I Miss my Viewfinder !

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

They know it is worse due to intensity and of course the total number
of flashes will be quite high the more valuable or famous a picture is.

But it's not worse.

If you take a picture with flash at 1/250 second, and the same picture without
flash would take 1 second, then the total energy of the flash is no greater
than that of 1 second of ambient light. Only the total energy matters. Whether
it comes as a flash or as a one-second duration of dimmer light does not
matter. That's what the studies show.

which studies are those? cite them.

let's do a study. how about you point a flash at your eyes and fire it
a bunch of times. do that for hours on end. let's see just how much
damage occurs.

Thus, each flash is worth perhaps an eighth of a second of natural light. And
the natural light is always present, so it actually does a lot more damage
than flash does.

except that the flash is in addition to existing light.

also, flash annoys other patrons. i'd hate to visit a museum with
snap-happy tourists where a flash goes off every few seconds. ugh.

On 2011-06-03 10:43:46 -0700, nospam said:

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

They know it is worse due to intensity and of course the total number
of flashes will be quite high the more valuable or famous a picture is.

But it's not worse.

If you take a picture with flash at 1/250 second, and the same picture without
flash would take 1 second, then the total energy of the flash is no greater
than that of 1 second of ambient light. Only the total energy matters. Whether
it comes as a flash or as a one-second duration of dimmer light does not
matter. That's what the studies show.

which studies are those? cite them.

let's do a study. how about you point a flash at your eyes and fire it
a bunch of times. do that for hours on end. let's see just how much
damage occurs.

Thus, each flash is worth perhaps an eighth of a second of natural light. And
the natural light is always present, so it actually does a lot more damage
than flash does.

except that the flash is in addition to existing light.

also, flash annoys other patrons. i'd hate to visit a museum with
snap-happy tourists where a flash goes off every few seconds. ugh.

That is the major reason for banning flash in most museums.

The majority of visitors to museums are not archivists, they are
souvenir happy snap shooters, who for the most part would be better off
buying a museum guide with good prints, or as many museums have today a
DVD containing shots of their collection.

Archive photographs of the majority of exhibits are made under
controlled professional lighting and not a single consumer flash which
multiplied by the number of compact cameras and phone cameras will only
add to the annoyance of all visitors.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 6/3/2011 2:08 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-06-03 10:43:46 -0700, nospam said:

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

They know it is worse due to intensity and of course the total number
of flashes will be quite high the more valuable or famous a picture is.

But it's not worse.

If you take a picture with flash at 1/250 second, and the same
picture without
flash would take 1 second, then the total energy of the flash is no
greater
than that of 1 second of ambient light. Only the total energy
matters. Whether
it comes as a flash or as a one-second duration of dimmer light does not
matter. That's what the studies show.

which studies are those? cite them.

let's do a study. how about you point a flash at your eyes and fire it
a bunch of times. do that for hours on end. let's see just how much
damage occurs.

Thus, each flash is worth perhaps an eighth of a second of natural
light. And
the natural light is always present, so it actually does a lot more
damage
than flash does.

except that the flash is in addition to existing light.

also, flash annoys other patrons. i'd hate to visit a museum with
snap-happy tourists where a flash goes off every few seconds. ugh.

That is the major reason for banning flash in most museums.

The majority of visitors to museums are not archivists, they are
souvenir happy snap shooters, who for the most part would be better off
buying a museum guide with good prints, or as many museums have today a
DVD containing shots of their collection.

Archive photographs of the majority of exhibits are made under
controlled professional lighting and not a single consumer flash which
multiplied by the number of compact cameras and phone cameras will only
add to the annoyance of all visitors.


Part true. cumulative flash will cause oxidation of the paintings. The
reproductions sold at museums are made under controlled circumstances
using lengthy digital techniques. IIRC the Museum of fine Arts in Boston
used an extra large camera to reproduce pictures in its collection. The
prints were so good that they would change the size so the reproduction
could be readily distinguished from the original.


--
Peter