[demp10]

You hear the same argument used in museums, as if a flash of 1/000 could possibly make a difference. I went to a wonderful exhibit of classic cars at the High Museum in Atlanta and flash photography was prohibited. Those gorgeous cars must have had pretty awful paint jobs! I wonder if the removal of light by a camera is harmful to water deposited limestone.

I can understand why museums and other enclosed places prohibit flash photography. It is so annoying (and for some a health risk) to have flashes going off next to you. Imagine trying to enjoy a nice exhibit while surrounded by 15 photographers snapping pictures of everything around you like paparazzi chasing a celebrity.

[RoxnDox]

You hear the same argument used in museums, as if a flash of 1/000 could possibly make a difference. I went to a wonderful exhibit of classic cars at the High Museum in Atlanta and flash photography was prohibited. Those gorgeous cars must have had pretty awful paint jobs! I wonder if the removal of light by a camera is harmful to water deposited limestone.

The reasons for flash restrictions in caves are normally because they are concerned about the light promoting growth of algae on the stone's surfaces, not damage to the stone itself. You can argue that the constant lights they install so you can see are more damaging, but that's the reasoning....

Jim

[DeadJohn]

I can understand why museums and other enclosed places prohibit flash photography. It is so annoying (and for some a health risk) to have flashes going off next to you. Imagine trying to enjoy a nice exhibit while surrounded by 15 photographers snapping pictures of everything around you like paparazzi chasing a celebrity.

+1. I have never used flash in a museum or concert for exactly this reason. My photography shouldn't inconvenience others. While one person might be able to use flash responsibly (waiting until there's a gap between guests), if you let everyone use flash it becomes too much. Flash in a dark aquarium is arguably the worst use - the photographer generally gets nothing but reflection off glass while everyone else gets a few minutes waiting for their eyes to adjust again.

[GibbyTheMole]

Ain't it amazing that in societies which value personal freedoms we have found ways to restrict some of the more basic freedoms?

You said it, brother!

[magkelly]

It's a problem here locally too. Everything here is tourist oriented and they guard everything from anyone who might look like a pro with a completely anal attitude. They see a DSLR and a tripod and they assume you're a pro and give you a lot of grief about taking pics. I got around this by putting a tripod mount screw on a heavy walking stick and by covering that with a plastic covered in craft foam to make it comfortable. I just use the walking stick like I normally would but if I really need help holding steady I take the cap off real quick and use it like a monopod. They have a hard time arguing with it when it's done like that because it's not an actual tripod it's a disability aide and I think they're aware of the legal stink I could make if they gave me a really hard time about it. But this is also why I got the Oly M43 cam and blinged it up. In places where they'd likely harass me about a DSLR they just assume it's a toy cam and leave me pretty much alone. I shoot in stealth mode and let them think I am just another tourist...

[rbefly]

Here in Denver the Butterfly Pavilion has a no-tripod restriction (monopods and flash OK) and after my first visit, I could see why; There are narrow walkways curling between a simulated rainforest and millions of kids, entire classes of children running around. Not only would a tripod nearly block the walkway, it seemed inevitable that a distracted child would trip on a 'pod leg and nosedive into the gravel. Bad news for everyone.
The Botanical Gardens of Denver take a different approach; A $ 5.00 surcharge for tripods. 'Tripping and traffic flow hazard' was the reason given. Again, there are narrow walkways inside the tropical dome, but the outside walkways are pretty wide. I guess it would be hard to restrict tripod use in one section and not another.
I've been asked to leave plaza open spaces, told I could only set up on the public sidewalk outside, no tripods.
Since these restrictions have increased, I now carry a Manfrotto (when I bought it, the US name was Bogen, made by Manfrotto) # 209 mini tripod (tabletop tripod) with mini-ballhead. Buy a coffee, sit at a table, enable the wireless remote, click, click.
LOL!
Ron

[Class A]

The reason given why even non-flash photography is forbidden in the Te Anau Glow Worm caves is that it would upset the Maori gods.

Good job that the commercial operator seemed to have found a way to get special permission from the Maouri gods to take the photos from inside the caves that they were selling themselves.

[mikeSF]

That's a bummer, Alex. I can only imagine you'd have gotten the perfect shot in there!

I will say I was similarly surprised to be told the exact same thing while shooting on the Golden Gate Bridge one night. No tripods allowed on the bridge, the guard said and then escorted me off the bridge. Just to achieve closure, I went back and shot a few a month later using my tripod. The joke was on me, as all the passing cars and buses make getting a sharp image near impossible during twilight hours.

[Digitalis]

The reasons for flash restrictions in caves are normally because they are concerned about the light promoting growth of algae on the stone's surfaces, not damage to the stone itself. You can argue that the constant lights they install so you can see are more damaging, but that's the reasoning

Xenon arc flash tubes generate as considerable amount of UV radiation, even though the glass on portable flash tubes reduces the amounts of it, there is still enough of it that can upset the subterranean biosphere which isn't accustomed to being exposed to it. UV radiation damages DNA and micro-organisms. The hot lights they are using in all probability are tungsten based, and in any case would have filters in place to reduce emission of harmful frequencies of light.

I can understand why museums and other enclosed places prohibit flash photography. It is so annoying (and for some a health risk) to have flashes going off next to you.

Besides being annoying, Ultraviolet also has destructive effects on the pigments and dyes in paintings and other artworks - and Xenon arc flash tubes produce it - so it is in the museums best interests to prohibit the use of flash in the name of preserving the works for future generations.

[tclausen]

It's a problem here locally too. Everything here is tourist oriented and they guard everything from anyone who might look like a pro with a completely anal attitude. They see a DSLR and a tripod and they assume you're a pro and give you a lot of grief about taking pics. I got around this by putting a tripod mount screw on a heavy walking stick and by covering that with a plastic covered in craft foam to make it comfortable. I just use the walking stick like I normally would but if I really need help holding steady I take the cap off real quick and use it like a monopod. They have a hard time arguing with it when it's done like that because it's not an actual tripod it's a disability aide and I think they're aware of the legal stink I could make if they gave me a really hard time about it. But this is also why I got the Oly M43 cam and blinged it up. In places where they'd likely harass me about a DSLR they just assume it's a toy cam and leave me pretty much alone. I shoot in stealth mode and let them think I am just another tourist...

Sounds like that's one more motivator for the K-01 bumblebee and smurf editions

I've been harassed by "security" thugs on the sidewalk in front of Le Louvre when I took pictures of the building and the pyramid. Apparently, by having a "professional camera" (K10D + grip) and a tripod, I was violating copyright......taking a picture of a public building, the upkeep of which my tax-Euros are paying, and from a public sidewalk (also paid by my tax-Euros).....nevermind the guy next to me with a tripod and a Leica MP "that's not a professional camera so that's ok".

[Na Horuk]

Oh, btw, I would like to share a story I heard about a National Geographic photographer..
He wanted to take photos of some churches interior. But it was highly guarded and photography was prohibited. So he went for a week, every day, keeping his camera hidden. One day he noticed the guard was sleeping on the little chair by the door, so he quickly pulled out his camera, set it up, and took as many photos as he could. When the guard woke up, he already had the photos and just left, saying "ah no camera okay bye bye"
But he didn't use a flash, as that would alert the other people in there (priests, tourists) and the UV might actually damage paintings/artifacts.

Edit: Of course, this was two or three decades ago, things were different back then

[RonHendriks1966]

crazy

[stevebrot]

Our local Japanese garden has a strange tripod policy. To summarize:

• Tripods are generally prohibited, unless...
• You pay a premium fee on entrance for "moss replacement" -or-
• You buy a garden membership -or-
• You have enrolled in a class at a local camera shop that kicks back part of the enrollment to the garden -or-
• You pay extra to visit the garden during special "photographer only" times -or-
• You simply carry your tripod in an non-conspicuous manner such that the person in the ticket booth does not see it

Oh...and you are prohibited from selling any photo taken at the garden, unless you purchase a $150 photographer's membership.

Photography | Portland Japanese Garden


Steve

(FWIW, I can see the reasons for many of the rules. Some places in the Portland area are overrun by professional wedding and portrait photographers to the detriment of most other users.)

[Wired]

Surprisingly I haven't really ran into that here yet, not more than once anyways. I know I have seen on tickets stubs or posters that no "professional photography" is allowed. or "professional cameras not allowed" markings. So I inquired about "professional cameras" and they actually had a fantastic answer. Any DSLR with a 70-200 f2.8 or equivalent mounted. So I asked if my Pentax with DA*50-135 f2.8 would be acceptable, and they said yes. I asked for that in writing, and sure enough, got a "pass" from security. This was for a local music festival.

I laughed hard as I waltzed in with my pair of K5's with a DA*16-50/50-145 combo


another time we were exploring a park out of province and I was shooting with my DA*50-135. I had security ask me to stop taking photos as my camera looks professional...then when i turned to face him he backtracked and apologized as he thought I was using a pro canon or nikon and that I could keep on shooting. Meanwhile my wife had my D600 in hand and was asked to put it back in the bag.

Oh... Canikon...

[Digitalis]

exploring a park out of province and I was shooting with my DA*50-135. I had security ask me to stop taking photos as my camera looks professional...then when i turned to face him he backtracked and apologized as he thought I was using a pro canon or nikon and that I could keep on shooting

This is one of the reasons why I use Leica and pentax cameras for my private portfolio work* - they aren't common cameras - and I can get away with using them in situations where in all probability if I was using a more mainstream DSLR camera, I wouldn't be able to.


*the other reason is that the Leica M9, Monochrom and K5IIs are very small and light cameras when compared to the competition.