Do flashed really damage stuff?

[Picture North Carolina]

I was asked to photograph in two different museums, but found out today they do not allow photography.

Does flash actually damage stuff?

For the record, we're not talking the Louvre here. I realize that flash does affect oils, paints, etc. That's a given.

These museums contain antique toys (mechanical) and other solid items such as pottery, old guns, etc.

Is a flash really going to damage an old bullet laying in a display case?

/Dan

[Richard_Miami]

This is interesting. I have shot Antique Toy shows in the past: http://www.rsphotogallery.com/gallery/3288960

All of the shots in that gallery are WITH FLASH. The only difference I can see is that these were dealers and not a museum. But you would think the dealers would worry about protecting their merchadise if flash were an issue. I was careful to ask each dealer for permission to shoot their goods - and they were all VERY enthusiastic and courteous. Not one said "no".

[Bill Roberts]

I was asked to photograph in two different museums, but found out today they do not allow photography.

Does flash actually damage stuff?

For the record, we're not talking the Louvre here. I realize that flash does affect oils, paints, etc. That's a given.

These museums contain antique toys (mechanical) and other solid items such as pottery, old guns, etc.

Is a flash really going to damage an old bullet laying in a display case?

/Dan


In reality I'd doubt it would make the slightest difference no matter how many times it was photographed with flash.

But I guess it's just a blanket ban that they introduce. It's accepted that flash could damage delicate paintings and so on, particularly 1000's of flashes over a period of time. And I'd imagine it's too hard to administer the rule in anything but a very general way. So basically ALL flash gets banned.

Tough, almost certainly unwarranted, but I suppose understandable.

cheers
Bill

[gofer]

I was asked to photograph in two different museums, but found out today they do not allow photography.

Does flash actually damage stuff?

For the record, we're not talking the Louvre here. I realize that flash does affect oils, paints, etc. That's a given.

These museums contain antique toys (mechanical) and other solid items such as pottery, old guns, etc.

Is a flash really going to damage an old bullet laying in a display case?

/Dan

Was it they don't allow photography or they don't allow flash photography? Many museums will not allow flash photography simply because it is distracting to other people. They are usually quite happy with non flash photography.

[Picture North Carolina]

Was it they don't allow photography or they don't allow flash photography? Many museums will not allow flash photography simply because it is distracting to other people. They are usually quite happy with non flash photography.

Actually, I think she said photography. There is no trademark or copyright issue. It's not a private museum, it's city-run about city history.

However, if flash is the reason for the ban I can understand why it would be easier just to ban photography. The average consumer with a P&S camera would probably not know how to disable the flash, assuming all models can disable to begin with. /Dan

[Tee Why]

I would think repeated exposure to high intensity light may fade the paint or what not over time, much like sun light, but to a lesser degree. I'm just guessing here.

I could see why they would not allow it while it's open as to not distract from others viewing the works though.

[LBaldwin]

Yes electronic flash does do damage, it produces a crap load of UV which of course all documents absorb like crazy. The ban is not so much your gear as much as it is the cumulative effect of thousands of tourists each day.

Les

[20droger]

LBaldwin is right. Flash does do some damage to almost anything it illuminates. While the damage from any one flash is virtually negilible, the effect accumulates over time, and thousands or tens of thousands of flashes can produce noticable damage. Even to a bullet in a display case.

Think of it this way. A single kiss on a solid marble slab produces negligible erosion. However, in St. Peters, the marble slab in front of the tomb has been worn away over six inches by the kisses of the pilgrims.

Negiligible is only negligible in small quantities.

[nutsnbolts]

LBaldwin is right. Flash does do some damage to almost anything it illuminates. While the damage from any one flash is virtually negilible, the effect accumulates over time, and thousands or tens of thousands of flashes can produce noticable damage. Even to a bullet in a display case.

Think of it this way. A single kiss on a solid marble slab produces negligible erosion. However, in St. Peters, the marble slab in front of the tomb has been worn away over six inches by the kisses of the pilgrims.

Negiligible is only negligible in small quantities.

So so so so true. I actually touched this myself. Although I had to think how much germ is on that. :lol:

[LBaldwin]

Before you do the shoot get in touch with the head curator to examine options for photographic purposes. Some will allow flash with UV filters over the strobe heads and some will allow with Hot lights only. BUT before you do anything get INSURANCE that covers at least 2 million in actual damages. That way if you or an assistant breaks an art piece you are covered for most of it.

Many public places require a rider on your exisiting insurance and some even require a specific policy making them the beneficiary should you ^^%(^% the Mona Lisa!!

Les

[20droger]

So so so so true. I actually touched this myself. Although I had to think how much germ is on that. :lol:
Kissing is always dangerous. Why, hundreds have died from kissing!

Of course, hundreds of thousands are dying to be kissed!

[transcend]

Flashes can damage paintings, books, finishes on old pottery, wood etc over time. Your 1 flash won't. But the 10 000 others combined they would have to allow will.