\"No pictures\" museums

[Caratacus]

UV isn't the problem. Two reasons: (a) camera flashguns emit very little UV light and (b) the glass cases would block the UV light anyway (UV light cannot penetrate - that's why you cannot get sunburned in a greenhouse!)

The reasons why museums ban photography are many and varied. I've been told:
(i) "It bothers other museum visitors", (usually when there is no-one else in the place)
(ii) "It's our policy". (!?)
(iii) "The light will damage the exhibit". (made of stone?)
(iv) "It's OUR museum". (That one had me puzzled - so why are you letting the public in?)
(v) "We want to make sure that our exhibits are shown only in their best light." (That one, I have some sympathy with - not a lot, but some).

And so on. Bottom line? Some museums sell post-cards of slides of their exhibits and don't want the public to take any as a result. Understandable, but short sighted (like Cirencester).

I once visited the four military museums at Winchester. The results were:
(a) The (modern) Rifles - "Take what you want, with what you want. Just drop a donation into the box on your way out". (They got £5 for that).
(b) The Gurkha Museum - "You're not supposed to, but I can't be everywhere, can I?".
© The 15th Hussars - dirty looks, but no-one stopped me.
(d) The Royal Greenjackets. "Leave your camera here please, Sir" (I didn't, just walked out with a VERY disgusted look on my face - having explained, to no avail, that I had just driven 150 miles to see the place).

British Museum - lovely people, no problem at all. National Army Museum? B*st*rds all - made no difference that I am a registered 'friend'! Ditto French National Army Museum at Les Invalides There is no rhyme or reason to it. Motto: check first, before you go.

Funniest thing? Watching the staff at the Hadrian Exhibition at the Brit Mus a couple of years back trying to stop people using their mobile phones to take pictures. Give up, lads!

Mike Thomas

[Lessa]

Same for me, the past week i was in Rome, and i had problems to make pictures in the museum of Hight medieval and in the Pigorini museum.
I was very upset, because i have plained the whole vacation to make photos in these museums.

[Robert Vermaat]

The reasons why museums ban photography are many and varied. I've been told:
(i) "It bothers other museum visitors", (usually when there is no-one else in the place)
(ii) "It's our policy". (!?)
(iii) "The light will damage the exhibit". (made of stone?)
(iv) "It's OUR museum". (That one had me puzzled - so why are you letting the public in?)
(v) "We want to make sure that our exhibits are shown only in their best light." (That one, I have some sympathy with - not a lot, but some).

(vi) It bothers the security cameras. No idea whether or not it's correct or not, but that what I was told.

[Medicus matt]

(like Cirencester).

Corinium don't have a no photos policy do they? They didn't say anything when I took 200+ pics there in the Spring.

BTW, Dublin National Museum are having a 'trial period' of allowing photography.. I don't know what the point of the trial is but I took full advantage of it last month. £30 return from Bristol to Dublin for the day....considerably cheaper than a trip to London.

[Doc]

Bottom line, the decision is ALL about making money. They have to sell those postcards, huge books on a particular subject and also that is the way they get you to go back.

You know "Oh, I missed that helmet, I got to go see it again". Then you go and pay another entrance fee, plus postcard or whatever. There you go.

[M. Caecilius]

For a period after my student days, I used to work at the Bodleian Library, where one of the tasks was to supervise the changing exhibitions. It's not a Roman site and few of the exhibits were ancient, but the point of view and experience of a former "security drone" may perhaps be useful.

Photography was forbidden wherever there were books or other perishable materials. The purely stone Divinity School was fine, with and without flash.

We, as the staff, were told it was for the following reasons:

1) The flash damages the exhibits. As said, the stone section was fine but old books and other easily damaged materials dating back centuries and occasionally millenia were not. Or so we were told: I have not the slightest idea whether flash photography actually damages perishable materials, pigments, paper and equivalents, and so forth now that some people like Mike here seem to give arguments that they don't; but if not, it's one of those myths which gets perpetuated through repetition. Our supervisor was hardly telling us lies knowingly.

The reason why photography without flash was not allowed either, in this context, was that people who take photographs occasionally forget to switch off the flash. Especially with digital cameras, where the camera switches itself off after a period of inactivity, and does not remember the last settings.

Happened to me occasionally, from the point of view of the visitor, this time: I once got told off quite severely by a guard in Malta who was either by nature unfriendly or had already had to deal with a few dozen other culprits before and had reached the end of her patience.

2) Copyright issues. Whether it's about making money, selling postcards, or not ( admission was free with us, so it was not about entrance fees; there rarely was a catalog, and in the purely stone parts photography was allowed, so the money-making opportunities were limited). One problem with the exhibition was that many of the items did not belong to us, but were on loan. Sorting out the copyright (or whatever the legal term is for museum holdings) would have been a nightmare.

It's not a nice feeling to have to tell people, whose excitement and love for "your" exhibit you can feel, that they cannot take photographs of that rare manuscript of which you don't have a postcard either, but in my experience visitors were quite friendly if we showed understanding ourselves; I've made some good experiences, this time as a vistor, at the museum in Lyon where the staff were very kind and I finally ended up with a photograph sent to me by the curator's office for free (for use with a thesis); they've since changed their policy at Lyon and photography is now permitted.

Hope the point of view of someone who had to (kindly, I hope), prevent people from taking photographs but knows the side of a foiled photographer too could add something to the discussion.

Best,
Max
Max

[Iagoba]

I must warn that the "no photos" is the usual policy in Spain. :-x

Sometimes you'll find some museums where you can do all the photos that you want. Contacting them in advance may be very usefull, as sometimes they can give you access to the archives, or to be acompanied by the curator (and that's the one who has got the keys... :roll: ).

With the exception of delicate textiles or paintings, the rest of the times I think is just pure snobism. If it was for money they would sell you nice postcards and cataloges,but the 90% they don't have anything like that... :evil:

Another point is here or they are free or you have to pay, but it's unlikely to be asked a tip (or to have a box for...). :?: As if they had enough money...

An example of the good that allowing photos can do is the last exhibit in the Cluny Musee of Paris about the sword...I'm sure that a lot of people became aware and wanted to visit it it after seeing the visitor's photos. It's free advertising directly to your target "customers"!

[marcos]

Well, let me say over here in Italy each museum has his own policy, but i guess is the some happening in all the world. I went 2 years ago in Vindonissa museum and they were very friendly, no problems getting photos, on the contrary in Fankfurt museum, as well as in the Mainz one, as soon as they realized we had cameras they putted a bear guy near us during the whole visit !! He carefully checked our movements to be sure we didn't get photos, he was with has in each moment of the visit hock:
What is unintelligible is that most of museums neither allow get photos nor sell them, if you want to buy.

[sillicus]

When visiting Rome back in May this year I was able to take photos in all the museums I visited, even the Vatican!

Though I always made sure that flash was off before taking any indoors. The only exeption was the Sistine Chapel which had museum staff and cameras to make sure you didn't!!

[Marcus Tineius Valens]

Marco,
Which museums do you mean? Archäologisches Museum in Frankfurt am Main and Landesmuseum in Mainz? Does they really has "no photos" policy? I hope not since I'm planning to visit them this year.
Couple of months ago I've made a great trip along Roman sites on the Rhine, visited fine museums in Xanten, Cologne, Bonn and Neuss and everywhere I could make as many photos as I like! :grin:

[Medicus matt]

Both of those museums in Mainz allow photography....or at least they did when I visited them a couple of years ago.

[kchetwynd]

As a museum professional I can say that among our collection there are a few reasons why that occurs. With our Meso-American clothing it is generally a function of light influenced degredation, and with our egyptian collection, more specifically the mummy it is out of respect for the body. But I would say that the Loan permissions and postcards are a valid point as well.

[mcbishop]

Here's a useful, balanced discussion on the science behind the various kinds of flash and their likely effects and a review of reasons why photography may be banned in some or all forms.

Mike Bishop

[Caratacus]

[quote="Caratacus" post=293932](like Cirencester).

Corinium don't have a no photos policy do they? They didn't say anything when I took 200+ pics there in the Spring.

Maybe they've changed their policy? I went there shortly after they had refurbished the place and asked for permission. It was given, although with some reluctance and with the additional information that this would not be permitted in future, once the signage was up. I haven't been back since, so I don't know if that is still the case.

Mike Thomas

[Caratacus]

Yes, Mike - a very useful discussion that supports what I said earlier on. In short, it's a smoke screen. The article confirms that UV light isn't a problem (although he seems to be applying his thesis exclusively to artworks, i.e. paintings, textiles, etc - it would have no effect whatsoever on the sort of things that we are interested in, such as bits of armour!) In fact, as the author points out, camera flash units don't even EMIT UV light, unless they are designed to do so.

I think that the UV flash-damage is an excuse. To be sure, there are copyright issues in some cases - and this is understandable. There is also an issue that a museum may wish its objects to be displayed to the best advantage - especially in publications. A cr*p photograph (used in for example a book), does no-one any favours. This happened recently in a certain museum not a million miles away from me. The curator was not a happy camper at the result. As he pointed out, if they had asked, the exhibit could have been removed from its case and a decent picture taken.

Personally, I have no objection at all to a photographic ban, provided that the museum will provide their own photographs of these objects. Problem with that is that professionally produced card/slides have to be ordered in staggering quantities from the manufacturer and many museums cannot afford to do this for anything other than the most popular of exhibits. I just wish that they would be honest about their policy and not try to blame something that is not the case - which only weakens their stance when they are 'found out'.

Mike Thomas