Flash in museums

[Jacco]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

I'm sure he was referring to the more correct term, color temperature, which through the Earth's atmosphere on a clear midday is about 6500 °K. So, I hope your little semantic ruse made you feel superior.

Thanks for your concern. Funny you should say that. I can see you know the mechanics.

[Not4wood]

I would figure that the word Forgery would come into play. Having an ancient pasterpiece worth millions and having someone come over and photograph it and then they would be able to make copies at there own leisure.

You could send it out to MPIX and have them print it on canvas for you as well.

[after]

Mark, that's an excellent point, and beyond just a canvas print, I would imagine that even more of a fear would be having an artist actually paint a duplicate... Did you ever see that movie... The Thomas Crown Affair... super cool show

Originally Posted by Jacco

Thanks for your concern. Funny you should say that. I can see you know the mechanics.

Sorry Jacco, I probably should have explained color temperature in my original post, had I known you didn't understand the concept and that you were going to get confused... I would have provided you with more information on the subject. Well this should answer most of your questions: Color temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you get a chance to listen to the audio link that I posted earlier (http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/02.../qq141202e.mp3), if you are wanting to get into photographing artwork, it might be of more interest to you, it explains the science behind how paintings are harmed by flash, and it also explains why some paintings/artwork are more susceptable than others, etc.. Super interesting stuff. There is a huge opportunity for photographers to team up with museums, and if you haven't tried that yet, it could be a lucrative venture for both. I have had a small taste of it, and I think that it is worthy of continuing (especially if you are very knowledgeable in art & history {as I am}).

[Not4wood]

Originally Posted by after

Mark, that's an excellent point, and beyond just a canvas print, I would imagine that even more of a fear would be having an artist actually paint a duplicate... Did you ever see that movie... The Thomas Crown Affair... super cool show .

Thomas Crown Affair was a great movie. I never did get to see the remake, but if its as good as the original its a hoot. Forgery is still a fake no matter how its made, but having an artist paint a dup of an original is kinda scary to history. Dont they have trouble finding out if a painting is original after many years and what was hanging in a fancy Museum was discovered to be a fake. I cant remember when/time involved but it happened not too long ago.

[after]

Actually they are always finding paintings to be fake that they thought were real.... AND finding paintings to be real that they thought were fake... LOL

Here's one story I found quite amusing though: BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Cave art hoax hits British Museum

[Jacco]

Originally Posted by after

Sorry Jacco, I probably should have explained color temperature in my original post, had I known you didn't understand the concept and that you were going to get confused... I would have provided you with more information on the subject. Well this should answer most of your questions: Color temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you get a chance to listen to the audio link that I posted earlier (http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/02.../qq141202e.mp3)

Yes, and it's all very plausible sounding theorizing. But I didn't hear whether any of that has actually been put to the the test with noticeable (to the museum visitor) adverse effects.
It's just FUD to me.

if you are wanting to get into photographing artwork, it might be of more interest to you, it explains the science behind how paintings are harmed by flash,

Theory again.

and it also explains why some paintings/artwork are more susceptable than others, etc.. Super interesting stuff.

More theory.

There is a huge opportunity for photographers to team up with museums, and if you haven't tried that yet, it could be a lucrative venture for both.

I don't doubt it.
Especially if that is 'protected business' by forbidding the public to photograph and/or flash the objects...!
But that M.O. and those business morals don't sound like the kind of business I would like to be associated with, thank you.

I have had a small taste of it, and I think that it is worthy of continuing (especially if you are very knowledgeable in art & history {as I am}).

You sound like one of The Club...

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Jacco

Yes, and it's all very plausible sounding theorizing. But I didn't hear whether any of that has actually been put to the the test with noticeable (to the museum visitor) adverse effects.
It's just FUD to me.

Most museum visitors aren't around long enough to see UV effects. It's not like the painting suddenly fades every time a flash goes off. Want to see the effects? Take two of the same picture, hang on in a spot that doesn't get sunlight and the other in a place that see direct sunlight every day. Compare them in a year.

Especially if that is 'protected business' by forbidding the public to photograph and/or flash the objects...!
But that M.O. and those business morals don't sound like the kind of business I would like to be associated with, thank you.

Their ball, their rules. Deal with it.

You sound like one of The Club...

I find it a bit ironic that, a day ago, you didn't get what he was talking about regarding temperature and now you're suddenly enough of an expert to declare hundreds of scientists and decades of research as "FUD".

[Jacco]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

Most museum visitors aren't around long enough to see UV effects. It's not like the painting suddenly fades every time a flash goes off. Want to see the effects? Take two of the same picture, hang on in a spot that doesn't get sunlight and the other in a place that see direct sunlight every day. Compare them in a year.

That's only half the test!
Now hang a third copy out of the sun but flash it twice per second for that same year – simulating millions of visitors' flashes – and see whether that has an effect, and how much.
That is a practical test.

Their ball, their rules. Deal with it.

No thanks, I don't deal with organised crime, and want to be a part of it even less.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Jacco

No thanks, I don't deal with organised crime, and want to be a part of it even less.

So it would be a fair guess that you're not the most objective source here. Point taken.

[chaz345]

On the whole UV in flash thing I've gotn just one thing to say.

Fashion models.
If there really were an appreciable amount of UV in the typical camera flash, would the eyes of nearly every model on the planed get friend within a pretty short time with all the flashes they are exposed to?

[Jacco]

Exactly!

[Jacco]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

So it would be a fair guess that you're not the most objective source here.

And you are . . . ?
LOL!

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by chaz345

On the whole UV in flash thing I've gotn just one thing to say.

Fashion models.
If there really were an appreciable amount of UV in the typical camera flash, would the eyes of nearly every model on the planed get friend within a pretty short time with all the flashes they are exposed to?

That sentence makes no sense but I'm guessing you meant "every model on the planet gets fried".

You're forgetting one thing: humans were designed to survive in a UV rich environment. As an debate point, it fails miserably.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Jacco

And you are . . . ?
LOL!

Check my posts for facts vs hyperbole and biased opinion.

In fact, go back through this thread. I never actually said that the museums were justified in their theories. I just said that the effects would hardly been seen overnight or noticeable from the average museum visitor.

You're the one reaching conclusions without providing sources and citing museums as nothing more than "organized crime". That's a significant bias.

[Jacco]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

You're the one reaching conclusions without providing sources

It's 'the museums' that posit that UV from flash light is detrimental to their collections. So it's up to THEM to back up that posit.
They can't/don't/haven't. Ever yet. They're just shouting their heads off.

I said their posit is nonsense. I said that UV is not noticeably detrimental to their collections. That's a negative. FYI: a negative cannot be proven.

and citing museums as nothing more than "organized crime". That's a significant bias.

They all lie through their teeth and back each other up to 'protect' their business. That's not a bias, that's the definition of organized crime.

[after]

It is silly to say that paintings are not damaged by uv. They are, just as photographs are... Those that argue to anything less is goofy...

Not all paintings are made the same. As the audio article I supplied specified, many paintings are made with different materials, some more susceptible to uv damage than others. Some paints contain natural pigments... paint, like everything else, has changed over time. For those that have never held an image that was 300 years old (or more), or held pottery that was thousands of years old... you aren't going to have an appreciation for keeping these artifacts for future generations... Just like most aren't allowed to use flash and take a picture of the constitution, or the original american flag... these things are far too delicate already. This isn't about museums trying to be difficult for any reason