bmattock
Mentor
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012501609.html
I have to say that I don't really understand the logic here. The story goes on to say that flash photography is already banned, and it is the flash that causes damage to the documents - however, people seem to be ignoring the ban. So this blanket ban does what, exactly? People who are not causing the problem will now be banned from taking photographs, but how does that stop the people who were causing the problem from continuing to do so?
Typical...if people ignore the law, make another law. Eventually, people who are not the problem are the ones impacted. How about enforcing the rules they already have? I must be too simple to understand the delicate workings of government.
I have to say that I don't really understand the logic here. The story goes on to say that flash photography is already banned, and it is the flash that causes damage to the documents - however, people seem to be ignoring the ban. So this blanket ban does what, exactly? People who are not causing the problem will now be banned from taking photographs, but how does that stop the people who were causing the problem from continuing to do so?
Typical...if people ignore the law, make another law. Eventually, people who are not the problem are the ones impacted. How about enforcing the rules they already have? I must be too simple to understand the delicate workings of government.
Last edited:
user237428934
User deletion pending
Most people are just too stupid to turn off the flash. So if you ban photography in general, there can't be a flash fired accidentally anymore.
Can they fine somebody because he accidentally used a flash? Don't think so. So the museum does not have a lot of other options.
Can they fine somebody because he accidentally used a flash? Don't think so. So the museum does not have a lot of other options.
MartinP
Mentor
They could only allow cameras without flashes in the exhibitions . . . like most film RF's and SLR's for example !
:angel:
Last edited:
venchka
Mentor
That is what I was thinking. Most logical. Too logical for the USGummermint types.
Paul T.
Mentor
No no no, this isn't about the museum protecting its exhibits, it's about the dead-hand of bloated government seeking to curtail our civil liberties!
kuzano
Mentor
Shirley you are joshing here BM.....
Shirley you are joshing here BM.....
Hey!!! a four word Oxymoron.
Replace delicate with Ham-Handed.
Was your post ripe with "biting sarcasm" methinks?
Shirley you are joshing here BM.....
Hey!!! a four word Oxymoron.
Replace delicate with Ham-Handed.
Was your post ripe with "biting sarcasm" methinks?
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
Here's all they need to do...just display copies/fakes of these documents and let the masses shoot away...most people don't know what the originals look like and hey what's three more phonies in Washington...
:bang:
:bang:
bmattock
Mentor
I'm saying that a lot of people run red lights. So, since we apparently cannot stop all the scofflaws from running red lights, the best solution is to ban driving.
That's the 'cure' that is being imposed here. Some people flout the rules, whether due to ignorance or by design, and apparently the museum is at a loss as to how to enforce their own rules. So, a blanket ban on photography.
There is little point to having a rule which you will not enforce. An alternative scenario might be to notify people that flash photography is prohibited, and ticket those who do it. A $500 fine might serve to get the point across. And then those who can follow rules won't be punished for the misdeeds of some.
That's the 'cure' that is being imposed here. Some people flout the rules, whether due to ignorance or by design, and apparently the museum is at a loss as to how to enforce their own rules. So, a blanket ban on photography.
There is little point to having a rule which you will not enforce. An alternative scenario might be to notify people that flash photography is prohibited, and ticket those who do it. A $500 fine might serve to get the point across. And then those who can follow rules won't be punished for the misdeeds of some.
bmattock
Mentor
Here's all they need to do...just display copies/fakes of these documents and let the masses shoot away...most people don't know what the originals look like and hey what's three more phonies in Washington...
What makes you think the originals are on display?
bmattock
Mentor
Close enough. Flogging might suffice.
Seriously, though. This type of behavior is rife in our government, and I dislike it. People flout rules, disobey laws which they find inconvenient, and instead of actually enforcing those rules, the solution seems often to be a blanket ban, which deprives the law-abiding and the rule-following of harmless enjoyment (or exercise of their rights, depending upon whether we're banning photographs in a museum or, say, personal ownership of firearms). I say enforce the rules which exist before seeking to expand the aegis of government. Even in small things, such as this.
wgerrard
Mentor
Another alternative is to simply decree no cameras of any kind in the room where these documents are displayed, and then temporarily retain all cameras from those who enter. This is done in a number of other facilities around the world, and the planet has not evaporated.
pagpow
Well-known
Hey guys,
I get it that government is not too popular here, and I certainly am irritated that I cannot shoot w/o flash (I never use flash, anyhoo) because folks don't know how to control their cameras.
But how much do you think it would cost to inspect all cameras for flash -- ie be selective. Or find the person who flashed a P&S in a crowd?
I completely agree that some rules either do not make sense or grate on people, well ... even me. And it irritates me greatly that I am kept from doing things carefully because others do not exercise either care or common sense. But we seem to live in an era where we (collectively) are unwilling to pay for services, even protective services, but want individual attention.
I'm already ducking for cover and doubting the wisdom of posting this. Before the flame wars start -- please remember, I am old, small, weak, and never, ever carry a flash -- and I am going back to the threads dealing w. equipment and its use.
I get it that government is not too popular here, and I certainly am irritated that I cannot shoot w/o flash (I never use flash, anyhoo) because folks don't know how to control their cameras.
But how much do you think it would cost to inspect all cameras for flash -- ie be selective. Or find the person who flashed a P&S in a crowd?
I completely agree that some rules either do not make sense or grate on people, well ... even me. And it irritates me greatly that I am kept from doing things carefully because others do not exercise either care or common sense. But we seem to live in an era where we (collectively) are unwilling to pay for services, even protective services, but want individual attention.
I'm already ducking for cover and doubting the wisdom of posting this. Before the flame wars start -- please remember, I am old, small, weak, and never, ever carry a flash -- and I am going back to the threads dealing w. equipment and its use.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I doubt that they are...that doesn't bother me...if they are fakes then let them shoot away...
I wouldn't know what the originals look like so I wouldn't know if I'm looking at a fake...and I really don't care...it's the words that matter most not the paper they're written on...
antiquark
Derek Ross
Sounds like something that's unenforcible.
For example, imagine the following exchange:
Tourist: (raises camera)
Guard: Excuse me sir, have you disabled the flash on that thing?
Tourist: Yes, the flash is turned off.
Guard: Very well.
Tourist: (**FLASH**) Oops, hehehe.
Guard: (shakes his head.)
From the article:
Last edited:
Nando
Well-known
This is actually one of the reasons why I went back to shooting with an RF. In Portugal, the use of flash and tripods are banned in many places. I have no problems shooting with an rangefinder. The only time I've been asked to stop shooting was in a room at a monastery. I neglected to read the sign on the wall. Apparently the objects contained in the room were too holy to be recorded on film!
bmattock
Mentor
Lots of people live in systems that are not free, and the planet has not evaporated. Many of them are quite happy in various positions of involuntary servitude, some are treated quite well by their masters.
bmattock
Mentor
Except where the 'shakes his head' is, replace with 'writes him a $500 citation, payable immediately.' How is that unenforceable?
rogerchristian
Established
We once toured an historic home in Mobile, Alabama, near my home town. I asked about whether many people tried to take pictures in the place, signs were posted for no photographs. The guide said "one flash picture is equal to the ultraviolet exposure of 10,000 hours of sunlight". That is a true quote , and as I mentally rolled my eyes...
There is actually an ORIGINAL Constitution and Declaration of Independence??? Based on the current climate, I thought were it was all fake anyway!
There is actually an ORIGINAL Constitution and Declaration of Independence??? Based on the current climate, I thought were it was all fake anyway!
