Photography Disrespectful?

In other words, the sheer waste of time (or the ratio of wasted time to quality time) is far too great with at too many of The Sights: I could spend the time better in wandering and thinking (and taking pictures).
Click to expand...

That I will agree with. I get a lot of pleasure from going to the places where I "shouldn't" go. Many years ago, on our first trip to Austria, the travel company rep advised us not to visit Worgl "as it's a working town with nothing to see". Needless to say, that was the first place we went and we had a hugely enjoyable day among friendly people who were more than happy to put up with those "strange Englishers and their cameras". Worgl now actively seeks tourists and I like to think we contributed, just a little, to that.

Here's one of the more stand-offish citizens of the town...

12743829555_097254757c_b.jpg
 
santela said:
That sounds pretty much like the "turn off all your electronics when the plane is taking off or landing" rule. I understand no cell phone (even though I don't think it really matters), but no iPod or Walkman? That's just paranoid.
Click to expand...

Air travelers should not stand for such groundless paranoia on the part of the FAA.

After all, an occasional jetliner crash with the resulting hundreds of deaths and the quarter billion dollar plus pricetag that comes with such a crash is a small price to pay so that passengers are not denied access to their Walkmans and iPods for three minutes during takeoff and landing... 🙄
 
noisycheese said:
Air travelers should not stand for such groundless paranoia on the part of the FAA. After all, an occasional jetliner crash with the resulting hundreds of deaths and the quarter billion dollar plus pricetag that comes with such a crash is a small price to pay so that passengers are not denied access to their Walkmans and iPods for three minutes during takeoff and landing... 🙄
Click to expand...

You'll be pleased to know the FAA now allows electronic devices to be left on in airplane mode for the entire flight, gate to gate. No more powering down of devices. I am told that, soon, we will be allowed to use our cell phones in flight, although I do not find this to be a blessing.
 
Were you in the "Store"? It's the church and that might be the problem. I was there several years ago and shot all over the place and didn't have a problem. I was in plain view and had a big ol' DSLR (I know, I know...) and was even looked at by some of the staff and nothing was said. I don't recall seeing any signs on the grounds and didn't spend too much time in the chapel.
 
Roger Hicks said:
As for "experience", well, what "experience" do you get, being rushed through an Attraction, with a capital A? Where's the time to think? For example, I couldn't be arsed to queue for, and rush through, the Acropolis of Athens. The theatre at Megalopolis was another matter: we saw five other people there in maybe an hour.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Agreed!

I'm a fan of aircraft museums. Boeing has an excellent museum collection just up I-5, about 50 miles. They have a Concord on the outside display and viewing it means climing a set of stairs to the back door, rushing through a 20inch wide plexiglass tunnell the 100 ft. or so the front door and exiting via another set of stairs. the whole thing takes about 45 seconds!




Complete waste of time. Why even allow access to the inside of the plane at all.
 
Copyright, revenue, possible flash degradation, etc, etc. But I can tell you nothing drives me nuts more at museums that allow photography than people obnoxiously pushing past people, setting up tripods, or just making a racket with motor drive trying to photograph all the pieces. That's disrespectful for other patrons. Not that anyone on RFF does anything like that, or that it might be the reason specifically at the Alamo, but it's why I don't particularly mind bans.
 
Takkun said:
Copyright, revenue, possible flash degradation, etc, etc. But I can tell you nothing drives me nuts more at museums that allow photography than people obnoxiously pushing past people, setting up tripods, or just making a racket with motor drive trying to photograph all the pieces. That's disrespectful for other patrons. Not that anyone on RFF does anything like that, or that it might be the reason specifically at the Alamo, but it's why I don't particularly mind bans.
Click to expand...
... +1... and flash itself can also spoil the experience for other people. Even if photography is allowed, if I can't take a picture quietly, hand-held, available light, I don't bother - better to buy the postcard 😉.
 
noisycheese said:
And the long-winded, technical treatise on the subject:
http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/mhe1000/musphoto/flashphoto2.htm
Click to expand...

This essay contains the real reason why flash photography now remains perceived as something prone to damage art works :

"The early use of flash for night-time and indoor photography was definitely alarming. Originally a spoonful of magnesium metal powder was ignited on an open tray and it exploded with a short flash of bright light, some sparks and some smoke. Not something that anyone would want to use near a work of art! By the 1930s newspaper cameramen were using glass bulbs with magnesium filaments inside - we have seen them in old newsreel films. Sometimes the bulbs burst, scattering hot sparks. Even if the bulb did not burst it was hot enough immediately after use to be a fire hazard if not disposed of properly. Many curators would not let them be used in galleries. After World War II miniature flash bulbs were being used by amateur photographers and even these occasionally malfunctioned."

This is something I have explained sometimes - the big difference between what is described here, and how modern electronic flashes work. It somehow worked to calm curators down.

The most funny thing I ever saw was the roof of the Sixtin Chapel looking like some fireworks because of all the smartphones flashing one after another. Afterall, hadn't Michelangelo painted a representation of the original thunderlight over there ? 😉
 
The most disrespectful act involving the Alamo I've ever heard of was when uber-Rocker Ozzy Osbourne, in a very "refreshed" state wandered up to it and urinated upon it. Even my my liberal standards, I could understand the locals being a bit frisky about that sort of antic.

Here in the UK, we have an organisation called The National Trust. This organisation is a charitable trust which "looks after" a lot of stately homes, historic and other places of interest, including coastline, country estates and the like.

My wife and I were members for many years but cancelled our membership earlier this year. The main reason being that they have a very erratic and irritating attitude towards photography. The use of flash photography is universally banned (for the same non-reasons as discussed already - i.e. priceless paintings and tapestries which would be bleached white should any light fall upon them)

Tripods are banned, because they pose a health and safety risk indoors (and, in some bizarre cases outdoors as well). When one explains that the camera doesn't possess a flash nor does it require one, the car-park attendant mided employee will think up some other bullsh*t reason.

My own belief is that these places sell their own guide books and allowing punters to take their own snaps prevents further contributions to the upkeep. If they were honest about it and say as much in so many words, I'd respect them. As it is, the National Trust lost my respect altogether. I won't try to buck the rules as they are entitled to do as they wish. Equally, so am I and I'm not short of places where I can visit and take photos.

The moral of the story, I suppose, is that they need our money more than we need to visit their properties. Unless, these (usually well-meaning but often ill-informed or delusional) organisations catch up with the 21st century, they risk alienating their customer base to the point that they will have no reason to continue to exist.

Incidentally, The British Museum (and many others in the UK) has a very enlightened attitude towards photography.
 
Paul Jenkin said:
Tripods are banned, because they pose a health and safety risk indoors (and, in some bizarre cases outdoors as well).
Click to expand...

Same as for flashes. Older tripods had metallic feet which damaged the galleries floors. So tripods got banned and still are, even if modern tripods have harmless plastic feet.
 
Paul Jenkin said:
The British Museum (and many others in the UK) has a very enlightened attitude towards photography.
Click to expand...
Wonderful to hear! Even 25 years since I first visited the place I still regard that museum as a treasure (above and beyond even the treasures contained therein). I've not had the opportunity to visit for a long, long, time but I'm glad they are still a credit to themselves and their nation, even if only in this regard.

...Mike
 
santela said:
That sounds pretty much like the "turn off all your electronics when the plane is taking off or landing" rule. I understand no cell phone (even though I don't think it really matters), but no iPod or Walkman? That's just paranoid.
Click to expand...

In fact using electronics (yes, even phones) has a negligible impact on a plane's operations. But by virtue of bureaucracy it is still required that every electronic device used during takeoff and landing be individually tested...and airlines find it easier to simply ban everything instead of only allowing a certain number of devices.

I guess we live in a pretty paranoid world.
 
Highway 61 said:
Same as for flashes. Older tripods had metallic feet which damaged the galleries floors. So tripods got banned and still are, even if modern tripods have harmless plastic feet.
Click to expand...
Yes and no.
I've seen more than once idiots which are too lazy (or disrespectful) to use the rubber protectors on their tripod-feets even on 300 years old Parquet Floor...

Sometimes only a few idiots are enough to spoil the fun for many...
 
As it is, the National Trust lost my respect altogether.
Click to expand...

They did that thirty-odd years ago, where I was concerned. Like all such "charities", rely on very nice, very enthusiastic volunteers, expect visitors and members to pay too much and then reward "the management" out of all proportion to what a charity should pay.
 
haempe said:
I can understand that.
Lately I am very often annoyed, when I go to a concert and only get to see held aloft smartphones and tablets.
Click to expand...
The most interesting pictures to be taken at museums or exhibitions are those of the people, not the art works anyway. Unobtrusively using a mechanical film camera loaded with Tri-X often allows you to take some good photos in spite of the "rules"... in this case below I couldn't help taking this photo because of the resemblance between this young lady and the Duchess of Urbino. Of course, a few seconds later, a guard was after me, but nothing nasty happened and everything ended with smiles... 😉

uffici.jpg


Florence - Galleria degli Uffici - May 2013. Nikon S2, Nikkor-H-C 50/2, Tri-X.
 
No doubt, sometimes the rules has to be bend or broken.
If I see a good shot, I wouldn't ask if it's allowed...

But, in context, I understand the meaning and need of the rules, well, at least often... 😎
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CameraQuest
My first Nikon ONE
Replies
11
Views
954
NIKON KIU
NIKON KIU
peterm1
Who has hobbies other than photography?
3 4 5
Replies
97
Views
3K
bulevardi
bulevardi
C
Fuji GW690II Frame Overlap: Resolved
Replies
0
Views
486
chuckroast
C
G
What drove your decision to buy a more capable camera early on in your photography experience?
2 3
Replies
49
Views
4K
JeffS7444
JeffS7444
J
Contax G2 wound film all the way out of canister
Replies
10
Views
1K
splitimageview
splitimageview
Back
Top Bottom