SAM 27000 Interior Picture Policy

[f4intel]

Just visited the Reagan Presidential Library and I asked a Docent what the "No Pictures" policy inside SAM 27000 was all about. She informed me it was a NMUSAF directive and since this a/c was on loan they were simply following their directive. The question is, why the policy? I am sure the plane was stripped of all classified components prior at the end of its service so it can't (my assumption) be that.

I can understand a "No Flash Photography" policy like many other museums have but the rationale working here eludes me.

Any thoughts?

Greg

[JohnB]

They either:
Misinterpret the "no flash" policy...(btw would modern flashes really farm fabric like they used to say/)
or
They want you to buy their photos.

[p51]

That used to be very common in museums (especially in Europe from what I noticed) but I wonder now how realistic that is, given that almost everyone has a camera in their cell phones. You can take shots and the museum people don't know if you're doing so or checking your email/texts.
There's a monthly local gunshow that has a downright anal policy of no cameras. They ask if you're bringing loaded guns into the show or cameras each time. Last time I was there, I stopped, patted my cell and said, "Well, of course I'm packing a camera, and so is almost anyone else with a cell phone!" The guys at the gate had no clue how to react to that and it was clear that this realization had never hit them before then...

[mustangdriver]

It is not a NMUSAF directive.

[deskpro590]

Maybe just a museum thing? Some museums, like the Buddy Holly museum in Lubbock, don't allow photos. *shrug

[Steve Nelson]

Last I knew you could take pics inside all the Presidential Aircraft at the NMUSAF..don't know why it would be prohibited elsewhere. I suspect John B. is right..they want you to buy their photos. I've wondered if a similar thought might be behind the restrictive photography policies at the NASM. I can understand banning tripods, because the mueums on the Mall get really crowded. But I was baffled when they wouldn't let me use a monopod. The exact (and obviously well rehearsed) spiel I got from the rather bored security guy searching camera bags was "No tripods monopods or camera stabilization devices of any kind if you are caught using one you will be asked to leave."

SN

[p51]

But I was baffled when they wouldn't let me use a monopod. The exact (and obviously well rehearsed) spiel I got from the rather bored security guy searching camera bags was "No tripods monopods or camera stabilization devices of any kind if you are caught using one you will be asked to leave."

Yep, I have seen that in plenty of museums.
-No flash
-No stabilization
Might as well say no cameras, because these rules always seem to be in places with low light where you'd need one of the above...

[k5083]

I think at NASM it is probably a safety issue. That is why they ban selfie sticks, which can be used as a monopod. I have been busted at NASM, but have been let off with a warning.

Stabilization is not so necessary any more given the dramatic improvements in high-ISO performance of cameras and even the better phones. Only in the darkest galleries is it useful.

There certainly are museums that try to prevent you from taking good quality photos so you'll buy theirs, but that doesn't seem to be the NASM or NMUSAF approach.

August

[Spectre_I]

Hi!

Museum guy here. We also have a former Air Force One on display (a VC-9), with a no photo policy. It is very simple.

The VC-9 is VERY expensive to keep up. It is currently outside, and one of the conditions of us getting it was to eventually hangar it. Hangars cost bucks. In order to help with the expense of maintaining it, and a future hangar we charge for tours of our VC-9. (All of our docents are volunteers).

Pictures are free. The thinking of our board of directors (and other boards at other museums) is this: If people can get a zillion free pictures of the plane, fewer will come visit it, costing us more, and leading to its eventual loss.

This is a big deal to 501(c)3's such as us. Hope this helps!

[p51]

Pictures are free. The thinking of our board of directors (and other boards at other museums) is this: If people can get a zillion free pictures of the plane, fewer will come visit it, costing us more, and leading to its eventual loss.

What a flawed idea. Why go to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa when you can see photos of it online?
Grand Canyon? DC? Mt Rushmore? All cheaper to see photos of them than the expense and hassle to go see it in person. Yet, millions do anyway, every year.
What this really boils down to is that mindset:
IT'S MINE! MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE ! Nobody can take photos because we don't want it. No, it's not just flash, it's MINE, you hear?!?!?
It's just one of many reasons why I'd rather set fire to something historical or give it away before I'd ever donate anything to a museum.

[airnutz]

[tinbender2]

But I was baffled when they wouldn't let me use a monopod. The exact (and obviously well rehearsed) spiel I got from the rather bored security guy searching camera bags was "No tripods monopods or camera stabilization devices of any kind if you are caught using one you will be asked to leave."

Yep, I have seen that in plenty of museums.
-No flash
-No stabilization
Might as well say no cameras, because these rules always seem to be in places with low light where you'd need one of the above...

BTDT.

I like to tell the security guard "that's okay, my camera has built in stabilization and fantastic light sensitivity. I can get great photos just hand holding it". I usually get a dirty look in response, but it does make them realize the stupidity of their actions. I have hand held down to 1/4 second with good results, often leaning against a wall as the third leg of my human tripod. Breathing and release techniques taught in marksmanship classes also help. For the museums with really poor lighting, I don't buy their photos because they rarely show the entire aircraft or details I want to capture, and I rarely ever return. There are plenty of better museums to enjoy.

[p51]

I like to tell the security guard "that's okay, my camera has built in stabilization and fantastic light sensitivity. I can get great photos just hand holding it". I usually get a dirty look in response-

I bet you do, because I think in many cases they know they're there mostly to keep folks from getting decent photos.

I have hand held down to 1/4 second with good results, often leaning against a wall as the third leg of my human tripod. Breathing and release techniques taught in marksmanship classes also help.

Yep, me too. I used to be a competition long-rang shooter, so I know how to hold something in one place. But most people can't do that.
The good thing is that modern cells can overcome lighting conditions pretty well now. I would say someday there'll be a 'no cell' policy at some museums but the horse has long left the barn on that. If you did that, your museum would only have tumbleweeds going through it.

[Spectre_I]

Pictures are free. The thinking of our board of directors (and other boards at other museums) is this: If people can get a zillion free pictures of the plane, fewer will come visit it, costing us more, and leading to its eventual loss.

What a flawed idea. Why go to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa when you can see photos of it online?
Grand Canyon? DC? Mt Rushmore? All cheaper to see photos of them than the expense and hassle to go see it in person. Yet, millions do anyway, every year.
What this really boils down to is that mindset:
IT'S MINE! MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE ! Nobody can take photos because we don't want it. No, it's not just flash, it's MINE, you hear?!?!?
It's just one of many reasons why I'd rather set fire to something historical or give it away before I'd ever donate anything to a museum.

Or...

Work your way on to the board of a museum, and change the policy?

I understand the frustration - but I see both sides. A former AF-1 with a no picture policy would certainly be better than burning it. Would you rather have the opportunity to see an iconic plane, or drink a beer out of what it once was? The thought process comes from the ever increasing need for money. Most museums receive zero money other than from membership, donations and entry fees. Costs are always going up (See: Chanute). Even the best museums usually don't have a rich sugar daddy with zillions of dollars. It is a constant struggle. I know our board see's it as necessary evil. Most people have no idea how much it costs to maintain a collection, and the older they get, the more maintenance they require. Personnel costs can be defrayed with volunteers (without them, there would be no museums). The VC-9 is also the only aircraft we have that has a separate entry cost. In the case of Castle the money from tours goes directly to the "hangar fund."

As to the other comment regarding secure equipment. It has all been removed. There is nothing secret to see on board.

As far as the "mine mine mine" you speak of, nothing could be further from the truth. At least in our museum, the mindset is we have the privilege of maintaining as historical collection so that we can share it with others. If it were otherwise we'd simply lock the gates, right?

BTW, this policy only applies to the VC-9. Pictures can be taken anywhere else on our grounds with stabilization and flash if you so chose. In fact, we place our exhibits with photographers in mind. Planes are placed so that photos can be taken from 360 degrees around the plane, without having another plane in the photo. I imagine once the VC-9 is hangared the policy will change. I can't speak for any other museum.

Edited for emphasis:
Lastly, I am not on the board and have no influence over their decisions. I am simply trying to shed a little light.

Last edited by Spectre_I on Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[rwdfresno]

That is certainly one approach. Another would be using social media and images of the aircraft to generate interest in people visiting the museum.