Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Being a Photographer > Business / Philosophy of Photography

Business / Philosophy of Photography Taking pics is one thing, but understanding why we take them, what they mean, what they are best used for, how they effect our reality -- all of these and more are important issues of the Philosophy of Photography. One of the best authors on the subject is Susan Sontag in her book "On Photography."

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 06-16-2014   #41
Takkun
Ian M.
 
Takkun's Avatar
 
Takkun is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sunny South Seattle
Posts: 730
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.
__________________
Ian M., Seattle
Current bag contents: Bronica SQ-A, Mamiya C33.

currently trying to find a use for a Nikon D2.
--
my infrequently updated blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2014   #42
citizen99
Registered User
 
citizen99's Avatar
 
citizen99 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Bristol, England
Posts: 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takkun View Post
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.
... +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 .
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2014   #43
Highway 61
Revisited
 
Highway 61's Avatar
 
Highway 61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by noisycheese View Post
And the long-winded, technical treatise on the subject:
http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/mhe1000/m...lashphoto2.htm
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 ?
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2014   #44
kbg32
neo-romanticist
 
kbg32's Avatar
 
kbg32 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 5,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by SausalitoDog View Post
Of COURSE it's silly...it's TEXAS !!!
This all you need to know.
__________________
Keith

http://keithgoldstein.me/
Keith’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2014   #45
Highway 61
Revisited
 
Highway 61's Avatar
 
Highway 61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jenkin View Post
Tripods are banned, because they pose a health and safety risk indoors (and, in some bizarre cases outdoors as well).
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.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2014   #46
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
 
mfunnell's Avatar
 
mfunnell is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jenkin View Post
The British Museum (and many others in the UK) has a very enlightened attitude towards photography.
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
__________________
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." Dave Barry

My flickr photostream has day-to-day stuff and I've given up most everywhere else through lack of time or perhaps interest.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2014   #47
YYV_146
Registered User
 
YYV_146's Avatar
 
YYV_146 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Durham, NC
Age: 32
Posts: 1,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by santela View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Victor is too lazy for DSLRs

Sony A7rII Kolari mod

Noctilux ASPH, 35lux FLE, 50 APO ASPH, 75 APO cron, 21lux, Sony/Minolta 135mm STF

500px
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2014   #48
Thardy
Registered User
 
Thardy is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by SausalitoDog View Post
Of COURSE it's silly...it's TEXAS !!!
Of course it's silly ...it's Paris !!!

http://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/visit/i...otography.html
__________________
Thomas

Flickr

Tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2014   #49
haempe
negative guy
 
haempe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway 61 View Post
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.
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...
__________________

haempe.net
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2014   #50
haempe
negative guy
 
haempe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thardy View Post
Of course it's silly ...it's Paris !!!

http://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/visit/i...otography.html
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.
__________________

haempe.net
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2014   #51
Highway 61
Revisited
 
Highway 61's Avatar
 
Highway 61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by haempe View Post
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.
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...



Florence - Galleria degli Uffici - May 2013. Nikon S2, Nikkor-H-C 50/2, Tri-X.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2014   #52
haempe
negative guy
 
haempe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 926
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...
__________________

haempe.net
  Reply With Quote

Things are changing
Old 06-17-2014   #53
dct
Registered User
 
dct's Avatar
 
dct is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1,176
Things are changing

Just heard a podcast on this topic (1st minutes, only German).
http://www.srf.ch/sendungen/kultur-k...-in-den-museen

It seems museums in Switzerland are adopting their rules to the benefit of visitors: Private photography is more and more allowed as long as you don't use flash or tirpods.

I will give it a try in the next months.
__________________
photos
RFF gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2014   #54
hendriphile
Registered User
 
hendriphile's Avatar
 
hendriphile is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jenkin View Post
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.
This Yank thanks you for the explanation of the N.T.
Now I can understand the reference: "...a soap impression of his wife which he ate and donated to the National Trust..."
__________________
"It's so heavy! And it's full of numbers!" --- teenaged niece upon meeting my M3.
  Reply With Quote

Selective enforcement.
Old 06-17-2014   #55
Marcuza
Registered User
 
Marcuza is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 13
Selective enforcement.

Interestingly, this rule was suspended for a week in early January when the monument was photographically documented by historians from several universities using laser scanners and large format film cameras. Read the story here:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/communit...mo-5139200.php
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2014   #56
Spanik
Registered User
 
Spanik is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,425
I read a few times here that The National Trust (sometimes) allows photography inside their buildings. I'm a bit surprised by that. I have been member for about 5 years (must be in the 1990's) when we visited the UK each year and I haven't been allowed to take a single photo in any of the properties I visited. Is this a recent change?

I have no problem with "no photo allowed". Or with paying a reasonable fee to do so, like in some cathedrals or museums where I can understand that money is welcome to keep the thing going. But it got the be clear what can and what can not.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2014   #57
biomed
Registered User
 
biomed's Avatar
 
biomed is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Seattle Area (North)
Posts: 3,397
It is quite puzzling why the rule of photographing or not varies from place to place. Here in the Seattle area we are blessed with several outstanding aircraft museums/collections including the Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum and the Tillamook Air Museum in Oregon. Photography is allowed in all of them even with tripods. South of us is the amazing LeMay Museum with the largest collection of automobiles in the world. They allow photography but ban tripods because of possible damage to the cars - most of them are not behind any barrier. When I was in the Alamo it was different. No photographs and no talking above a whisper in the chapel. It is more than a historical site to Texas. It is a shrine to the larger than life fallen heroes of the Texas Republic and Texas freedom. The Alamo is usually staffed with members of the Daughters of the Republic of Texas ( the organization that is responsible for saving the Alamo). As much as many disagree with no photography policies, it is what it is.

Mike
__________________
biomed
Things are more like they are now than they’ve ever been before.

2016 Photos

rff Gallery

Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2014   #58
E__WOK
Registered User
 
E__WOK is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokiEE View Post
I was in San Antonio, Texas this past week on business and decided to take a walk over to the Alamo. As I walked inside, I noticed the "no photography" sign plastered around, but apparently my colleague did not. He went to take a photo and the workers told him not to take pictures. He asked why and at least one of the employees said it was disrespectful. I don't fully understand this logic, how taking a picture would be disrespectful (in this particular instance). Any thoughts?
http://www.thealamo.org/plan-a-visit/rules.html

The Alamo has a unique set of rules befitting its status as the Shrine of Texas Liberty and hallowed ground. Please read the rules before entering the Shrine to ensure a respectful, pleasant visit.

Rules of Reverence

Help Honor Their Memory

Gentlemen, please remove your hats inside the Shrine.
No open containers are allowed inside the buildings.
No food or drinks are allowed inside the buildings.
Photography is not allowed inside the buildings.
No camera or cell phone use is permitted inside the buildings.
Please do not touch the walls or display cases inside the Shrine.
No pets are allowed on Alamo Grounds (service animals allowed).
No restrooms inside the Shrine. Public restrooms located at back of grounds.
No obscene or offensive clothing is allowed.
No bikes or skateboards are allowed on the grounds.
Please lower your voice when speaking.
No unauthorized weapons are allowed. CHL allowed with permit.
Ice chests are allowed but must not be left unattended at any time.
__________________
Feedback
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2014   #59
Lss
Registered User
 
Lss is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by YYV_146 View Post
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.
It is changing in small steps. I already made a couple of flights this year where gate-to-gate mobile device use was allowed.
__________________
Lasse
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-17-2014   #60
Takkun
Ian M.
 
Takkun's Avatar
 
Takkun is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sunny South Seattle
Posts: 730


Couldn't help myself.
__________________
Ian M., Seattle
Current bag contents: Bronica SQ-A, Mamiya C33.

currently trying to find a use for a Nikon D2.
--
my infrequently updated blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2014   #61
greyelm
Malcolm
 
greyelm's Avatar
 
greyelm is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,361
For visitors to London here is a list of venues that I have photographed inside within the last
two years.

Tower of London
Museum of London
Imperial War Museum (except the Holocaust exhibition)
British Museum
Hampton Court (except the Chapel)
Ham House
Brooklands Museum

For other venues their web sites usually have details of photography restrictions (if any).
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2014   #62
Chris101
summicronia
 
Chris101's Avatar
 
Chris101 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takkun View Post


Couldn't help myself.
That could totally be recaptioned ya know ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-19-2014   #63
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by SausalitoDog View Post
Of COURSE it's silly...it's TEXAS !!!
Of course!!
That's why "silly" people like ... say, Toyota Motor Corp chose to move to TX from CA.

__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 06-19-2014   #64
Kenj8246
Registered User
 
Kenj8246's Avatar
 
Kenj8246 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: College Station TX
Age: 71
Posts: 806
Think Will was responding to the TX basher from CA. We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion....
__________________
______________________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bykenny
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-19-2014   #65
Rick Waldroup
Registered User
 
Rick Waldroup's Avatar
 
Rick Waldroup is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 975
You know, you can call Texans many things, and most of them would be well deserved and most Texans would proudly agree with you- loud mouth boors, ignorant hillbillies, redneck assholes, gun-toting fanatics, overbearing braggarts who are full of bull****, I mean the list is endless.......

But there is one thing you cannot call them, and that is, silly.......

No real Texan will put up with that.

Just so you know.
__________________
Rick Waldroup Photography
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-19-2014   #66
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,801
You know, it's funny. I had two occasions when people were very friendly to my taking pictures at their properties, I had a good chat about photography with them, and they sent me off with a smile.

One in Texas, one in California.

People are quite nice up close and personal, if we don't pick up a broad brush and paint labels instead.
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 06-19-2014   #67
Scrambler
Registered User
 
Scrambler's Avatar
 
Scrambler is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 1,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thardy View Post
Of course it's silly ...it's Paris !!!

http://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/visit/i...otography.html
Thanks for that - and a very interesting read, including their logical but slightly left-field reason.

The interesting thing to me is that they are quite happy for you to sketch with a A3 notepad and pencil but not to photograph.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-19-2014   #68
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,810
Which is worse, violating a no photo rule (w/o flash), or speeding?
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-19-2014   #69
Scrambler
Registered User
 
Scrambler's Avatar
 
Scrambler is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 1,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
Which is worse, violating a no photo rule (w/o flash), or speeding?
Do you want what people think is worse, or which one they do more often?

The Photography Police are pretty vigilant, and getting thrown out of a museum is embarrassing and wasteful of time and money.

Speeding is only very occasionally detected and therefore the average cost of speeding is probably lower than the average cost of taking an "unauthorized" photograph.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-19-2014   #70
dct
Registered User
 
dct's Avatar
 
dct is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by dct View Post
Just heard a podcast on this topic (1st minutes, only German).
http://www.srf.ch/sendungen/kultur-k...-in-den-museen

It seems museums in Switzerland are adopting their rules to the benefit of visitors: Private photography is more and more allowed as long as you don't use flash or tirpods.

I will give it a try in the next months.
Just found an example: The KUNSTHAUS Zurich explicitly allows photography for their permanent exhibition.
http://www.kunsthaus.ch/en/information/
(read: general house rules)
__________________
photos
RFF gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-30-2014   #71
Deardorff
Registered User
 
Deardorff is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 13
If taking a photo is disrecpectful why are postcards OK?
Your photos would be personal. The Postcards commercialize the place.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-30-2014   #72
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,641
What's 'Disrespectful' is building a department store less the 50 meters from the Alamo on one side and some other nutty looking building on the other.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 21:13.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.