Cameras in museums and cathedrals

It varies from place to place, some places allow it, some don't and some only allow non-flash photography. I don't remember any place having a problem with you taking cameras in, just using them.

As Peter said, it varies.

The Borghese in Rome is one of the few Italian galleries/museums that don't allow cameras to even be brought in, they provide a place to check them.

A number of art museums in Italy, including some of the best known, don't allow photographs to be taken. Some do allow it but prohibit flash or use of a tripod.

It is a mixed bag. Many museum will force you to check nearly all bags except maybe a small shoulder bag and I have been forced to check the camera, Many cathedrals will simply have a sign prohibiting any photography or flash photography. Think of it this way -- the cathedrals for the most part are functioning churches with people there for religious purposes. Some idiot running around with a flash camera sort distracts from the mood. My general advice would be to avoid all flash photography regardless of what is permitted. It is called, respect !!

Some cathedrals allow photography, while others do not. For instance, St. Peters' in The Vatican allows photography, while St. Mark's in Venice does not. You will have to check your camera and/or bags in those places. Museums for the most part will not allow photography. Again, you will have to check your camera and/or bags at the front desk.

As has been said, some allow photos, some don't under any circumstances and still others will sell you a photo pass.

You really need to ask the policy at each place you visit because you can't say museums are generally one way, churches another, etc.

Thanks all. I'll carry my camera and lenses with me but check at each place. Sounds just like the US.
- Gary

As im going to venice soon I noticed the post about St Marks - so I went to the offical website. If you have a few you know you want to hit (big sites) then you better check the offical websites to make sure! While many places have lockers with locks - some places hang it on a coat rack next to an attendant!

Gary,

As the others have noted, Camera use varies a bit from one location to another. As Kent mentioned, the Borghese Gallery in Rome is one of the most strict, and they require visitors to not only check larger Cameras but also just about everything else (Backpacks, Purses, Strollers, etc.).

They missed the small P&S Camera I had in a front pocket, but I wouldn't have dared to try and "sneak" a photo as there are Guards in each room, as well as numerous CCTV Cameras everywhere. I'm sure that would have resulted in a humiliating exit from the Gallery, as well as the possible loss of my Camera.

The Duomo in Milan had a large sign indicating that all photography and videos were prohibited, but when I got inside it appeared that most were ignoring the rule, and it wasn't being enforced (I did respect the rule though).

Most art galleries especially prohibit ALL flash photography, as the light degrades the paintings at a faster rate. Tripod use is also prohibited in many locations.

Except for the Borghese Gallery, most locations that prohibit photography will allow visitors to carry their Cameras (which was the case at the Duomo in Milan).

Happy travels!

I purchased a 35mm f1.8 lens for the purpose of being able to take hand-held non-flash photos in the churches and museums that allow photography. This lens is specific to Nikon, but if you have a different brand there is a 50mm f1.8 and f1.4 that should do the job for you.

I have a few additional comments regarding "scientific studies" and flash photography, especially in art galleries. It doesn't really matter how many "scientific studies" are published that "debunk the myths" concerning flash photography, especially related to paintings. The crucial point in this argument is that Museum Curators feel this type of photography is a problem and therefore have placed restrictions on it, for whatever reason. None of us know which studies they're using to base these rules on. I've also wondered whether photography bans are at least partially a ploy to encourage visitors to visit the Gift Shops and purchase prints or copies, but I have no idea whether this is true? When I've asked about the photography bans in some Galleries, I've been told this is a "copyright issue". Again, I'm not sure how much truth there is in that? It should also be noted that Museums and Art Galleries are not the only facilities that ban photography. On my last visit to Milan, I attempted to take a few photos in the La Rinascente stores in Milan (by the Duomo - some of the displays were a "work of art"), but a staff member indicated this was forbidden and threatened to have me escorted out of the building by security guards. I don't know why a department store would prohibit photos, but of course I followed the rules. Perhaps these restrictions will be eased in future, but until then I feel that travellers should be respectful and follow whatever rules are in place. Cheers!

I wish someone would debunk the legend that flash photography damages artwork in any meaningful way. A single flash strobe is roughly equivalent to 30 additional seconds of indoors light. Thus a painting or anything would have to get, say, 1,200 flashes in one day to double the damage it gets from just hangin' there. Absurd, except for some "stars" that get thousands of visitors daily. If curators really cared, they would install gallery lights that turn on only when someone walks in - most galleries are visited by few people per hour. The fact they don't would indicate they really aren't that serious about light damage. The fact that, even then, some adduce light damage to forbid flash would indicate they do not know much about the amount of light a flash shoots. There might be still be one acceptable and reasonable motive to limit flash photography: It is distracting and may be uncomfortable for other visitors.

The fact the Rome has many thousands of visitors a year means that each piece of art work could be subjected to many thousands of flashes each and every day. On a slow day that would still be well above your 1200 flashes example. If you multiply that by 365 days a year you are talking about a lot of damage. I don't have a problem with not using a flash and am glad museums and galleries are doing what they can to preserve these pieces for future generations. Donna

This is a little off-topic, but the consensus of art curators in the past 15 years is that flash from amateur photographers is not harmful to art. The National Gallery in London released its technical report on this in 1995 after extensive testing. To summarize: "trials showed that 'fugitive' pigments deteriorated while on the walls of a controlled-light gallery at about the same rate as if a modest 'hotshoe' flashgun was fired at them every 4 seconds from a distance of about 4 feet" In other words, one large flash every 4 seconds from 4 feet is equivalent to the ambient light in the gallery used to illuminate the paintings. So flash is about as dangerous as typical gallery lighting used to illuminate the works of art for visitors -- i.e., not significantly harmful. See here for the details: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/mhe1000/musphoto/flashphoto.htm As others have mentioned, flash photography is distracting -- a good reason to ban it. In my trip to Italy this year, there was a total ban on all photography in many churches and museums, which suggests this is indeed more about post card sales in the gift-shop than anything else. Regards, Mathew

The non-academic, online paper you reference isn't exactly a final word on the issue. Not to mention it doesn't even buy the claim that musuems ban photos just to boost postcard and book sales. Different paintings and art have different media and substrates. All can be affected by light in different ways. Not everyone uses the same cameras and flashes. Museums take the most conservative approach to protect their works. And few curators are happy with the conditions their art is shown in, but they don't have the resources to change it.

Doug, Do you have a reference to other equally or more rigorous scientific testing like that of the National Gallery to support your assertions? I agree that British Museum study says nothing about the motivations for banning all photography. That's merely my suggestion. I'd also suggest supporting museums and churches working to maintain art by buying a few postcards when you're there. Have fun, Mathew

Most of the places that do not allow photography have excellent gift shops where they will gladly allow you to purchase copies of the artwork :)....

Whenever I visit a site in Europe that bans taking pictures, or using flash, and I see folks doing so anyway, I just hope like heck that they are not from the US contributing to that dreaded "Ugly American" thought expressed by some Europeans.

Here's a site that facilitates searching for museums, by location, that do allow photography: http://www.findyourmuseum.com/search.php?photo=on&ville=4&Valider=

It is my opinion that the property, the building, and the art belongs to some organization or person, not you, or us. Therefore, it is the right of the owner to ban photography for any reason She, It, or He wants. I've been asked not to take photos in a small library in Hyderabad. In Lhasa most of the rooms and enclosed areas of the Buddhist monasteries or no photo zones, and that was regrettable. As much as you, or I may want to photograph everything we see it is not our right to do so.

I enjoy being able to take photos of art works. I like to record where I've been, what I've seen. While in the Borghese Gallery I felt a powerful urge to photograph some of Bernini's most famous works. But, as I could not do so, I spent a little longer soaking up the statuary in person, imprinting it on my brain rather than a sensor. As a result, the Apollo and Daphne is the most vivid memory of all the museums I'd visited. Those churches that allow photography and don't charge usually got a donation from me. It is there stuff, and they can do or charge whatever they wish. I'm fine with that. What does disturb me are those who cannot control the flash on their cameras. The resulting pictures are rarely ever worth the effort.