Warbird Information Exchange

Here's hoping one of the professional photogs here can provide a believeable explanation (if there is one) of why flash photography is forbidden in a lot of museums, while a lot of them seem to have no problem with it.

Thanks,

Walt

The reason is that the flash gives off a lot of ultraviolet light, which causes paint/photography pigment to fade. One flash is fine, but millions over years can cause irreparable damage to paintings/photographs/documents etc. That's the reason.

Cheers,
Richard

_________________
Richard Mallory Allnutt - Photography - http://www.rmallnutt.com

It depends on the type of museum but some paper artifacts are very sensative to flash documents, fabric, paint etc could potentially fade overtime due to exposures from flash over time.

Other reasons are that are often touted for no photography at all are that you standing and taking pictures esepcailly with flash are distracting to others, tripods and big comercial cameras are dangerous liabilties for those who may trip over them.

Some museums just want to limit pictures, especailly high quality images of the artifacts. They look at the artifacts as their product and would rather someone come pay to see it than look at it in a book or online (unless of course you buy the book in their gift shop). They really prefer that others don't make money off of their product.

Ryan

Actually Ryan, while your last comment is true to a point, if a museum regards their assets as a product you won't be allowed to photograph it, period. Flash photography in a museum is rarely going to give you a better shot than non-flash, unless you have your flash separated from the camera... too much glare. It really does come down to the fading issues caused by prolonged exposure to many, many flashes being fired.

Cheers,
Richard

_________________
Richard Mallory Allnutt - Photography - http://www.rmallnutt.com

Agreed. Although, depending on the exhibit I could take a tripod mounted flash, some pocket wizards and come out with some nice final products to post on a web site. Sure when you think of something in the context of an aviation museum a speedlight isn't likely enough to light up the exhibit enough due to the size.

In that case taking the photograph on a tripod with a long exposure might have a better final product however smaller exhibits could be lit fairly well with an off camera flash or even with on camera mounted flash if you have the ability to bounce. The subject matter and how it is displayed is going to determine the approach but unfortunately many museums don't allow tripods either. In that case you are likely to get a better exposure with flash rather than trying to handhold at shutter speed that would be required in an indoor (usually dark) museum.

Some museums and events will tell you things such as no "professional" cameras meaning they are fine if you want to try and get a crappy picture of you standing in front of the plaster casted triceratops with your point and shoot f/3.2 lensed camera but if you want to take pictures with an SLR type then forget it.

Ryan

No flash in museums is pretty much the rule that I have seen across the board, though some do allow tripods. At the Armed Forces Museum I recently went to, they said No to flash, but tripods OK (I asked ahead of time) all the picks on this thread are no flash and some were up to 4-6 seconds in the darker corners! I kept the tripod legs in close to about shoulder width which did jiggle on some of the longer shots as I held the tripod to prevent it getting bumped over, especially in this narrow stance.The problem with long exposures is that display cases with lots of light then BLOW OUT parts of your pics!!! Ain't photography grand. If I could keep the camera in place and bracket the thing and composit......
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... hp?t=30763

A lot of it depends on the artifacts as well. I just shot the layout images for this exhibit at http://www.lostegypt.org/press.php (mine are the statue with all the red light, then the last 7 images), and the woman who was the caretaker for the mummy was a great source of information for me on a lot of that. Older artifacts can in fact fade with repeated exposure (get it?) to flash. She let me shoot some with flash early on, but once anyone else was around (newspaper shooters, for example) we cut it back to no flash.

http://www.lostegypt.org/images/LE-Exhibit8.jpg is a funny sidenote...see the guy reflected in the glass in the back left who appears to be trying to block the flare from that sign? Oops. Guess I made the website. I TOLD her not to use that one.

_________________
"Anyway, the throat feels a bit rough...the legs have gone...but I'm still able to chant, so let's get going."

Joe Strummer, 1999

I'm not sure if I've ever been to an aviation museum that forbid flash photography. The only one that ever gave me a hassle about tripods was the Smithsonian..I brought my monopod into the downtown museum and security told me in no uncertain terms that if caught using a "tripod, monopod, or camera stabilization device of any kind" I would be "asked to leave." They were fine with flash, though. Udvar-Hazy had no problem with flash or monopods (in fact a security guard encouraged me to use mine) although I think they forbid tripods.

SN

I mostly use flash in museums to give a more vibrant look to the photo. If controlled properly it can work very nice. As for Tripods or monopods I never use them, especially since I was given a very hard time at Udvar Hazy a few years ago. As for flashes I have never had a problem at any museum I have ever been to….yet. Here are a few samples.







Eric

_________________
The air resounds from the Rolls-Royce roar!
To an enemy the warning is dire: here only eagles soar,
and the last thing he'll see is a mirrored Spitfire!

OK I understand the flash no flash argument, but whats up with the tri-pod, mono-pod, go to jail if you use one arguement?

Most of the time the reason given is that they are a safty concern and are a hinderance to people moving about in the museum. I think in many cases it still has to deal with the issue where the museum is trying to protect their product and so you will buy a coffe table book in the gift shop. Some museums such as art museums also run into copyright issues so they dont want high quality images or maybe no images at all.

In the UK they took my umbrella away at an aircraft museum. Must have seen too many episodes of The Avengers!

It would require something on the order of 10 million flashes by a consumer-grade strobe to cast as much artifact-damaging UV light on the exhibits as one single summer day outdoors in the sunlight. Even so, many museums legitimately prohibit flashing because some exhibits are so delicate that they could be measurably damaged by one day in the sun, and the museums look at preservation in the long view, i.e. thousands of years. Neither of those things is generally true of aviation museums and their exhibits, although it may be true of a limited number of them.

In skilled hands, strobes can improve many photos, but the type of flash and circumstances of an amateur photographer in an aviation museum makes them very unlikely to improve photo quality much, if at all. This "no harm, no foul" situation is one reason museums are able to restrict flashing without much objection from patrons.

The safety concerns involving monopods and tripods certainly are legitimate.

Museums also limit monopods and tripods, along with whatever they define as "pro" gear, in an attempt to limit the quality of photos that can be taken. Most museums have no copyright or other intellectual property rights in any of the artifacts on display. That means that if you take a picture, they can't control what you do with it. To preserve their ability to profit from their own photography of their exhibits, they have to try to prevent commercial quality images from being made by patrons. One way would be to ban photography altogether, but aviation museum visitors wouldn't stand for that. Banning the gear necessary to make good photos is another tactic. I heard that when Paul Allen's collection was viewable by appointment only, docents insisted on standing in front of the planes when you took pictures, specifically to ruin the photo for anything but personal use.

August

When I'm at aviation museums I'm usually taking detail photos as reference for building models, so at places like the NMUSAF a flash is pretty much always necessary. Granted, I'm using what's essentially a high-end point-and-shoot camera 90% of the time.

I've never had anyone tell me anything about no photography except at Motts here in Columbus, and as the indoor exhibits were in glass cases it wouldn't have worked all that well anyway.

Great shots Eric, when you shoot, you are using the flash as a filler right?
In doing so do you aim the flash above the target??

Thanks for your time,

Lynn