photorgaphy in churches ect in italy

Most of the churches we visited (Rome and Florence) we were allowed to take photographs, some without flash. The Vatican does not allow photos of the Sistine Chapel but I think they allowed them everywhere else. I always ask when I first go in.

We have always found that if a camera or flash is prohibited, it will be posted. Interestling, in many museums, you have to check your bags and backpacks but they let you keep your camera even when taking pictures is prohibited. The Peggy Guggenheim in Venice, which you must visit, is an example. You can take pictures in il Duomo in Florence but its really dark in there and most of the treasures of il Duomo are in a museum to the left rear and across the street. It's called the Opera del Duomo Museum. It's fantastic and you can take pictures in most places. Great light in there as well. The original "Gates to Paradise" from the baptistery are in there. The ones on the baptistery now are copies.

Your post: I know in France photography is allowed just about everywhere...what about Italy?In general, art museums in Italy are somewhat more restrictive about photos than French art museums: many Italian art museum (but not all, it varies) don't allow any photos, even without flash. But the rule in churches is usually different, in most (but not all) Italian churches photography is allowed, when there's not art work such as wall frescoes or other paintings that will be damaged by flash. If photos are not permitted, they'll let you know.

Bluedenim, you will find that if the churches forbid photgraphy of any type, it will be clearly posted (in picture/symbol form).

It does seem to be a city trend. In Rome, I don't recall any churches forbidding photography except, as previously mentioned, in the Sistine Chapel. The Borghese Gallery does not permit any photos, but most other sites in Rome will, although they request/require that you not use a flash. The Capitoline museum, for instance, permits photos but I saw a woman scolding a guy who didn't turn his flash off.

I found Florence much more restrictive. They allowed non-flash pictures in the Duomo, but almost nowhere else--not in churches or museums.

As the other posters noted, where photography is banned, there will be signs stating so, usually with a picture of a camera with the red circle/slash over it.

"As the other posters noted, where photography is banned, there will be signs stating so, usually with a picture of a camera with the red circle/slash over it."

Even tho it is posted about not taking photos, you can miss the sign if you are looking ga-ga at the wonderful insides of the church.

I once spent a couple of hours in a church in a smaller town, beautiful art. Took some wonderful photos.

As I left the church, at the entrance, I saw a large sign, in English, NO PHOTOGRAPHY.

Talk about being embarassed.

bluedenim, in addition to the restrictions on the use of Flash in Museums, Churches and Galleries, many of these also prohibit use of Tripods.

You didn't indicate whether you were travelling with just a P&S Camera or an SLR, but I thought I should mention that.

Cheers!

In regards to the use of a flash, I see many people trying to take pictures of huge church interiors using their camera flash. It just doesn't work. You would need much more lighting to get even a poor picture. Add to that the annoyance of bursts of light everywhere, it really ruins the experience.

i ussually try not to use flash in chuches ect mainly out of respect. I am traveling with an slr but will not bring the tripod. I brought a monopod once and found I could barely use it.

I have a lens 2.8 which is pretty good in low light situations.

Following up on Paul's observation: The flash unit on most cameras is not useful beyond about 25 feet.

From above post: "The flash unit on most cameras is not useful beyond about 25 feet."Exactly. How many of you have been baffled by how many people snapping pics in a dark church with ceilings a hundred(s) feet high (or on a beach trying to capture a sunset) just leave their camera on automatic and flash away--apparently oblivious to the fact that their flash doesn't illuminate anything beyond about 25 feet! (Gee, I wonder why that pic didn't turn out like I thought it would?)

agree Jeff and I don't plan on bringing my speedlite as much as i would love to it is just one more thing to lug I am bringing my 24-105 and 17-55 unless I end up buying a 10-22 before I leave.

bluedenim,

Sounds like your photo kit is somewhat similar to mine. I also travel with a 24-105 and I'd highly recommend picking up a 10-22 before you leave. I also have a 70-300, but find that I use the 24-105 & 10-22 the majority of the time.

I'm probably going to leave my 17-55 f2.8 at home this time in the interests of "packing light". Also, the range is well covered by the other Lenses (although they're not as fast).

Incidentally, I usually do pack along my Speedlite, as there have been a few occasions when I was happy to have the extra power of a larger Flash.

Cheers!

Without the flash.. and no tri pod.. in places where you CAN take pictures.. can playing with the WB help in low light? I use that a lot when I take pictures in bright light (the other day on the Freedom trail with friends who visited) I was able to take better pictures when I stepped it down, I was using this "field trip" to practice for our up coming trip to Europe.. (since I am new at this... maybe the WB is the wrong term...however if anyone knows what I am doing...would the opposite work when the lighting is poor.. and using something like a wall to help steady myself??) During my sons basketball games adjusting that helped as well (since the on the body flash is useless for any distance)

I only wished once that day touring with friends in Boston that I had my 70-300... I may just stick with the wide angle and the 28-135 IS lens. Is this a mistake not bringing it? (places we are going to Paris, Italy and Greece)

thank you everyone for the tips.

Viv,

I don't believe that changing the WB (White Balance) will have much effect with photos taken in low light conditions. The WB setting simply changes the "colour temperature" setting that is applied to the JPEG images in order to give the image the best appearance for the type of lighting that is present (daylight, cloudy, tungsten light, etc.). The Auto White Balance is usually fine for the average photo, however it can be changed to match the lighting conditions if desired. No WB settings are applied to RAW images.

The ISO setting will have a far greater impact in low light conditions, as this increases the sensitivity of the digital sensor. Rather than using ISO 200 or 400 when shooting in dimly lit conditions, increasing this to 800 or higher will defintitely help. However, the disadvantage of using very high ISO settings (and this varies by Camera to some extent) is that very high ISO settings often have significant "digital noise" which makes the image look "grainy".

Changing the shutter speed will also help, but with slower shutter speeds and without a Tripod, bracing against a wall or other solid object does helps (as you noted). Image stabilizing Lenses will also help.

Cheers!

I don't think I would want to bring 3 lenss just because the bag I plan to bring probably won't hold three. I want compact.
If I get a 10-22 then I will bring that.
but I was thinking the 17-55 would be great in low light.

to answer the other question it is not so much white balance but working with your ISO and your appeture. I ussually use my camera on AV mode.

I think it is the appeture ( I am just learning ) that I am playing with.. I do adjust the ISO but as another stated it can create a lot of noise.

I think I will just take my two lens and not bring the 70-300. It can be heavy and without it I can take the smaller camera bag. (I like the zippers on that one better for safety reason)

Thank you for your comments to my questions

Viv,

Yes, the aperture is certainly an important factor when shooting in low light conditions, but of course it operates in conjunction with the shutter speed. For use in darker conditions, shooting with the aperture "wide open" will allow the most light. However, the "disadvantage" will be a very narrow depth-of-field. Depending on what you want to capture in the scene, having more of the scene in focus is sometimes desirable.

bluedenim, I could probably get by with just the 24-105 and 10-22, but those would be a very definite minimum! However, it's nice to have the 70-300 "just in case". I just bought a new LowePro bag for my kit, and I'll probably start loading it up later tonight (although I don't leave for a few days yet).

Cheers!

Stuart,

Your selection of Lenses is much the same as those I'm using. I originally used the 17-85, but switched to the 24-105 a few years ago as I wanted the extra range.

Although many Churches and other sites specify "No Tripods", I'm not sure whether that might include a "stealthy" Monopod that looks like a Walking Pole?

As someone mentioned in an earlier Post, I regularly see inconsiderate individuals happily snapping photos (flash & other) in places where photography is clearly forbidden. Perhaps they didn't see the large signs or perhaps they just don't care? Unfortunately, some places just don't have the staff to properly enforce the rules. If they tried the same tactics at the Borghese Gallery or other "strict" locations, I'm sure they'd get a rude awakening very quickly!

Cheers!

Photography is allowed in most churches in Italy, and as many have mentioned, just do so without using your flash in order to be respectful.

In terms of specific churches you asked about, photography is NOT allowed in St. Mark's in Venice, and it is not allowed in the churches which are included on the Chorus Pass in Venice either. As for the duomo in Florence, it's fine.

And as Ken mentioned earlier, I would highly recommend picking up a 10-22mm lens as well, especially if you have a digital SLR that isn't full frame. But traveling, I carry a 10-22mm, 17-85mm, and a 70-300mm, which get the job done well. I use the 17-85mm and the 10-22mm most, and probably get the best and most creative shots with the 10-22mm, just because it comes in handy in tight spaces. And you can easly fit all those in a shoulder bag like a Lowepro Nova and get around.

Anyway, if you have any more q's regarding churches and/or photography, let me know.

a) I've gotten excellent photos in churches in Europe by bracing my DSLR against a pillar or pew. Sometimes I take a stuff-sack in which I put beans (like navy or red or white) to create a beanbag for a brace. (When finished with the beans, I give them to someone for cooking.) I've also used a jacket to cushion the camera. There are various ways to steady the camera without using a tripod.

b) Jeff said the usable range of a flash is about 25 feet; I think that's for most DSLRs. It's even less on point-and-shoot cameras--only about 10-12 feet.

c) Ken, which Lowepro bag did you get? This year I'm thinking of taking my f2.8 80-200 which is a heavy lens but optically outstanding. I'm looking at various bags for it and my three other lenses. Also, a major reason, so I've been told, for not allowing tripods in churches is that they invade space where others may want to walk. A monopod wouldn't do that.

d) Stuart, how heavy is your 70-300? I assume you use a Lowepro Nova bag; does your shoulder get tired carrying your gear in a shoulder bag like that?

Dwayne,

The LowePro bag that I just bought is a Nova 4 AW. These have apparently been discontinued and the replacement model is the Nova 190AW. I had a look at the 190 (which I believe is equivalent in size to the Nova 4), but I felt the padding wasn't quite as robust and I preferred the pocket layout and belt loop feature on the Nova 4. The older Nova models provide three methods for carrying - belt loop, shoulder strap or handle; the newer models have deleted the Belt Loop.

I evaluated various Bags to find the "ideal" model for travelling, and felt the Nova 4 was a good size for carry-on, although it's a tight fit for my photo kit. I usually travel with a 10-22, 24-105 and 70-300 DO (which is very compact!), and those will all fit into the Nova 4, along with the 430-EX Flash unit and 40D body. I'm still having a bit of trouble finding a spot to place the Lens Hood for the 10-22. I doubt if there would be room for a larger zoom?

The Nova 4 also has plastic "feet" on the bottom which keeps the bag off the ground a short distance (especially good if it's wet!).

One of the other nice features about the Nova-series is that both the main compartment and front compartment zippers can be locked together underneath the front flap, making it very difficult for potential thieves to access them. As with all "AW" models, it also has the rain jacket, which is also a good theft deterrent.

I've also got one of the larger Stealth Reporter models for use around home, but it's far too large and too heavy for travelling and won't fit the airport sizing frames.

Cheers!