Why Can't You Use Flash Photography In Museums and Art Galleries?

So you are in a museum or an art gallery. Or some other similar place. It is lovely and quiet, with nice low-level lighting and local lights highlighting all those fantastic exhibits. The whole place has been carefully designed with a bespoke lighting scheme.

And you see something really cool that you would love to photograph. What do you do?

Look is what you so—no more. Do not take a photo. Do not start popping your flash gun. Or the flash-type thing on your phone. 

And in this very ranty episode, I tell you

• Why you should not use your flash in an art gallery or museum
• Why is using flash a waste of time anyway?
• I ask why everyone is photographing the same thing at the same time.
• Why you should stop taking photos of everything
• An alternative plan to stop this nonsense

I also tell you

• What if you use a phone to take photos (just look)
• What I do

All explained in plain English, without the irrelevant detail, in (much) less than 27 (ish) minutes!

What is not to love? How utterly splendid.

Transcript

Why Can't You Use Flash In Museums And Art Galleries?

Hi, and a very warm welcome to Episode 192 of the Photography Explained podcast. I'm your host, Rick, and in each episode, I will try to explain one photographic thing to you in plain English in less than 27 minutes (ish) without the irrelevant details. I'm a professionally qualified photographer based in England with a lifetime of photographic experience, which I share with you in my podcast.

Here is the answery bit

Camera flashes can damage precious works of art. The harsh, excessive light they omit way, way exceeds the carefully controlled lighting levels in museums and art galleries. And the most valuable works of art have glass in front of them to protect them, making taking photos with flash pointless. And every time a flash pops, it ruins the experience for everyone else.

That is why flash photography is banned in museums and art galleries. And quite right, too. 

That was the answery bit - here are some things to think about

OK, this is a question I have been meaning to answer for a long time. Something different, and a shorter episode to boot - how utterly splendid.

Let's start with a question.

Does the light from a flash gun damage museum and gallery exhibits?

The short answer is that yes, the light from a flash gun can damage art gallery and museum exhibits. However, many exhibits will not be affected by the light from a flash gun. When I researched this episode, I found a lot of debate about it.

There are people who state that camera flash directly and adversely affects pigments in a range of items. And some say that this is not the case anymore. There is a lot of debate about this that I do not want to get into.

It is very difficult to quantify the light damage caused by flash guns. If not impossible.

Using a flash gun to take photos in a museum or art gallery may damage exhibits. That is good enough for me. And if it may damage exhibits, ban it. 

I am all for banning the use of electronic flash in all public buildings, to be honest!!

For any establishment that has things that are and are not prone to damage from flash guns used by photographers, what are they meant to do? Have a sign saying that you can use flash to take photos of this item, but also signs saying that you cannot use flash to take photos of that item?

Why are you taking photos of things in museums and art galleries anyway?

This is a much more relevant question. Why are you taking photos of things in museums and galleries? Why not just go to museums and art galleries and enjoy the experience and take your time studying the exhibits? There is nothing worse than looking at an exhibit and having a crowd of people there holding their phones up to take photos, flashes going or not.

I have just been to the National Gallery website. The National Gallery in London is amazing and has some amazing works of art. I have just looked at a Van Gogh, or Van Gogh, depending on where you are, dear listener, collection on their website. See, you don't need to take a photo of a painting - you can look at this amazing stuff online, which should allow you just to enjoy looking at this stuff when you are there.

And you can buy a print of Van Gogh's Sunflowers for £25!!! I did not know that. Blimey £25 quid. Even less reason. And I guess you could take a screenshot or snippet and transfer it to your phone and have a better photo than you would have taken without annoying everyone else.

But no, there are queues of people all taking the same photo of the same thing.

Actually, this thought annoys me. Too many things in life these days are spoiled by people holding phones above their heads and all taking the same photo that they will never do anything with, flashes or the phone equivalent popping all over the place.

I would rather I could stand in front of a painting and just look at it myself - what is wrong with people??

Sorry, I better stick to the subject matter.

What about that picture of the Mona Lisa?

The Mona Lisa, painted by Leonardo Da Vinci, is behind bulletproof glass. So take a photo with a flash gun and what do you think you will get? A big blob of white light where the painting is. So, there is no point in photographing the Mona Lisa with a flash gun. No point at all. And this will apply to many works of art.

What about other types of exhibits - Plants and Animals?

Museums and art galleries. That got me thinking about other similar places - zoos, aquariums, planetariums, that kind of thing.

Imagine a place that has live animals. You take a photo with a flashgun of some delicate thing that naturally lives in a dark environment, which will not end well. No, some animals are sensitive to light. And the intense light from a flash gun can cause serious damage.

And would you take a photo of a lion using flash? You would hardly expect the lion to be happy with that, would you?

And the other animals - people

Yes, what about us humans? We are the source of the problem of flash photography in museums and art galleries. So there is a certain irony to the fact that the only people being affected by us humans taking photos with flashguns are, erm, us humans (and other animals, of course, but I have covered them already).

It's just a matter of common courtesy

Everything about this tells us that using flash to take photos in museums and art galleries, and indeed in many other places, is downright rude, selfish and disrespectful. There, I have said it. And that is not me being a miserable old git. It is down to plain, good old-fashioned respect for others.

Staff in galleries and museums

Think of the people who work in these places, art gallery and museum professionals. Imagine working all day in some controlled light environment but having your day constantly interrupted by the blindingly bright flashes of cameras. No one should have to go through that. This shows a complete lack of respect for museum staff.

And let's not forget tour guides, who will probably experience this flash-popping nightmare more than most.

Surveillance cameras

Flashes popping all the time are hardly going to help security guards. No, these folks provide a very valuable service, protecting the precious exhibits and us. So let's think about them too. Imagine trying to find an incident on CCTV amongst endless flash pops - a nightmare.

Phone photography brings new challenges.

Before we had phones with cameras, we had cameras. And people into photography had cameras. And people who wanted to record a holiday had cameras. And that was it. I remember being in the significant minority, taking photos with my camera in various places.

But these days, everyone has a phone with a camera. And everyone seems to be taking the same photos of the same things. What is the point of this? As I said before, you can view this stuff online, so what is the point of taking these photos?

People who take photos with phones, with respect, are less likely to be aware of the flash on a phone camera and the impact that it may have. So phones have compounded the problem massively and given flashguns to the masses without their understanding of the implications.

These problems have no doubt gotten worse in recent years, and that trajectory is only going one way now. At least a photographer with a flash probably had an understanding of what they were doing, and also of the impact on others of what they were doing.

And now the talky bit

Blimey, I got quite angry writing this! I love photography, and I do, of course. And I love museums, art galleries, I absolutely love them. I love them as buildings, of course, for what is in them and what they are trying to do, which is preserve all the wonderful stuff they hold so we can enjoy it all.

And this is not just me being miserable. It isn't. It is me thinking of everyone and those precious things that good folks are trying to preserve for us to enjoy.

I have to ask the question. Why does everyone have to take photos of everything? And that is me as a photographer talking now! What are you going to do with the photos? And the use of flash is tricky at best, so if you don't really know what you are doing, you are probably going to create rubbish anyway.

If photography bans were suggested at all such places, I would fully support this. I see problems with having a flash photography policy; people taking photos with their phones in low-light conditions will inevitably create episodes of flash; it is just going to happen. I know that we can get photos without flash in these environments using digital cameras, but I am all for these being banned as well!

I hate the traffic jams caused by hoards of people holding their phones and photographing the same thing.

So photography bans it is, then! That will also stop the endless sharing of these precious items on social media, which has to be a good thing. If we apply this equally to local museums as well as national landmarks, even better.

And I haven't even mentioned the copyright issues attached to taking these photos, with flash or without. 

Right that is that sorted.

Let professional photographers take professional digital photographs and put them online for all to see - this is a much better solution. And let's maintain each and every historic place and the exhibits within. Let's not forget that flash can damage not only exhibits but also parts of the building fabric too.

Nothing against amateur photographers - nothing at all. But we need to draw a line somewhere.

And let people buy digital images at reasonable prices, meaning there is no need to take rubbish photos themselves with their phones.

With the way we capture everything on our phones, I see less and less demand for gift shop books; digital files, for me, are a much better option going forward, which is a shame, I have to say. But if this does not happen, I fear these places are fighting a losing battle - we all need to move with the times, be they good or bad.

Ban photography and preserve things for future generations to look at - what an utterly splendid idea. And we will begin the demise of selfie sticks in art galleries and museums, too! 

What if I use a phone to take photos?

Don't. Just go to galleries, museums, and all those good places, and enjoy them. You don't have to photograph everything you see; try just enjoying the experience of being there. There, I have said it.

The chances of getting high-quality images of a famous painting with a phone are quite low anyway and nil when one is behind glass.

What do I do?

I follow the rules. I am a good boy me. I have one flashgun as a backup in case I need it in a building. But I will never use a flashgun in a place where it is not allowed. I don't like the light from flash anyway.

if I were to take a photo of something in a museum or gallery, I would use natural light, and I would also find out from the copyright holder what uses are acceptable for such a photo. We need to respect the copyright holder and the original artist who created that work of art anyway, in my opinion.

And I need to go back to the National Gallery and the Natural History Museum, two of my favourite places, and remind myself of their wonder. There t least some good has come out of this ranty company episode!!

Some thoughts from the last episode

Take care of your lenses. That was the key message. And use a lens hood. And a lens cap. Why wouldn't you? Lenses are not cheap and contain glass and moving parts. So they need looking after.

Next episode

OK - how do I clean my camera sensor? Yes, I have been asked to cover this, and I will. With a big fat caveat and me buying some stuff to do this, I am going to learn how to do this and tell you how! More on the next episode.

Ask me a question.

If you have a question you would like me to answer, email me at sales@rickmcevoyphotography.co.uk or visit the podcast website, photographyexplainedpodcast.com/start. Or text me from the podcast feed.

If you want to say hi, please do – I love hearing from my listeners.

OK - I am done.

This episode was brought to you by

which I consumed before I settled down in my homemade, acoustically cushioned recording emporium.

I've been Rick McEvoy. Thanks again very much for listening to my small but perfectly formed podcast (it says here) and for giving me 27 minutes of your valuable time. After I have edited out the mistakes and other bad stuff, this episode will be about 24 minutes long.

Thanks for listening

Take care and stay safe.

Cheers from me, Rick