where I cannot, but it makes perfect
sense to me *why* tripods would be disallowed in general in museums.
> 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.
On the other hand, it could work just as well to have the opposite
policy - tripods not allowed *unless* the staff feels the place is empty
enough that it wouldn't be a problem. But realistically, either way is
asking for potential trouble. What if they place suddenly fills up?
What is some rooms are empty, others full? What if it's actually pretty
borderline as to whater it is empty enough? As in counless other such
matters, it's much easier to just have a blanket policy and stick with
it. And given that many if not most museums don't allow photography at
all (again, for reasons that should be perfectly understandable), I'd
just be pleased enough to find one that does and not quibble about
whether they alos allow tripods.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
[email protected]
Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/
> 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.
What makes "your" tax dollars more important than the tax dollars of the
millions of others who may not want tripods interfering with their walk
through of the museum? As a photographer, sure, I sometimes wish I
could set up a tripod in places where I cannot, but it makes perfect
sense to me *why* tripods would be disallowed in general in museums.
> 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.
On the other hand, it could work just as well to have the opposite
policy - tripods not allowed *unless* the staff feels the place is empty
enough that it wouldn't be a problem. But realistically, either way is
asking for potential trouble. What if they place suddenly fills up?
What is some rooms are empty, others full? What if it's actually pretty
borderline as to whater it is empty enough? As in counless other such
matters, it's much easier to just have a blanket policy and stick with
it. And given that many if not most museums don't allow photography at
all (again, for reasons that should be perfectly understandable), I'd
just be pleased enough to find one that does and not quibble about
whether they alos allow tripods.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
[email protected]
Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Aug 1st 2006 | 7:52 am
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think that if I were operating a museum, I would set aside an
> hour or so every day, (probably the first hour after opening in the
> morning) for photographers with tripods.
Cool - kind of like "adult swim" periods in public pools. You'd still
want to limit numbers and supervise closely enough to avoid damage
issues, but assuming the museum was OK with the idea of photographs in
the first place, this seems an effective solution.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
[email protected]
Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/
> I think that if I were operating a museum, I would set aside an
> hour or so every day, (probably the first hour after opening in the
> morning) for photographers with tripods.
Cool - kind of like "adult swim" periods in public pools. You'd still
want to limit numbers and supervise closely enough to avoid damage
issues, but assuming the museum was OK with the idea of photographs in
the first place, this seems an effective solution.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
[email protected]
Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Aug 1st 2006 | 8:01 am
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"Jack Campin - bogus address" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
And indeed, damage from sunlight is one of the biggest issues facing art
conservators - or would be, had they not solved it long ago by
controlling the light in the museum.
> since
> ordinary custodial handling since any art object was created will
> already have exposed it to hours or years of direct sun
Nonsense. Most artists, and certainly all art curators and
conservators, know better than to expose artwork to hours or years of
direct sun. In fact, exposure to direct sunlight is how one tests the
lightfastness of various artists materials, and even the most permanent
known substances don't hold up well for long.
On the other hand, I have no idea if the actual amount of harmful
radiation from modern flashes would be an issue or not. But if you are
right in comapring it to the sun, then this would be a rather obvious
deal-breaker to any art conservator.
> (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).
Well, clearly, these particular pieces of artwork have been heavily
damaged already. And I can't say whether flash use would be an issue
for works already so heavily damaged. But most modern museums wouldn't
dream of allowing this sort of damage in the first place.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
[email protected]
Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/
> 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.
And indeed, damage from sunlight is one of the biggest issues facing art
conservators - or would be, had they not solved it long ago by
controlling the light in the museum.
> since
> ordinary custodial handling since any art object was created will
> already have exposed it to hours or years of direct sun
Nonsense. Most artists, and certainly all art curators and
conservators, know better than to expose artwork to hours or years of
direct sun. In fact, exposure to direct sunlight is how one tests the
lightfastness of various artists materials, and even the most permanent
known substances don't hold up well for long.
On the other hand, I have no idea if the actual amount of harmful
radiation from modern flashes would be an issue or not. But if you are
right in comapring it to the sun, then this would be a rather obvious
deal-breaker to any art conservator.
> (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).
Well, clearly, these particular pieces of artwork have been heavily
damaged already. And I can't say whether flash use would be an issue
for works already so heavily damaged. But most modern museums wouldn't
dream of allowing this sort of damage in the first place.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
[email protected]
Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Aug 1st 2006 | 8:11 am
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"Marc Sabatella" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]. ..
As in counless other such
> matters, it's much easier to just have a blanket policy and stick with it.
And there you have it in a nutshell.....The cry of the liberal, ladies and
gentlemen. Since we are all just ants in the colony, it's, "much easier to
just have a blanket policy and stick with it."
Why not make a law that says, "Since we are all a danger to ourselves
and others, why not just have a law that puts us all in a padded cell for
our entire lives, and eliminate the problem once and for all?"
I am honored by your logic, Mr. Spock.......
news:[email protected]. ..
As in counless other such
> matters, it's much easier to just have a blanket policy and stick with it.
And there you have it in a nutshell.....The cry of the liberal, ladies and
gentlemen. Since we are all just ants in the colony, it's, "much easier to
just have a blanket policy and stick with it."
Why not make a law that says, "Since we are all a danger to ourselves
and others, why not just have a law that puts us all in a padded cell for
our entire lives, and eliminate the problem once and for all?"
I am honored by your logic, Mr. Spock.......
Aug 1st 2006 | 8:16 am
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"Marc Sabatella" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I think that if I were operating a museum, I would set aside an hour
>> or so every day, (probably the first hour after opening in the morning)
>> for photographers with tripods.
> Cool - kind of like "adult swim" periods in public pools. You'd still
> want to limit numbers and supervise closely enough to avoid damage issues,
> but assuming the museum was OK with the idea of photographs in the first
> place, this seems an effective solution.
Well, I am, after all, a photographer. And this is, after all, a
photographic newsgroup. If you want to take pictures in the museum badly
enough, you should be able to drag yourself out of bed at 6:00 in the
morning, and be down there at the museum entrance by opening at 8:00.......
news:[email protected]...
> "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I think that if I were operating a museum, I would set aside an hour
>> or so every day, (probably the first hour after opening in the morning)
>> for photographers with tripods.
> Cool - kind of like "adult swim" periods in public pools. You'd still
> want to limit numbers and supervise closely enough to avoid damage issues,
> but assuming the museum was OK with the idea of photographs in the first
> place, this seems an effective solution.
Well, I am, after all, a photographer. And this is, after all, a
photographic newsgroup. If you want to take pictures in the museum badly
enough, you should be able to drag yourself out of bed at 6:00 in the
morning, and be down there at the museum entrance by opening at 8:00.......
Aug 1st 2006 | 9:00 am
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
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?
I got offered a job in the states a few years back, and simply asked
for the same conditions as what I had, but more pay. They offered me
more pay, but said that 4 weeks holiday was unrealistic. Two was
considered acceptable.
They really were surprised when I turned it down.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
>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?
I got offered a job in the states a few years back, and simply asked
for the same conditions as what I had, but more pay. They offered me
more pay, but said that 4 weeks holiday was unrealistic. Two was
considered acceptable.
They really were surprised when I turned it down.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
Aug 1st 2006 | 9:14 am
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
William Graham wrote:
> "Mojtaba" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > just imagine that every visitor bring a huge tripod in a musum! I
> > think authorities are afraid damages .......
> That's probably true, but it is also true that I have frequently spent many
> hours in tourist spots, and very seldom seen even one tripod....The idea
> that there would be dozens of them in a museum at any given time is hard for
> me to imagine....
I've seen some monopods, and outside of buildings, I have upon occasion
carried a tripod. Inside museums (that allow it), I avoid it whenever
possible. What I've found is that in general, the amount of ambient
lighting appropriate to display the artwork is generally also adequate
for taking an image...without needing a tripod, or strobe...
http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2005/paris/venus-(3046).jpg
Speaking of strobes, I've seen literally **dozens** of strobes pops in
the Vatican's Sistene Chapel, despite the staff onhand who loudly says
"No Photography" (usually in English) every 3-5 minutes. This is in
addition to the multilingual "no photo" signs. Some people have no
respect for the curator.
> I think that if I were operating a museum, I would set aside an hour or
> so every day, (probably the first hour after opening in the morning) for
> photographers with tripods. There is seldom much of a crowd during this
> hour, and I would put up a portable sign at the entrance that said,
> "Photographers with tripods have the right of way." After the first hour, I
> would remove the sign, and the permission to use tripods.....
You can do that, once you're running a museum. If you're in Delaware,
I can think of two museums right offhand who very much need some fresh
blood (and at age 70, you would be at least a full decade younger than
some of the current volunteers) and you could put this into effect
there by the end of this summer. Of course, to shut out the public
for "photographers only" smacks of elitism, so you sould require said
elites to pay a higher admission fee for the priveledge of early entry.
-hh
> "Mojtaba" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > just imagine that every visitor bring a huge tripod in a musum! I
> > think authorities are afraid damages .......
> That's probably true, but it is also true that I have frequently spent many
> hours in tourist spots, and very seldom seen even one tripod....The idea
> that there would be dozens of them in a museum at any given time is hard for
> me to imagine....
I've seen some monopods, and outside of buildings, I have upon occasion
carried a tripod. Inside museums (that allow it), I avoid it whenever
possible. What I've found is that in general, the amount of ambient
lighting appropriate to display the artwork is generally also adequate
for taking an image...without needing a tripod, or strobe...
http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2005/paris/venus-(3046).jpg
Speaking of strobes, I've seen literally **dozens** of strobes pops in
the Vatican's Sistene Chapel, despite the staff onhand who loudly says
"No Photography" (usually in English) every 3-5 minutes. This is in
addition to the multilingual "no photo" signs. Some people have no
respect for the curator.
> I think that if I were operating a museum, I would set aside an hour or
> so every day, (probably the first hour after opening in the morning) for
> photographers with tripods. There is seldom much of a crowd during this
> hour, and I would put up a portable sign at the entrance that said,
> "Photographers with tripods have the right of way." After the first hour, I
> would remove the sign, and the permission to use tripods.....
You can do that, once you're running a museum. If you're in Delaware,
I can think of two museums right offhand who very much need some fresh
blood (and at age 70, you would be at least a full decade younger than
some of the current volunteers) and you could put this into effect
there by the end of this summer. Of course, to shut out the public
for "photographers only" smacks of elitism, so you sould require said
elites to pay a higher admission fee for the priveledge of early entry.
-hh
Aug 1st 2006 | 9:25 am
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Marc Sabatella" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]. ..
> As in counless other such
>> matters, it's much easier to just have a blanket policy and stick
>> with it.
> And there you have it in a nutshell.....The cry of the liberal, ladies
> and gentlemen.
I'm not sure why you see this as a political issue. It's the way
virtually any bureaucracy of any political persuasion will function.
I'm not saying it's something I'm in favor of. Just something that any
previous experience with human behavior and institutions of any size
should prepare one for.
---------------
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:[email protected]. ..
> As in counless other such
>> matters, it's much easier to just have a blanket policy and stick
>> with it.
> And there you have it in a nutshell.....The cry of the liberal, ladies
> and gentlemen.
I'm not sure why you see this as a political issue. It's the way
virtually any bureaucracy of any political persuasion will function.
I'm not saying it's something I'm in favor of. Just something that any
previous experience with human behavior and institutions of any size
should prepare one for.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
[email protected]
Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Aug 1st 2006 | 9:31 am
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
> Speaking of strobes, I've seen literally **dozens** of strobes pops in
> the Vatican's Sistene Chapel, despite the staff onhand who loudly says
> "No Photography" (usually in English) every 3-5 minutes.
BTW, note this is in the chapel only - the cathedral does allow
photography. I got some rather nice handheld available light shots
there using ISO 1600 and a basic 18-55/3.5-5.6 "kit" lens.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
[email protected]
Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/
> the Vatican's Sistene Chapel, despite the staff onhand who loudly says
> "No Photography" (usually in English) every 3-5 minutes.
BTW, note this is in the chapel only - the cathedral does allow
photography. I got some rather nice handheld available light shots
there using ISO 1600 and a basic 18-55/3.5-5.6 "kit" lens.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
[email protected]
Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Aug 1st 2006 | 11:06 am
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
>> 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.
> And indeed, damage from sunlight is one of the biggest issues facing
> art conservators - or would be, had they not solved it long ago by
> controlling the light in the museum.
>> since ordinary custodial handling since any art object was created
>> will already have exposed it to hours or years of direct sun
> Nonsense. Most artists, and certainly all art curators and
> conservators, know better than to expose artwork to hours or years of
> direct sun.
Most paintings were created in studios with natural light and have at
some point been left on the pavement outside a saleroom for half an
hour. Half an hour of sunlight = 100000 flash exposures.
How many artists do you know? I can't imagine one being so obsessional
as to only allow a work to be exposed to minutes of light, ever. Sounds
like a character out of a Lovecraft story. The usual artist's flat
has canvases piled up on the kitchen cupboards and all round the loo,
getting no more light protection than the toaster or the bogroll.
Paintings in great houses around Britain are routinely kept in locations
like over fireplaces in drawing rooms with large windows. That's often
where they were for 200 years before they ended up in a public gallery.
With oil paintings, this kind of treatment hasn't done any permanent
damage (more delicate things like water colours were kept in folios,
as their problems were identified centuries ago). Clean the burnt toast
and cigar smoke off and they're right back to how Fragonard or Constable
painted them. You can safely assume that for a painting in this category,
a grab shot from Joe Blow's compact - or a million of them - is going to
have no effect that any known measurement technology could detect.
> In fact, exposure to direct sunlight is how one tests the lightfastness
> of various artists materials, and even the most permanent known substances
> don't hold up well for long.
Some do, some don't. Frescoes hold up for centuries. Weathering is the
issue rather than pigment fading.
> On the other hand, I have no idea if the actual amount of harmful
> radiation from modern flashes would be an issue or not. But if you are
> right in comapring it to the sun, then this would be a rather obvious
> deal-breaker to any art conservator.
If you can see the colours in the art at all, you're exposing it to light
with a spectrum resembling sunlight. The gallery's own lighting is
continuous - over a day, that has to add up to more cumulative light
flux than any conceivable gang of snap-happy tourists could contribute.
I think (haven't checked with a meter, but I've done a fair bit of
metering by eyeball for slide film) that a typical art gallery is about
8 stops below open sunlight intensity - i.e. 1/64 of sunlight - which
would make 8 hours of gallery light equivalent to about 8 minutes of
sunlight, i.e. 30000 flashes.
Some specialist displays use much lower levels, like the textile room
at the National Museum of Scotland which is right at the limit where
you can discriminate colour at all, and the Turner watercolour display
in the Scottish National Gallery, which uses indirect sunlight but only
in January and not much of it. Even for these, a flash photo would give
much less exposure on the pictures than the illumination the cleaners
need to sweep the floor.
============== 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
>> 1/60 of a second of direct sunlight, and the spectrum is the same as
>> that of sunlight.
> And indeed, damage from sunlight is one of the biggest issues facing
> art conservators - or would be, had they not solved it long ago by
> controlling the light in the museum.
>> since ordinary custodial handling since any art object was created
>> will already have exposed it to hours or years of direct sun
> Nonsense. Most artists, and certainly all art curators and
> conservators, know better than to expose artwork to hours or years of
> direct sun.
Most paintings were created in studios with natural light and have at
some point been left on the pavement outside a saleroom for half an
hour. Half an hour of sunlight = 100000 flash exposures.
How many artists do you know? I can't imagine one being so obsessional
as to only allow a work to be exposed to minutes of light, ever. Sounds
like a character out of a Lovecraft story. The usual artist's flat
has canvases piled up on the kitchen cupboards and all round the loo,
getting no more light protection than the toaster or the bogroll.
Paintings in great houses around Britain are routinely kept in locations
like over fireplaces in drawing rooms with large windows. That's often
where they were for 200 years before they ended up in a public gallery.
With oil paintings, this kind of treatment hasn't done any permanent
damage (more delicate things like water colours were kept in folios,
as their problems were identified centuries ago). Clean the burnt toast
and cigar smoke off and they're right back to how Fragonard or Constable
painted them. You can safely assume that for a painting in this category,
a grab shot from Joe Blow's compact - or a million of them - is going to
have no effect that any known measurement technology could detect.
> In fact, exposure to direct sunlight is how one tests the lightfastness
> of various artists materials, and even the most permanent known substances
> don't hold up well for long.
Some do, some don't. Frescoes hold up for centuries. Weathering is the
issue rather than pigment fading.
> On the other hand, I have no idea if the actual amount of harmful
> radiation from modern flashes would be an issue or not. But if you are
> right in comapring it to the sun, then this would be a rather obvious
> deal-breaker to any art conservator.
If you can see the colours in the art at all, you're exposing it to light
with a spectrum resembling sunlight. The gallery's own lighting is
continuous - over a day, that has to add up to more cumulative light
flux than any conceivable gang of snap-happy tourists could contribute.
I think (haven't checked with a meter, but I've done a fair bit of
metering by eyeball for slide film) that a typical art gallery is about
8 stops below open sunlight intensity - i.e. 1/64 of sunlight - which
would make 8 hours of gallery light equivalent to about 8 minutes of
sunlight, i.e. 30000 flashes.
Some specialist displays use much lower levels, like the textile room
at the National Museum of Scotland which is right at the limit where
you can discriminate colour at all, and the Turner watercolour display
in the Scottish National Gallery, which uses indirect sunlight but only
in January and not much of it. Even for these, a flash photo would give
much less exposure on the pictures than the illumination the cleaners
need to sweep the floor.
============== 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
Aug 1st 2006 | 1:17 pm
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Marc Sabatella" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]. ..
> As in counless other such
> > matters, it's much easier to just have a blanket policy and stick with
it.
> And there you have it in a nutshell.....The cry of the liberal, ladies
> and gentlemen. Since we are all just ants in the colony, it's, "much
> easier to just have a blanket policy and stick with it."
As usual Bill takes something out of context, exagerates it, and then uses
it to mock those people he mis-names as Liberals. Rather sad, really.
Surely, Bill, you can see it's not just easier, it's also fairer, for all
the valid reasons set out in the posters message, but which you cut. That's
not Liberal - in either the true sense or your distorted use of the word -
it's practical, sensible, logic.
Peter
news:[email protected]...
> "Marc Sabatella" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]. ..
> As in counless other such
> > matters, it's much easier to just have a blanket policy and stick with
it.
> And there you have it in a nutshell.....The cry of the liberal, ladies
> and gentlemen. Since we are all just ants in the colony, it's, "much
> easier to just have a blanket policy and stick with it."
As usual Bill takes something out of context, exagerates it, and then uses
it to mock those people he mis-names as Liberals. Rather sad, really.
Surely, Bill, you can see it's not just easier, it's also fairer, for all
the valid reasons set out in the posters message, but which you cut. That's
not Liberal - in either the true sense or your distorted use of the word -
it's practical, sensible, logic.
Peter
Aug 1st 2006 | 1:23 pm
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"-hh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ups.com...
> William Graham wrote:
>> "Mojtaba" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > just imagine that every visitor bring a huge tripod in a musum! I
>> > think authorities are afraid damages .......
>> That's probably true, but it is also true that I have frequently spent
>> many
>> hours in tourist spots, and very seldom seen even one tripod....The idea
>> that there would be dozens of them in a museum at any given time is hard
>> for
>> me to imagine....
> I've seen some monopods, and outside of buildings, I have upon occasion
> carried a tripod. Inside museums (that allow it), I avoid it whenever
> possible. What I've found is that in general, the amount of ambient
> lighting appropriate to display the artwork is generally also adequate
> for taking an image...without needing a tripod, or strobe...
> http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2005/paris/venus-(3046).jpg
> Speaking of strobes, I've seen literally **dozens** of strobes pops in
> the Vatican's Sistene Chapel, despite the staff onhand who loudly says
> "No Photography" (usually in English) every 3-5 minutes. This is in
> addition to the multilingual "no photo" signs. Some people have no
> respect for the curator.
If the curator were to say, "No strobes", instead of, "No Photography", I
would agree with you.
news:[email protected] ups.com...
> William Graham wrote:
>> "Mojtaba" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > just imagine that every visitor bring a huge tripod in a musum! I
>> > think authorities are afraid damages .......
>> That's probably true, but it is also true that I have frequently spent
>> many
>> hours in tourist spots, and very seldom seen even one tripod....The idea
>> that there would be dozens of them in a museum at any given time is hard
>> for
>> me to imagine....
> I've seen some monopods, and outside of buildings, I have upon occasion
> carried a tripod. Inside museums (that allow it), I avoid it whenever
> possible. What I've found is that in general, the amount of ambient
> lighting appropriate to display the artwork is generally also adequate
> for taking an image...without needing a tripod, or strobe...
> http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2005/paris/venus-(3046).jpg
> Speaking of strobes, I've seen literally **dozens** of strobes pops in
> the Vatican's Sistene Chapel, despite the staff onhand who loudly says
> "No Photography" (usually in English) every 3-5 minutes. This is in
> addition to the multilingual "no photo" signs. Some people have no
> respect for the curator.
If the curator were to say, "No strobes", instead of, "No Photography", I
would agree with you.
