"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]. ..
    > "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.....

Now that is the germ of a very smart idea.


Peter

"-hh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ups.com...
[SNIP]
    > 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.

It's worse than that: they have no respect for the art :-(


Peter

"Marc Sabatella" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]. ..
    > "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.

Laws, and their implementation are a political issue. And believe me, I am
well prepared for it.....I have been living with the stupidity of it all of
my life, and things are getting worse, not better. - It's called, "Lack of
discrimination", and it's the mark of the dumbing down of America........The
very idea that you can't make a law without exceptions is a stupid idea. If
I am crossing the desert on my motorcycle, and I come across a person dying
of thirst, can I tie them to me and carry them to water, or must I leave
them there because I don't carry an extra helmet with me, and the law says,
"You can't ride on a motorcycle without a helmet....No exceptions"?

"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.

Umm, there's lots more UV in electronic flash than there is in sunlight
(especially sunlight that has been through the UV coated windows of a
gallery, even in those that are daylight lit.) You only have to look at
the use of flash as an effective light source for UV flourescent photography
to see that made very clear.

Your other points may or may not have merit, I've no idea, but the spectrum
is not at all the same - or as 'benign' - as daylight.


Peter

"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Jack Campin - bogus address" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > message
    > news:[email protected]...
SNIP
    >> 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.
    > Umm, there's lots more UV in electronic flash than there is in
    > sunlight (especially sunlight that has been through the UV coated
    > windows of a gallery, even in those that are daylight lit.)

Care to cite references to that, as it seems that the total flux
(intensity times duration) is considerably less than from a continuous
exposure to ambient lighting.

Bart

"Bart van der Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
...
[re statement about significant amounts of UV in flash being harmful to
paintings]

    > Care to cite references to that, as it seems that the total flux
    > (intensity times duration) is considerably less than from a continuous
    > exposure to ambient lighting.

Bart's correct.
Here's some additional reading:
http://www.windypundit.com/archives/..._flash_sc.html
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byfor...1996/0724.html
http://home.dc.lsoft.com/scripts/wa....um-l&T=0&P=259
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "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
I have to confess, I forgot what the original statement was that I was
objecting to.....Exactly what was, "Practical, sensible logic?"
Perhaps I should have said that I generally object to blanket laws that
have no exceptions because they are "easier to implement". I want exceptions
that are necessary in order to avoid infringing on peoples rights and making
life hard for those who are just trying to get along in life.....My scenario
of the motorcyclist who wants to save someone's life is just one example of
the many intractable laws that we have to live under every day. We are human
beings, and not ants in an ant colony. Why can't we handle the natural
differences that exist in a society of human beings? If an ant differs in
his desires or needs from the rest of the colony, the other ants kill him.
Is that the kind of society you would like to live under? I am only saying
that we are capable of more than that. I am reminded of my sisters neighbor
in the Del Webb community, "Sun City West." He was a ham radio hobbyist, and
wanted to put an antenna array on his roof. The community wouldn't allow it
because they had a rule against TV antennas on roofs. So he had to sell his
house and move somewhere else. Fortunately, he could afford to do that.
Someone else might have had to give up his hobby.....

"Bart van der Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> "Jack Campin - bogus address" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    > SNIP
    >>> 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.
    >> Umm, there's lots more UV in electronic flash than there is in
    >> sunlight (especially sunlight that has been through the UV coated
    >> windows of a gallery, even in those that are daylight lit.)
    > Care to cite references to that, as it seems that the total flux
    > (intensity times duration) is considerably less than from a continuous
    > exposure to ambient lighting.
    > Bart
Yes. The UV in a flash, which lasts for only a few microseconds, would have
to be billions of times greater than sunlight before it was more damaging
than the natural light that comes through the museum's skylights.....I too,
find that hard to believe......
Most museum paintings fade with time anyway. they are continuously
having them "restored" by experts that specialize in such things.....Today
the experts can work from color photographs that were taken when the
paintings were in good condition....

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

    > Laws, and their implementation are a political issue.

Perhaps so, but specific museum policies - even for publicly funded
museums - are seldom a matter of law. Furthermore, policies established
for reasons of convenience don't tend to fall along liberal/conservative
lines. This being a fine example.

    > The very idea that you can't make a law without exceptions is a stupid
    > idea.

Whether or not it is stupid (I would call it unfortunate but more
practical than the alternative), again, this is not a
liberal/conservative issue. One is just as likely to find consevratives
suggesting laws that do not handle exceptions well - eg, many proposed
laws to limit abortion in the US. In fact, one might argue it's *more*
common to see "conservatives" seeing things in terms of black and white,
while "liberals" more likely to see all sorts of shades of gray. I
personally would say a statement like that is too black and white,
though...

    > If I am crossing the desert on my motorcycle, and I come across a
    > person dying of thirst, can I tie them to me and carry them to water,
    > or must I leave them there because I don't carry an extra helmet with
    > me, and the law says, "You can't ride on a motorcycle without a
    > helmet....No exceptions"?

Conversely, I'm sure you'll be happy to list the "exceptions" allowed
for by, say, current or proposed bans on gay marriage. What are the
"exceptions" that allow a person to sell cocaine? Also, I've forgotten,
what exceptions to the "no weapons of mass destruction" policy was
Saddam Hussein allowed to have?

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

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

"Marc Sabatella" <[email protected]> wrote in message > Conversely, I'm
sure you'll be happy to list the "exceptions" allowed
    > for by, say, current or proposed bans on gay marriage.

Bans on gay marriage are blatently unconstitutional. The IRS set up a
separate tax table for married couples way back in the 50's. From that time
on, gays should have been able to marry. - I don't understand why the idiots
on the supreme court haven't said that.


What are the
    > "exceptions" that allow a person to sell cocaine?

Every time a federal or state undercover officer buys cocaine from a seller
of the substance, he/she is breaking the law. An exception should be written
into the law.


Also, I've forgotten,
    > what exceptions to the "no weapons of mass destruction" policy was Saddam
    > Hussein allowed to have?

I have no idea about this. I have never seen a definition of exactly what
"WMD's" are. As far as I know, they are defined in the UN resolutions that
Hussein supposedly broke. In general, I would say that anything Bush finds
in Iraq is not a WMD according to the Democrats, and everything he finds
there is a WMD as defined by the Republicans.....So what else is new?

"randee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > William Graham wrote:
    >> >
    >> > 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.
    > Heh, no it is a travel newsgroup (see first newsgroup listed), although
    > indeed some of us do travel to take photos. Some even travel with large
    > format cameras, and perhaps even some still use mules to haul their
    > gear....
    > My museum story - I ran into a museum in Verona that did not allow flash
    > photos.....of ancient Roman stone carvings.
    > --
    > wf.

Ha! - That's pretty good. This is the kind of thing that leads to all those
ethnic jokes I heard during the first half of my life in New York
city......:^) Now, I just tell those same jokes, but I have modified them to
make government look stupid......

William Graham wrote:
    >
    >
    > >
    > > 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.

Heh, no it is a travel newsgroup (see first newsgroup listed), although
indeed some of us do travel to take photos. Some even travel with large
format cameras, and perhaps even some still use mules to haul their
gear....

My museum story - I ran into a museum in Verona that did not allow flash
photos.....of ancient Roman stone carvings.
--
wf.

"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "-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.

They say no Flash pictures allowed. You are free to take photos, just not
using the flash. As to sunlight fading pictures, it does. Most pictures
some one stated were in large well lit rooms, but the picture is rarely in
direct sunlight.

    >> 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.
    > Umm, there's lots more UV in electronic flash than there is in sunlight
    > (especially sunlight that has been through the UV coated windows of a
    > gallery, even in those that are daylight lit.) You only have to look
    > at the use of flash as an effective light source for UV flourescent
    > photography to see that made very clear.

There is enough UV in sunlight to make things fluoresce (I don't know
what "flourescence" is). If there were significantly more UV in flash,
you'd need special filters to deal with it - and you don't, a UV filter
makes *less* difference with flash photography than it does to outdoor
shots.

The way those fluorescent shots are done is simply by using sensitive
film and strong UV filters, since fluorescence is never very strong.
The reason these shots are done in the dark is because the other
wavelengths in sunlight are so bright you can't see the fluorescence.

There's a neat fluorescent minerals display in the museum in Leiden,
you can only see it in the dark for this reason. The minerals are
fluorescing away all the time when the curtains are open, you just
can't see it for reflected light.

============== 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

William Graham wrote:


    > Most museum paintings fade with time anyway. they are continuously
    > having them "restored" by experts that specialize in such things.....Today
    > the experts can work from color photographs that were taken when the
    > paintings were in good condition....
    >

Painting are *not* normally restored because they "fade".
The colors change because of accumulated dirt and the varnish becoming
more opaque.
They are cleaned, not "repainted", to make the colors brighter.

William, you really shouldn't post about things you know nothing about
(culture - esp. non USA - and politics).