No Photos! at the Louvre

Martin a écrit :

> How about the Leiden area? or on the coast?

Leiden looks a bit far out, as I plan to join the throngs of cyclists.
I will trade in my Alps-ready full-suspension disk-brake steed for an
all steel one-speed monster!!

Central Delft would be nice, but a bit far for BSN :-(

Where on the coast?

G;

Martin a écrit :

> On 30 Sep 2005 04:21:20 -0700, jeremyrh.geom wrote:
>
> >Martin a écrit :
> >
> >> How about the Leiden area? or on the coast?
> >
> >Leiden looks a bit far out, as I plan to join the throngs of cyclists.
>
> Leiden is not far from Voorschoten. My daughter used to cycle to
> school - occasionally. Most of the time my two used the school bus
> provided by my ex-employer. AFAIR BSN also provides school buses.
>
> >I will trade in my Alps-ready full-suspension disk-brake steed for an
> >all steel one-speed monster!!
>
> You need gears to counteract the gale force headwinds and horizontal
> rain/snow/sleet you will encounter whichever direction you travel.
>
> >
> >Central Delft would be nice, but a bit far for BSN :-(
>
> Pick somewhere within easy cycling distance of a railway station and
> on the school bus route.
>
> >
> >Where on the coast?
>
> Where are you planning to work?

Sunny Rijswijk, hence too far (?) to cycle from Leiden.

G;

I await your cite as proof too that flash photography is harmless to
paintings... Sorry Jack; even you *and* Mixi's statements together
don't add up to science...<g>

Tim K

"Jack Campin - bogus address" <bogus@purr.> wrote in message
news:bogus-E14945.01151430092005@news.news.demon.net...
> > DO not many museums install UV filtering glass in galleries and/or
in
> > front of precious paintings? Have you never been in a watercolor
> > gallery where special subdued non-natural lighting is the norm?
> > Please cite any scientific evidence that flash photography is
> > harmless to paintings...
>
> Please cite any scientific evidence that looking crosseyed at
> seagulls doesn't turn you gay.
>
> I gave you the evidence. There isn't enough energy there to do
> anything detectable, not even with thousands of flashes per day.
>

Better get the Mixidictionary out again; prohibited in mine means
forbidden... That you 'do not recall' indicates more about your mental
capacity than reality.

Tim K

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@> wrote in message
news:dvbpj1pfqr6adt38b8d18iog5npht61mit@...
> Timothy Kroesen writes:
>
> > IIRC they were visibly placed in front of some gallery entrances,
past
> > where you have your ticket checked.
>
> I don't recall seeing any such signs in the recent past.
>
> > I will further quote the English visitors guide I got in May and am
> > holding in my hand:
> >
> > "REGULATIONS for Visitors
> >
> > Flash photography is strongly discouraged. Taking photos is
prohibited
> > in certain rooms. (Article 26 of the museum's regulations)..."
>
> Yes, and it used to say "prohibited." In other words, you can use
> flash.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@> wrote in message
news:anuqj1dflli0v79iceiik9tnpclomml1dq@...
> Timothy Kroesen writes:
>


In fact sensitive materials , such as fabrics are very often stored
in the dark in cabinets dimly illuminated when the visitor
pushes a button for exactly this reason.

Many such items in the collection of the Victoria and Albert
museum are only on display a few days a year for this
very reason and then replaced by another item from store.

Oil paintings are usually quite robust wrt to light damage
but watercolors tend to fade badly and the dyes used
for clothing before the 19th century are very prone to fading.

Keith

I never said surrender for a raincheck or they will forcibly take the
camera from you; though that may be allowable in the case you
photographed copyrighted materials to delete the images or confiscate
film alone. I never even suggested at forcibly taking the camera or
film. They may certainly and rightfully 'citizens arrest' you then
call in the police to make it official, your film/camera held as
evidence. they may certainly demand you leave at any time; or enforce
that as above... You are a paid visitor under contract via your ticket
agreement to abide by the house rules. You signify to this fact via
voluntarily paying for the ticket. Works the same in a movie theatre.

Tim K

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@> wrote in message
news:ghuqj19envnfgdgihk4e71bvab63hc582c@...
> Timothy Kroesen writes:
>
> > Not *theft* if they give you a check so it may be returned later,
> > obviously.
>
> It doesn't matter whether they give you a check or not. If they
> confiscate the camera, they've robbed you, and they can go to prison
> for that.
>
> > I'm sure such policy would also be publicly posted in
> > advance.
>
> You'd have to agree to it explicitly in advance as well.
>
> But in fact such a policy is virtually never included in any type of
> admission agreement. It's too dangerous.
>
> > If you didn't like 'those apples' I'm sure you'd likely be
> > allowed to leave immediately with your camera in tow...
>
> Yes.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

How about five meters away photographing their Honey standing at the
rail, Mr. telescopic eyes... You'd probably misinterpret the framing
from your perspective and see only the flash. Not that you'd visualize
a romantic photo of any sort to the defense of your statement to be
sure.

Furthermore even my camera may fire the flash on auto mode yet still
capture a good picture under the emitted naturally available light since
the *exposure meter* would still select the best available combination
of shutter/ISO equivalent even though no flash light may reflect back.

Tim K

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@> wrote in message
news:2tuqj1155uieimnpfqjevhnn9qhsfdk0em@...
> Timothy Kroesen writes:
>
> > You are ASSuming they weren't taking pictures of a closer subject on
the
> > top...
>
> I'm not sure what sort of subject would be twenty metres away from the
> summit in open air.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@> wrote:

>The Rev Gaston writes:
>
>> So what should be done with them? Locked away where no-one can benefit
>> from them?
>
>If you want to preserve them for the longest possible time, yes,
>that's exactly what should be done. If you want people to enjoy them,
>you'll have to make a sacrifice and realize that they will eventually
>be damaged by their public exhibition.

Some compromise is possible. The National Gallery of Ireland has a
collection of Turner watercolours which is locked away for eleven
months of the year and displayed in low light in January (the regime
was instituted before galleries had modern means of controlling the
display environment).

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@> wrote:

>Padraig Breathnach writes:
>
>> Some compromise is possible. The National Gallery of Ireland has a
>> collection of Turner watercolours which is locked away for eleven
>> months of the year and displayed in low light in January (the regime
>> was instituted before galleries had modern means of controlling the
>> display environment).
>
>They could do extremely high-resolution scans and then display
>replicas in place of the real thing except on special occasions.
>
They could. I think that most viewers would not detect the difference.

Similarly, the Mona Lisa might be protected by displaying one of the
better reproductions in its place, and your stereotypical
"me-looking-at-the-Mona-Lisa" photograph would not suffer.

>There isn't really a good reason to display the originals, anyway, as
>they are just two-dimensional images.
>
There isn't a really good reason not to display the originals, either.
I'm reasonably confident that Turner painted them so that they might
be seen.

Scans could be made as backup so that when the originals perish the
image is not lost forever.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@> wrote in message
news:ghuqj19envnfgdgihk4e71bvab63hc582c@...
> Timothy Kroesen writes:
>
>> Not *theft* if they give you a check so it may be returned later,
>> obviously.
>
> It doesn't matter whether they give you a check or not. If they
> confiscate the camera, they've robbed you, and they can go to prison
> for that.

You still haven't cited any such law, and now you're
moving on to the sentencing!