Does Flash damage artwork?

[phillipb]

The reason I ask this question is that recently I was reading an article in a camera magazine where the writer mentioned that there was no flash photography allowed inside a museum he visited, so I asked myself why would that be? Anyone know?

[Heath Bennett]

The reason I ask this question is that recently I was reading an article in a camera magazine where the writer mentioned that there was no flash photography allowed inside a museum he visited, so I asked myself why would that be? Anyone know?

I have always been told that light damages colour, so with thousands of tourists taking flash photos all day, over time damage could result. Sorry I don't have a more scientific idea

[phillipb]

There must be more to it then that, otherwise they wouldn't have lights directed at the artwork which are on all the time.

[leek]

Ultra-Violet does the most damage to artwork (and indeed fabrics)
Which is why the windows are usually shuttered in stately homes and museums...

Incandescent & tungsten lights used to light art-works emit very little UV, but do emit heat, so must be kept some distance from the artwork...

Not sure about this, but I'm guessing that flashes might be high in UV which is why galleries and museums are sensitive about them...

However, they also allow you to take better pictures which might mean that you don't then buy the postcards in the museum shop...

[phillipb]

However, they also allow you to take better pictures which might mean that you don't then buy the postcards in the museum shop...

Now that sounds like a good reason

[DionM]

Many museums ban it. Even those without artworks. At the royal family museum in Stockholm, they totally ban it, even photos of old swords etc. They also have photodetectors that sense when a flash goes off and a verbal warning comes over the PA in the rooms

I think it does border on so you have to buy postcards. I pulled out my 20D and 50 1.8 and was told no flash photos; I tried to explain I didn't need a flash, but it was all too much, so I just put it away (erred on the side of caution).

[Matt. K]

There is very little UV light in a camera flash and you would have to pop off millions upon millions to damage the artwork. The real reason flash is banned is so that the visitors to the gallery don't have to put up with having their eyeballs strained/abused whilst enjoying the artwork.

[wendellt]

At the Louvre in Paris I saw hundreds of tourists take flash photos of the Mona Lisa(behind protective glass) and many unprotected oil paintings, there were no signs to say no flash photography. So I can only surmise that the french don't care about their most valuable cultural assets or that the mona Lisa and other unprotected paintings are printed fakes for display, the original paintings being stashed away in a castle somewhere in switzerland owned by the Germans.

The louvre tour guide said individual flash photography does not harm the paintings but the combined volume of flashes at any one time from the thousands of tourists that visit the louvre do have a cumulative damaging effect.

I left the museum more dazed and confused then i was before i walked in.

[bago100]

This is a little off topic, but I have been told that, over a period of time, photographic flashes do cause harm to the eyes of birds and animals.

Whether this is true or not, I don't know, but it is something that I try to keep in mind when photographing birds and animals that are kept in captivity for public display.

[kipper]

Wendel, on the Loure Valley in France the Chateaus there have a no flash policy. I had to use my 50 F1.4 to photograph artwork.

[Onyx]

It's great - all the good museums have a no flash policy, which sorta disadvantage the P&S crowd while it poses less of a photographic challenge to DSLRs.

It is mainly as a courtesy to others. Now if only they'll implement a STFU policy on minors I'll be a happy camper. :p

[digitor]

It is mainly as a courtesy to others. Now if only they'll implement a STFU policy on minors I'll be a happy camper. :p

Hah! Good idea - as well as a no-backpack policy. It seems to happen all the time, they'll come and stand right next to you for a couple of seconds, then they will rotate at high speed to look at their equally noisy mate behind them, and the backpack clouts you in the cods with a considerable degree of force....

Cheers

(..still thinking about an otherwise pleasant afternoon at the museum last weekend....)

[redline]

isn't that a rule with photographing newborns?
i heard the flash can damage the eyes of a child

[redline]

isn't that a rule with photographing newborns?
i heard the flash can damage the eyes of a child

[Matt. K]

I have had medical advice to the point that the occasional flash will not harm baby's eyes....but it is better to be safe and minimize exposure. Use bounce flash if possible or better still, window light.

[Manta]

Hah! Good idea - as well as a no-backpack policy. It seems to happen all the time, they'll come and stand right next to you for a couple of seconds, then they will rotate at high speed to look at their equally noisy mate behind them, and the backpack clouts you in the cods with a considerable degree of force....

Zap them with your flash a few times on full strength then point them in the direction of the nearest freeway...