Please sign in to post.

Sistine Chapel ..a observation

If you purchased Vatican museum tickets it also lets you into the chapel. Let alone the museum forces hundreds of people through very narrow doors while they are "upgrading" ... finally you get to the chapel. Spectacular. Silence required. Of course none of the multi-national tourists are silent, so museum personnel get on the PA system and say "SHUT UP" in Italian and English. It really is a place that should be observed in silence. Sardines in a can? ...yes it is like that. Nice paintings though :-)

Posted by
1059 posts

I can remember being able to take pictures in the Sistine Chapel back in the 70's. When I was there this last September, pictures were not allowed. I was told the reason why, but I don't know if it is true. According to what I was told, a Japanese company has the rights to all photographs taken inside the Sistine Chapel because they spent a considerable amount of money restoring the paintings. Is there any truth to this?

Posted by
792 posts

you can buy a post card or take a look via Google. All the same

Posted by
8377 posts

No photos because thousands of flashes damage paint. Photos are allowed in St Peters because there are no paintings - all mosaics.

Posted by
15679 posts

Yosemite, it's true that Nippon TV owned the rights to imagery of the restoration process and completion for a specified time as part of the funding agreement. It's my understanding that after the terms expired, the Vatican kept the no-photos rule for any number of reasons - including the profit made from postcards and books.

As many museums with priceless works allow no-flash photography, the rule isn't because of the risk of damage to the paintings.

Posted by
7010 posts

I agree with Kathy that photography (particularly without flash) does not damage paintings and it's most likely an economic motive (more sales of books and cards). All of the CO2 released by the thousands and thousands of humans being herded through is capable of doing much more damage.

And I have to add that Jim's statement "Nice paintings though" when referring to the Sistine Chapel must be the understatement of the year.

Posted by
2261 posts

As camera technology has continued its forward march, many cameras of the last few years, usually unbeknownst to their owners, are capable of pretty good no-flash shots. When people realize this en masse, that reason for no foto no foto will go away. There is, of course, the remaining issue of dozens of people in a relatively small space trying to grab that selfie, and thus pretty much missing what they "came to see", in particular when you are being moved through in a herd.

Posted by
243 posts

I have been to many art museums across Europe and many if not all, restrict photos; some require no-flash pictures and others restrict all photos. I am not expert in the effects of high intensity lights or flashes on oil paints or other paints. I take the museums at their word that this has a negative effect on the pictures and it makes sense that repetitive flashes, day after day and year after has a negative effect. The problem with allowing photos without flashes is that many people either do not know how to turn off their flash or do not care. I have seen it time after time that someone takes a picture with a flash where it is clearly prohibited. It is much more effective to tell someone no photos when they take their iPhone or camera out, instead of telling them no flashes after they have already flashed away and the damage is done.

Posted by
15679 posts

When people realize this en masse, that reason for no foto no foto
will go away.

Not when the venue wants to make a profit on postcards and souvenir books, however. Or when they simply don't want the chaos of a sardine-packed room of people all trying to shoot above their heads, thus blocking the view for others? I can't even imagine half of those people having selfie sticks!!!!

Amsterdam (so far) has been the one city I've been to where photography of any kind seemed to be universally banned in all of the art museums.

Posted by
2261 posts

"Not when the venue wants to make a profit on postcards and souvenir books"

I absolutely agree, Kathy; I guess my point was more that there are several reasons to not allow flash. Sometimes it's nice to just look, see, and remember what you remember, especially in a crowded venue that's moving or time-limited.

Posted by
15679 posts

Spot on, Dave! :O)
I hate to use flash anyway; snaps look much better without it.

Posted by
1113 posts

I had a friend go on an after hours exclusive tour of the Sistine Chapel a few years ago and they were allowed to take as many pictures to their hearts' content. It makes sense since she was in a small group so it's easier to police the no flash rule.