Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
condo...@yahoo.com
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
bmoag
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.
PeterL
Adolescents are not going to be the ones using tripods. It's the
professionals (or semi professionals) they are discouraging. It's not
possible to sneak a tripod or monopod into a museum if they don't allow
it.
Cisco Kid
condo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> If this is the case, will they allow monopods, that stand close to the
> body?
Doubt it - it's the insurance thing and the worries that someone will
fall and sue - they won't see the monopod as something different even
though if someone were to trip over it, they would also have their feet
inside your legs. Butr who knows - maybe they'll cut you a break -
especially during off peak hours.
> 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.
I'd say you won't gain much - there is still movement from your heart
beat - if normal handheld with a 300mm requires 1/300 (or 1/250)
shutter speed, then maybe you gain 1 stop - 1/125 or maybe 1-1/2 stops
1/90 - but doubtful if any more than that - imagine a 300mm hand held -
you can get good results at 1/250 but 1/125 have given results with
obvious camera shake - how could the monopod give you good results at
1/60? 1/90 max.
Bandicoot
news:1154358717.9...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.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.
This is true.
>
> If this is the case, will they allow monopods, that stand close to the
> body?
This varies a lot: in my experience in Italy it seems to be down to the
discretion (or caprice!?) of the person on duty at the time. The no-tripods
rule sems to be about not creating an obstruction, and if you use your
monopod unobtrusively and make sure that you don't get in the way of other
museum visitors, some if the time it will be allowed.
Sometimes museums will decide to let you use a tripod if they aren't busy,
and sometimes they won't. Sometimes they will if you pay a fee. It can be
worth asking.
>
> 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.
>
Depends a lot on your technique: a monopod should get you at least one
shutter-speed step slower than you would hand-hold, with practice maybe
three steps. Some claim four - but I wouldn't count on that.
All that said, much of the time in Italy I am photographing exteriors,
architecture, and landscapes. There are interior shots worth taking, but
often what is in museums are things I want to see, but a photograph would
be - for me - a 'record shot', not a picture of intrinsic (or, for me,
commercial) merit or artistic originality. So for these buying postcards is
just as good. Italian museums usually have a good range of very high
quality postcards for sale, and sometimes transparencies too, if you want to
project. The "Scala" series of guide books and monographs on particular
artists is also excellent, and beautifully illustrated.
Have fun,
Peter
jeremy
One solution that has recently become available is to bring along a camera
with image stabilization. That might render the issue moot.
Arthur Small
-hh
> 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.
Some also do not allow any photography, with or without flash.
The Sistine Chapel is but one such example.
> If this is the case, will they allow monopods, that stand close to the
> body?
A definite "maybe". Personally, I'd not bother with it: for one
thing, its going to be crowded in season; for another, particualry if
you are using a small P&S, you can often get monopod-class support
simply by bracing the camera against the common lamp post, wall,
railing, etc.
> 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.
Rule of thumb is that you can expect to gain +1 stop, with +2 stops
common but requiring good form. As such, the rule of thumb of 1/(focal
length of lens) for a 35mm goes from (~1/30sec) to (~1/15sec) for the
first stop, and to (~1/8sec) if the second stop is warranted by one's
technique.
And, as another poster has pointed out, Image Stabilization is another
option; gain by that approach is about the same, but is more compact
(less obtrusive). And particularly for digitals, another way to skin
the cat is to crank up the ISO to avoid slow shutters.
-hh
Doug Payne
> 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.
William Graham
could get away with 1/2 as much shutterspeed due to the extra stability of a
monopod......
Cisco Kid
Doug Payne wrote:
> 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.
I was going to suggest the same thing - treat the monopod like a cane.
No one ever gives a person with a physical disability a hard time -
maybe throw an eye patch over your left eye to really play the pity
card.
William Graham
"PeterL" <po....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154360244....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
release to the top, which would be covered by the palm of my hand when
walking.....Then, I could snap the camera to it and take the picture in a
few seconds, when the guards were looking elsewhere......
William Graham
"-hh" <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:1154373702....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
slightly on it while stepping on the bottom of the string....This gives you
a little added stability........
James Silverton
You wrote on Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:22:21 GMT:
j> <condo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
j>
news:1154358717.9...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.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
??>>
With a monopod, I'd think that 1/10 to 1/15 second should be
quite usable. As others have mentioned, image stabilization will
help in cases where no form of support is allowed and it is
becoming available even for pocket cameras. Another technique
that is available with Nikons is the "Museum Setting": no flash,
take an automatic series of pictures and keep the sharpest. I am
surprised at how often this produces good results! I also have a
pocket tripod with 8 inch bendable legs that I can often get
away with resting on a bench. In default of a cable release, I
use the self timer.
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
E-mail, with obvious anti-spam: not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not
William Graham
"Doug Payne" <dwp...@ist.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:ealllm$4fi$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
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?
Marc Sabatella
> 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
ma...@outsideshore.com
Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/
condo...@yahoo.com
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.
nathantw
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?
Ken Blake
> 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
Rebecca Ore
> 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
Bandicoot
news:lkpzg.184040$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
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
Bandicoot
news:m2ac6pf...@ottog.local...
[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
J. Clarke
>> 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
> ma...@outsideshore.com
>
> 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)
William Graham
"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:115438846...@despina.uk.clara.net...
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......
Bandicoot
news:NeidnabJYcgZ8FPZ...@comcast.com...
This is Italy we're talking about: forget the nurse, get a nun...
Peter
Rebecca Ore
> 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
Mike Russell
...
>> > 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/
William Graham
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.
Rebecca Ore
>> 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
William Graham
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.
Mojtaba
>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
The Reid
>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
Rebecca Ore
> 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
S Viemeister
> 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.
>
The Reid
>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.
J. Clarke
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.
Dave Frightens Me
<don...@fell-walker.co.uk> 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
---
--
Nicholas O. Lindan
> 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
bar...@cix.compulink.co.uk
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
> <don...@fell-walker.co.uk> 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?
The Reid
>>>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 :-)
Mimi
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
Jack Campin - bogus address
> 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
John McWilliams
>> 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."
William Graham
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:eanfo...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
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.
William Graham
"Mojtaba" <mo...@stwart.net> wrote in message
news:lastc25ptdg95cm08...@4ax.com...
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.....
William Graham
"Mimi" <joh...@nowhere.com> 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.......
>
>
>
William Graham
"Jack Campin - bogus address" <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bogus-49D675....@news.news.demon.net...
>> 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....
Marc Sabatella
> 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
ma...@outsideshore.com
Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Marc Sabatella
> 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
> 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.
William Graham
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:CaSdnVaZIIa_LlLZ...@comcast.com...
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.......
William Graham
> "William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> 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.
>
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.......
Dave Frightens Me
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.
-hh
> "Mojtaba" <mo...@stwart.net> wrote:
> > just imagine that every visitor bring a huge tripod in a musum! I
> > think authorities are afraid damages .......
>
> 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
Marc Sabatella
> 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
> "Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
> news:CaSdnVaZIIa_LlLZ...@comcast.com...
>
> 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.
Jack Campin - bogus address
>> 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.
William Graham
"-hh" <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:1154466894.3...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> William Graham wrote:
>> "Mojtaba" <mo...@stwart.net> 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.
William Graham
> "William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
>> news:CaSdnVaZIIa_LlLZ...@comcast.com...
>>
>> 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"?
Bandicoot
>
> "Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
> news:CaSdnVaZIIa_LlLZ...@comcast.com...
>
> 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
Bandicoot
news:1154466894.3...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> 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
Bandicoot
Now that is the germ of a very smart idea.
Peter
Bandicoot
news:bogus-49D675....@news.news.demon.net...
> > 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
Bart van der Wolf
"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:115448217...@damia.uk.clara.net...
> "Jack Campin - bogus address" <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> message
> news:bogus-49D675....@news.news.demon.net...
>> 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
Mike Russell
news:44d004fc$0$4527$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl
...
[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/2006/06/the_great_museum_flash_sc.html
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/cdl/1996/0724.html
http://home.dc.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0406b&L=museum-l&T=0&P=259
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/
William Graham
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.....
William Graham
"Bart van der Wolf" <bvd...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:44d004fc$0$4527$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
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....
Marc Sabatella
> 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?
William Graham
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message > Conversely, I'm
> 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
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
"randee" <ran...@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:44D02C47...@zianet.com...
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......
Calif Bill
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.
Jack Campin - bogus address
>> 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.
Chris Loffredo
> 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).
David Kilpatrick
>>>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.
>
For about the last thirty-five years, commercial camera xenon tubes have
been anti-UV coated, the first being sold by Sunpak as their 'Gold Tube'
series. This put an end to the excessively blue results from electronic
flash on colour film. Some really old flash units, like Braun Hobby or
the first Metz press guns, have uncoated tubes and so do many 1950s-60s
and early 1970s battery guns.
Studio flash tubes didn't start to be UV-filter coated until the mid
1980s, it took some time to catch up, and many makers instead used a
glass protective dome which was made in plain or warm transmission, both
types being UV-blocking. Today nearly all standard studio strobe
replacement tubes are colour balance coated.
The ban implemented by museums is not unreasonable. The flash might
seemn to be insignificant, compared to years of previous exposure to
sun, but flash also has an effect on the air - can't remember exactly
what, maybe ozone levels - caused by the whole electronic thing.
Around 1985, Colab of Coventry installed a special pulsed xenon (flash)
colour negative printing system which was able to make 30 x 40 inch
prints almost instantly, reducing the price. In the past, long exposures
were needed and giant print systems were not that economical. They very
quickly found themselves in trouble from professionals who ordered runs
of 50 or more prints from a single negative - by the end of 50
exposures, the dyes in the negative were sufficiently destroyed by the
high power flash to alter the colour of the print, and ruin the negative
for future use. They had to make copy negatives before undertaking very
long print runs using the xenon printer.
Today, they just scan the neg once, and print the digital file thousands
of times to any size they care. No more fading negs.
David
jeremy
> 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"?
>
Are you arguing that a museum is barred from setting restrictions on
photography within its walls?
That is their right. One's purchase of an admission does not confer the
right to photograph anything without permission.
jeremy
>
>
> 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.
>
>
The Eighth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled within the past two weeks that
there is NO presumed "right" for same-sex couples to marry. The ruling was
handed down on a case where plaintiffs argued that they were being denied
what they said were their "constitutional rights" to marry.
You are confusing two things:
1: What you want.
2: What the courts interpret the law to actually mean.
If you are arguing that same sex marriage ought to be the law of the land,
that is one thing, but if you are suggesting that marriage license bureaus
across America are operating illegally when they deny licenses to same sex
couples, that is simply false. They are following appropriate court
rulings.
Clearly your private judgment does not trump that of our federal and state
high courts.
Markku Grönroos
speeds perhaps?
"jeremy" <jer...@nospam.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:ZP%zg.7711$oz.5967@trnddc07...
Bandicoot
news:44d004fc$0$4527$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
Ummm, where did I say anything about the light flux? I just pointed out
that the statement made by Jack Campin "and the spectrum is the same as that
of sunlight" is false. I specifically said that I didn't know about the
other aspects of his post, and was correcting just that one point.
Peter
Bandicoot
> >> 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.
Ummm, no. UV filters are specifically recommended for use with flash. Ever
noticed how blue slides shot with electronic flash can be? At high altitude
or over the sea you will see more effect by using a UV filter with sunlight,
but the rest of the time you'll find the effect slight - much more
noticeable with flash.
Add-on UV absorbing domes are a common accessory for studio flash units, but
for a variety of practical reasons most photographers prefer to filter out
the UV at the lens rather than on the flash head - unless, for example,
photographing fabrics that fluoresce and needing accurate colour rendidtion
without any shift added to the visible light by that small component.
>
> 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.
In scientific applications they're more usually done today with a specific
UV source, but in the past have been done with electronic flash fitered to
block the visible, and UV filters on the camera lens. (Before that an arc
could serve the same purpose.) I've done it myself with fluorescent dyes
and electronic flash, and it works well.
>
> 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.
Well, obviously one wouldn't see it in full daylight. I'll look out for
that display next time I'm in that direction, thanks.
Peter
Marc Sabatella
<fairly good answers, actually>
...but the questions, of course, were rhetorical, meant to underscore
how the issue of "blanket" laws has absolutely nothing to do with
liberal/conservative distinctions.
Marc Sabatella
> 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.
While the above is true, it is worth mentioning that while fading of
colors is not the *reason* painting are restored, and indeed, the
restoration process does not generally help with faded colors, the
colors mostly certainly *do* fade over time - or would, if lighting
weren't controlled. We simply live with this, as the only way to
"restore" color lost through fading would be to essentially repaint the
thing. The fact is, restore or not, a great many older paintings do not
look today the way they did when they were painted, and no amount of
restoration will fix that. We have a much greater understanding of the
properties of various materials and pigments today than we did a few
centuries ago, so today's paintings are more likely to hold up well.
William Graham
"jeremy" <jer...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ZP%zg.7711$oz.5967@trnddc07...
doesn't say anything to you? - You have a strange idea of what the, "spirit
of the document" means when it comes to constitutional law........but that's
not surprising to me......Also, the fact that the law has already been
interpreted by the supreme court, does not make it right. - Only "legal".
Many powerful people in the past, and still many more in the future, have
been, and will be....dead wrong. It is the responsibility of people like me
(and you) to point out those wrongs, and fight against them. - I intend to
do that until my last breath.
All men are equal in the eyes of the law. - And that includes gay
people. And, if they have all the rights and privileges of married people,
they why not let them be married? Where is your common sense and sense of
justice, man?
Neil Harrington
>
> Bans on gay marriage are blatently unconstitutional.
That's like saying a ban on men giving birth is "blatently [sic]
unconstitutional."
Marriage is, and always has been, the legal union of a man and a woman.
That's not a matter of anything being banned or not banned, legal or
illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, it's a matter of definition.
What "gay" (meaning homosexual -- not cheerful, lighthearted, merry, bright
or lively) activists want is to change the definition, just as they have
pretty thoroughly done with "gay."
If marriage can, willy nilly, be made to mean something it never meant
before, why stop at homosexual couples? Why, for example, shouldn't a
shepherd be able to marry his ewe?
For that matter, I remember reading many years ago about a fellow who wanted
to marry his television set. How he expected this to enhance his
relationship with the boob tube I have no idea, but I don't think he
succeeded in getting a marriage license. How unfair! How "unconstitutional"!
What narrow-mindedness and bigotry!
Neil
Neil Harrington
>
[ . . . ]
> All men are equal in the eyes of the law. - And that includes gay
> people.
Absolutely! Homosexuals ("gay people") have exactly the same rights as
everyone else.
> And, if they have all the rights and privileges of married people, they
> why not let them be married?
They *can* be married! Where did you ever get the idea that they couldn't?
There are many homosexuals who are married, and under precisely the same
conditions as heterosexuals.
> Where is your common sense and sense of justice, man?
Where's the injustice? The same rules and conditions apply to all.
Neil
William Graham
> "William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> <fairly good answers, actually>
>
> ...but the questions, of course, were rhetorical, meant to underscore how
> the issue of "blanket" laws has absolutely nothing to do with
> liberal/conservative distinctions.
>
simply because it is the law. I maintain that many laws are wrong, and
responsible people should disobey them. To obey them when you know that they
are wrong is to subvert your responsibility for your own convenience.
See, "Judgment at Nuremberg".........
William Graham
"Chris Loffredo" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:4jbb4dF...@individual.net...
Who said they were, "repainted"? - That is your word, not mine.....Chris,
you really should read what I write more carefully. You might learn a lot of
things that you presently know nothing about.
William Graham
> "William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> 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"?
>>
>
> Are you arguing that a museum is barred from setting restrictions on
> photography within its walls?
I am arguing that a taxpayer supported museum must, (or at least should) be
beholden to the needs of the taxpayers who support it.
>
> That is their right. One's purchase of an admission does not confer the
> right to photograph anything without permission.
And exactly whose, "permission" should the taxpayers be beholden too? - I
claim that as a taxpayer, I am the one who should determine who should use
the museum, and exactly how it should be used. - Otherwise, please give me
my money back, thank you........
William Graham
"Neil Harrington" <n...@home.today> wrote in message
news:adGdnU72Za7ds0zZ...@comcast.com...
been talking about something for the last few months.....Exactly what have
they been talking about?
We had a proposition on our ballot here in Oregon a few months ago. - It
was to disallow gay marriages.....It passed by 2 to 1. (Much to my disgust)
And this is a liberal, democratic (blue) state.
jeremy
>You have a strange idea of what the, "spirit of the document" means when it
>comes to constitutional law........but that's not surprising to
>me......Also, the fact that the law has already been interpreted by the
>supreme court, does not make it right. - Only "legal".
That is what our Courts have ruled. Your private judgment is not bigger
than a court interpretation.
Every time two sides argue a case in the federal appellate court system, one
side or the other comes away the loser. And we all get on with our lives
and move forward from there.
Or we can do it the way they do in Columbia . . .
William Graham
"Neil Harrington" <n...@home.today> wrote in message
"marriage" out of the realm of religious ritual, and put it directly into
the public domain. - That means it is no longer, "the legal union of a man
and a woman." It is now a contractual state that is (or should be) available
to any two law abiding citizens. If the government wants to return marriage
to the religious realm, then they should remove the word from all public
documents, buildings and etc. It should not be in the domain of
non-contractual law. (whatever you call that kind of law) It should exist
only in church documents, and there should be no public building where I
would have to go, and stand in line, and pay $10 (or whatever) in order to
get a "marriage license"......No public record should record the fact that I
am "married". - The very word, "marriage" should not exist in the legal
vocabulary of common law as long as we remain a non-theocracy.
jeremy
"Neil Harrington" <n...@home.today> wrote in message
In the US only Massachusetts marries same sex couples, and that may change.
There is a movement afoot to amend the state constitution to prohibit it.
Just a couple of weeks ago their state supreme court ruled against a group
of plaintiffs that were trying to block the matter from coming up on the
ballot, claiming that it violated the rights of gays. The Court ruled that
the people were free to try to amend their constitution, just as the pro-gay
marriage advocates would also be free to try to effect an amendment.
Right now, 45 of the 50 states have either passed legislation or have
amended their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. And, on the federal
level, the Defense of Marriage Act is the law of the land. It allows states
to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that were contracted in other
states. So, right now, same-sex married people in Massachusetts must remain
in-state if they want to retain their legal status as married.
There is no point in debating it--that is the law in America right now. For
someone to suggest that his private views are superior to those of our
legislatures, our court decisions and our electorate is pure nonsense. One
might just as much declare himself President--just don't expect to move into
the White House . . .
jeremy
> have been talking about something for the last few months.....Exactly what
> have they been talking about?
> We had a proposition on our ballot here in Oregon a few months ago. -
> It was to disallow gay marriages.....It passed by 2 to 1. (Much to my
> disgust) And this is a liberal, democratic (blue) state.
Your State Supreme Court ruled just last week that the ban against Gay
marriage was NOT unconstitutional. Two of the justices noted in the ruling
that the state had a bona fide interest in defending marriage.
Your state's voters spoke out loudly, when they voted to ban gay marriage by
a huge margin.
You may disagree with your fellow citizens and with the Court rulings, but
that is democracy, and we will have winners and losers on any question such
as this. In this case, your side happened to lose. Get over it.
jeremy
> simply because it is the law. I maintain that many laws are wrong, and
> responsible people should disobey them. To obey them when you know that
> they are wrong is to subvert your responsibility for your own convenience.
> See, "Judgment at Nuremberg".........
>
Please do not compare our democratically-established laws to those of Nazi
Germany!
You make light of our democracy when you say things like that.
Just because YOU disagree with the majority of voters in your state (and
also with subsequent state court rulings that upheld the majority view) does
not mean that your private judgment prevails.
Your state supreme court ruled just last week that this was a matter for the
PEOPLE to decide, not the state courts.
If you want to overturn that ruling, you will need a state constitutional
amendment.
jeremy
> you really should read what I write more carefully. You might learn a lot
> of things that you presently know nothing about.
I certainly hope that you don't try to teach him anything regarding legal
matters.
jeremy
Aren't we discussing EUROPEAN museums? By what stretch of the imagination
do YOU consider yourself a "taxpayer" with respect to foreign-operated
institutions?
Do you have a problem dealing with authority? You have made some statements
of late that sound as though you feel that you are above things like the
rule of law.
The museum may set its own rules, and they do not require your consent or
permission. You are free to decline to visit any institution whose policies
you disagree with.
As Yogi Berra said, "If the PEOPLE don't want to come out to the ball park,
ain't nobody going to stop 'em!"
jeremy
I believe that things like court rulings remain the law of the land and must
be obeyed.
That is not strange--it is simply support of the concept of the rule of law.
There are established procedures to change bad laws. Your way is anarchy.
jeremy
>>
> When the IRS set up a separate tax table for, "married couples" they took
> "marriage" out of the realm of religious ritual, and put it directly into
> the public domain. - That means it is no longer, "the legal union of a man
> and a woman." It is now a contractual state that is (or should be)
> available to any two law abiding citizens.
HOW do you come up with silly legal opinions like that?
In the US, marriage laws are set by the various states. That is why there
are different waiting periods, different blood test requirements, different
restrictions on marrying cousins, etc.
The IRS tax regulations do not define what marriage is.
Really, you show your ignorance of the facts when you make absurd and
misinformed statements like that.
Stick to cameras. You aren't any Oliver Wendell Holmes.