Major Museums Start Banning Selfie Sticks 183
An anonymous reader shares these articles about museums banning the dreaded selfie stick. "Selfie sticks, the logical 'extension' of an already irksome activity, were recently banned in Premier League soccer stadiums. Now museums around the world are starting to do the same over worries of accidental damage to artwork. The Smithsonian barred their use effective last week as a 'preventative measure to protect visitors and museum objects,' especially on crowded days. Meanwhile, a formal ban is pending at Versailles palace and Centre Pompidou in France, and visitors are now being told to stow their sticks by guards at the Louvre. Both Pompidou and the Louvre will continue to allow regular photography and selfies."
Sure about the Louvre? (Score:5, Insightful)
On my visits there, I remember signs prohibiting photography...not that anybody paid any attention to them.
It's been a while...maybe it was just flash photography.
Re:Sure about the Louvre? (Score:5, Informative)
Yep, it's just flash. If you use flash, guards will tell you to not-do-that-again. Otherwise everyone walks around photographing.
Re:Sure about the Louvre? (Score:4, Insightful)
For museums in general, it depends on the exhibit and whether or not the works have been copyrighted. If so, no photography of any kind is allowed. For the Louvre, it seems like most exhibits should allow photography, although not necessarily flash. Even so, it seems like flash photography may not harm paintings after all...
http://www.arthistorynews.com/... [arthistorynews.com]
Re:Sure about the Louvre? (Score:5, Insightful)
Harm to art or not, flash photography is also annoying. That is another reason for not allowing it in museums where people go to actually appreciate the artwork and would prefer to not be strobe lit all the time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You realise that when you take a flash photo, the flash should not be pointing at the subject in all but the rarest cases, right?
There's only one type of flash photography that needs the flash to point forwards - that's front filling (where you use the flash to try to even out dim lighting close to the camera, and bright lighting in the distance, and which is typically used for landscape photos)
For pretty much all other cases, instead, you want to bounce the flash off a large surface, to diffuse the light.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And how common is an aimable flash as a fraction of the number of cameras being carried by the general public these days? I believe I heard that the iPhone is the top-selling camera, beating sales of the big three (Nikon, Canon, Olympus) summed.
Re: (Score:3)
For pretty much all other cases, instead, you want to bounce the flash off a large surface, to diffuse the light
But not just any "large surface" will do. It's always amusing to see someone with a fancy camera with the flash pointed straight upward towards a vaulted, black ceiling.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you've ever had an SLR (hardly the exclusive domain of professionals, though it does imply a familiarity with photography beyond snapshot-taking), you probably have a flash for it kicking around. I dug up my old camera bag the other day to test a K-mount to EF-mount adapter so that I might use my old lenses with my new camera. My old flash, a Sunpak Auto 222, still works. I've had it since I was 13
Re: (Score:3)
That's not how light works.
The flash light is not just visible to you and your camera, it's visible to everybody, even if you don't look directly at the flash.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
dia format
?
Re: (Score:2)
I generally agree, though a selfie (dread word) provides a different perspective association with a painting that memory can't - i.e. seeing yourself standing next to the painting as opposed to seeing it as it is.
With respect to buildings (or other, esp. outdoor images also available online) one might be looking for a unique composition involving lighting, perspective, &c. There's also the same perspective element as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if my exposure to people has taught me anything, a huge amount of those visitors would be using flash photography while simultaneously getting annoyed by other people also using flash photography.
"All this flashing is really annoying," the tourist says just before flashing their camera.
Re:Sure about the Louvre? (Score:4, Interesting)
The "I don't speak French" tactic was what my dad and I used when I visited a couple of decades ago. I seem to remember it being no flash photography at that time, as well.
It was a legitimate language barrier. We later had a heck of a time getting our taxi driver to stop so that we could hop out and see the Shuttle being ferried over Paris on a big plane. Once he understood, he seemed rather happy that we had.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I was there in '12, and photography was not prohibited, and that includes flash.
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto. We were just about the first ones in the building that day, and headed straight for the Mona Lisa. Flash photography was most definitely allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
Thought these were jokes (Score:2, Funny)
Up until I just googled the phrase seconds ago: "Selfie Stick" I thought it was just something people joked about (hyperbole of where selfies are going) and wasn't actually a real product. I just looked them up and wow...
Re: (Score:2)
THIS is why the aliens won;t come visit us ;)
Selfie stick stimulus to keep out aliens (Score:2, Offtopic)
THIS is why the aliens won;t come visit us ;)
If selfie sticks keep out aliens, then perhaps the US Republican Party ought to offer a tax credit for buying a selfie stick as a "stimulus" in order to solve the immigration problem.
Re: (Score:3)
back in the day you would have to ask strangers to take a photo of your entire family or group and thieves would steal cameras. worse in the smartphone age when someone can steal your $700 phone and all the personal data on it.
well worth it to buy a $40 stick with bluetooth on it for personal photos
Good Luck (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good Luck (Score:4, Insightful)
same with the statue of David. they should just make fake art for some of these museums that can be damaged by photos and save the real thing
Re: (Score:2)
We visited the Sistene Chapel and the tour stops right outside the room and the guide is very clear "Be quiet and absolutely no flash photography" and then you walk in and its absolutely packed with people being loud and taking flash pictures.
My experiences differ from yours. I've been to the Sistene Chapel twice in the last five years and did not see any flash photography. The guards were very active in making sure people weren't taking pictures and even checking on people with cameras out to remind them not to take pictures.
It did get fairly loud in there because of the sheer number of people in the room. The guards would try to "shush" people now and then to lower the volume, which did help, but not for very long. Individual people were
Re: (Score:2)
I was there last spring. There wasn't any flash photography. If the guards were paying attention and would give a warning if they saw you raise a camera. Ignore it and you're out. There was kind of a dull roar in the room because so many people were packed in, but the guards would shush everyone regularly.
Re: (Score:3)
Last Spring when I went, it was a dull roar - the guards were all over people who were taking photographs. Perhaps they're more attentive now given the relative fragility of it. In fact, they didn't allow photos at all - the guards were the loudest ones there and they
Selfies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now there is an illness that needs a custom disease to wipe out those who take them...
Think Engvall (Score:3)
Since the world is full of idiots, you can only attempt to idiot proof the world with rules like "no selfie sticks". Just like they had to ban countless hiking trails because the self proclaimed 'nature lovers' would leave mounds of shit and graffiti all over the place.
Normally I'm pretty libertarian and say leave people alone. There are limits however, these being two of them.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even need them to speak, you see someone taking a selfie, you just hand them a "STUPID" sign and say "Here's your sign"
Re: (Score:3)
Now there is an illness that needs a custom disease to wipe out those who take them...
It's called being run over by a car.
The problem isn't selfies per se, it's people who are disconnected from the environment they're in and so pose an obstacle or even threat to people they're sharing that space with. Who the hell cares if someone shares a selfie or a Facebook status update. It's wandering around with no awareness of what's going around you that creates problems for other people.
I have no problem with selfie-sticks per se, but there are plenty of situations where confined spaces and heavy f
Good. (Score:4, Interesting)
When I was in the Louvre last year, I was amazed at what was going on in front of the Mona Lisa. Most people had their backs to it.
There were more people preoccupied with getting a photograph of themselves in front of it than there were people looking at the damn thing.
Same story at Venus de Milo statue.
An observation that I made (and this is nothing more than an observation) is that everyone wielding a selfie stick and not looking at the art was Asian.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In my experience, when visiting historic items of this nature, you have 30-60 seconds to stand in its presence, before getting crowded out, or being asked to move along. Why not get a photo of you and your friends to capture the moment? It is not like you are going to close enough, or the time to study it in any significant way. For better or worse, it is more about the journey than the destination.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you waste time looking at the real Mona Lisa when you've seen it everywhere since you were a kid? Do you think you'll discover something new? The only reason you physically go to such a place is to show others (or remind yourself) that you've gone there and stood in its presence. It has nothing to do with looking at the picture that you can anyway recognize easily.
Re:Good. (Score:4, Interesting)
You've seen reproductions. At best, printed photographs. It's not the same thing. Which, incidentally, is why taking a selfie with it exactly misses the point.
Re:Good. (Score:4, Informative)
Which, incidentally, is why taking a selfie with it exactly misses the point.
Perhaps for you, but selfies are proof you've been somewhere. That's why I call them evidence photos. For the people in question collecting this evidence may have been the point. Just like the souvenirs that tourists and pilgrims have been taking home for thousands of years.
Re: (Score:2)
I ran into someone once while travelling, and we had a conversation about tourists versus travellers. That sort of thing definitely falls under the "tourists" category. The GP is right - it misses the point. You're right, most people do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Now with modern technology, you don't even have to leave the comfort and security of your basement --
Create an app that:
1) Takes a picture of the user (bonus points against a green screen or monochromatic background)
2) Isolates the selfie from the background
3) Overlays that image on the rear facing camera to aid in composition
4) Takes the pseudo selfie
5) Allows the 'photographer' to adjust various parameters, filters etc so it looks even cheesier.
6) Profit!
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, I'm pretty much a barbarian when it comes to art. If you show me a printed reproduction and told me it's the real thing, I'd fall for it hook line and sinker. And so would, I suspect, the overwhelming majority of people who go to museums.
Same for sculptures etc. Do a double blind test to check if people can figure out which is the real and which is the fake and well over 99% of people would fail!
Re: (Score:2)
How could a printed copy possibly be confused with a painting? Printed copies are dead flat surfaces, while paintings have brush marks all over them and uneven application of paint.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, a fake then. There are some incredibly well done copies of famous paintings.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
You've seen reproductions. At best, printed photographs. It's not the same thing.
Indeed. In comparison with how close you can get in the Louvre, the prints have a lot more discernible detail than the original...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ralphie You'll take your eye out with that. (Score:2)
Or the eye of someone else or a priceless painting. Old memes never die they just get recycled.
Priorities (Score:5, Funny)
Selfie sticks, the only thing that can rival drones in their speed of being banned.
Re: (Score:3)
Selfies are just a logical extension.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Some would argue that they have the added benefit of not requiring you to actually be in any way sociable with those around you.
Re:Selfies are just a logical extension.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your selfie stick is a lot less likely to run away with your phone than that oh-so-honest person you asked to take a picture of you in Italy.
The odds of another tourist stealing your camera when you ask them to take a picture is pretty much 0%.
The odds of a someone (especially a poor local) who asks YOU if you would them to take a picture of you
stealing your camerais pretty much 100%. This is the same advice I give my kids. If you get lost, don't
wait for someone to approach you, instead walk up to the first person you see and ask for help. Most people
are normal law abiding citizens, if you play the odds and pick someone randomly then your chances of getting
a criminal are very small. If instead you let them approach you then they are picking you which makes the
odds of them being a criminal considerably higher.
Re: (Score:2)
The odds of another tourist stealing your camera when you ask them to take a picture is pretty much 0%.
The odds of a someone (especially a poor local) who asks YOU if you would them to take a picture of you
stealing your camerais pretty much 100%.
My country (Israel) is full of tourists, and when I see them taking turns photographing each other I offer to photograph the group. I've never stolen a camera, and others do as I do without stealling cameras. I suppose that your advice might be culture-dependent.
This is the same advice I give my kids. If you get lost, don't
wait for someone to approach you, instead walk up to the first person you see and ask for help. Most people
are normal law abiding citizens, if you play the odds and pick someone randomly then your chances of getting
a criminal are very small. If instead you let them approach you then they are picking you which makes the
odds of them being a criminal considerably higher.
That is good advice for kids, and I will in fact start giving it.
Okay (Score:2)
But monopods are still allowed, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, many museums restrict the use of tripods (and monopods).
ISIS will use them anyway (Score:2)
I don't think ISIS much cares if they damage a piece.
Good riddaance (Score:4, Interesting)
I was at the Museum of Natural History in DC a few weeks ago and got hit in the face more than once with those stupid things. I complained to the curator's office before I left, and I'm glad I'm apparently not alone in doing so.
Nobody's going to run off with your camera. Just ask someone nearby to take a photo of you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
As much as I'm sure this happens, I'm highly doubtful that you were literally hit in the face multiple times. And, FWIW, I'm in favor of the ban.
Rightly so... (Score:4, Informative)
.
Re: (Score:3)
I remember when taking a selfie (Score:2)
... required asking a stranger to hold and click your camera while you posed.
Of course, you always got a crappy photo that way, because everyone always thought you primarily wanted a photo of yourself, instead of a photo of something interesting that just happens to have you in the picture...
Re: (Score:2)
You should clarify: Could you please photograph this Foobar in a way that I can be seen in the photo? Thanks.
Hey, my house, too (Score:2)
Meanwhile, a formal ban is pending at Versailles palace and Centre Pompidou in France, and visitors are now being told to stow their sticks by guards at the Louvre.
Yeah, if someone brings one of those stupid things to my house I'll help them "stow their sticks" where the sun don't shine.
Re:"Dreaded"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
people don't pay attention and swing these things around thinking they are the only ones who matter
Re: (Score:3)
People with a building full of fragile, priceless, irreplaceable artwork dread people swinging long sticks around. With damn good reason, if you ask me.
Re: (Score:2)
The same people who hate google glass, and any of a dozen other things they've decided aren't cool. This is banning something because its "not cool". Personally I think selfie sticks are incredibly idiotic, but I am happy to think that loudly in my head and ignore people using them, unless they're hitting me with one it really doesn't involve me.
Re:"Dreaded"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: I oppose what other people do even when it has no impact on me.
Whatever happened to good old fashioned "Mind your own business"?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say the art museum can't do what it likes now did I?
Re: (Score:2)
People walking around with sticks and flashing cameras has no impact, right. Other than the bright flashes in a typically dark museum, and having to take a wide berth around people carrying long sticks, I'm sure nobody's been hit by one, and not art has been damaged. Right.
Re: (Score:2)
The comment to which mine was a response. It had nothing to do with museums.
Re: (Score:2)
Because I'm sure the precise, correct number of photos to take during a vacation is precisely the number you took on that awesome vacation you took decades ago and have forever since tried to recapture the feeling of. Anything more than that is a symptom of these cursed youths destroying the society and culture you spent decades working hard to foster.
tl;dr settle down gramps. Your predecessors said the same about you, and those kids will say the same about their successors. The sooner you realise that t
Re: (Score:2)
the precise, correct number of photos to take during a vacation is precisely the number you took on that awesome vacation you took decades ago
Beware the ego - it's a powerful confuser.
Re: (Score:2)
A few years ago, my in-laws came with my wife, kids, and myself to Disney World. During the trip, my mother-in-law seemed highly agitated at how many photos I was taking. (I was using a DSLR and love taking tons of photos.) Once we got home, though, I copied the photos to her laptop and she started browsing the photos. She started noticing details in the parks that she hadn't seen before and had memories sparked of things we experienced. She instantly apologized and now loves that I take so many photos
Re: (Score:2)
People take photographs of vacation, this is true. I stopped taking photo of everything, and only photograph a few things, to commemorate the event. Why? Because I used to take hundreds or thousands of photos and missed actually enjoying the vacation trying to capture everything on Camera, only to never really look at the photos ever again.
When you have one photo of a vacation, it makes the photo much more valuable than if you took a thousand. I've discovered, that the one photo can spark all the memories b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GTFO my lawn with your selfie stick punk.
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't go on facebook very much it's all silly games people invite me to play with very little socializing but I have a couple of friend's wives that post 20-30 selfies a day. They post the outfit they are wearing every morning short video selfies to inform everyone they are driving to the mall to buy something followed by short clips of them looking at this item or that and finally leaving with what they bought. One of the friends said to me at least I know she's not cheating on me I can account f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you can buy cheap ones for like $10
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Screw your logic, because ... umm... 3D Printing!!!!!!!!!! It's amazing, it's the next big thing, it's a Star Trek replicator...
Hope the hype dies soon...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I like the idea of the 3D printer mainly because I have 2 small kids and a dog, so toys are broken or chewed quite often. Being able to print new parts and figures overnight as a treat is a nice idea. My problem is the $4k price tag on one plus the plastics and other work once printed. I like it being popular because more and more things are being made for the hobby, but I'd like the demand to come down, and the price for the basics to get started.
Sure, but for a common item like this the cost is going to be 99% in the materials, and I imagine that those are going to be cheaper for some chinese manufacturer than your printer.
It would be like trying to print a paperback book on your home printer. Sure, you can sort-of do it, but it will cost you a LOT more than the 50 cents per copy or whatever a publishing house can do it for, since they aren't using a general-purpose printer for the job but rather machinery optimized for the efficient production of
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Howard: Do you realize, by owning a 3-D printer, we are reclaiming the manufacturing process and taking jobs back from sweatshops in China?
Raj: I think this thing was made in China.
Howard: Eh, what can you do?
Raj: Ooh, I, I think it's done. Oh, it worked. We printed a whistle.
Howard: Amazing. You realize these things go for 25 cents a pop at a party store.
Raj: And we made it in only three hours. Sounds just like store-boug
Re: (Score:2)
:)
And how much did the printer and the materials to print the whistle cost?
Re: (Score:2)
That was the point of the video. The machine cost $5,000 and the plastic to make the whistle was in addition to that figure.
The same applies with the two figures (three when you include Raj) for Howard and Bernadette.
Those are awfully expensive items to print at home.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the idea is that you print things that are not available in a store or on Amazon.
At some point I am going to want some custom milled plastic frame parts to hold together my telescope assembly. Right now I have it temporarily held together via velcro and cable ties. Once I figure out how I want things arranged I would love to have something more permanent.
But there is no way I am going to buy my own 3D printer to print off some plastic junk. Fortunately there are online 3D printing companies that will d
Re: (Score:2)
If you can make a 3D representation of an object, you can have it made in meatspace using any one of a number of construction technologies - printing, CNC, molding, etc. They key is to have a decent software model that can drive the construction device.
I see this as a sort of game changer for hobbyists / prototypers. Personally, I don't want to babysit a fussy 3D printer which will be out of date in a year. Nor do I want to try and run a sintering printer, complex CNC machine or the like. I would like
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the smileys in that and my original post.
Once costs are under control (which I'm sure won't happen for a good long time), this will be able to replace a lot of Manufacturing jobs.
Reminded of the stupid MP/RIAA ads "You wouldn't download a car, would you?"
Once the tech and the cost savings are there, hell yes I would. Middlemen just drive up the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Once they make it A) Affordable, B) the printed materials "sturdier", there will be a reason for the hype.
I see so many folks around me acting like these are the next coming of christ even though they admit they have no real need for one...
Re: (Score:2)
Hope the hype dies soon...
The hype of 3D printing or the hype of selfie sticks?
Re: (Score:2)
Both.
3D printing will eventually be great, but it's got a long ways to go before it's more than a toy for bored hobbyists
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lame joke.
If you joke about Mo-ham-mad you'll be lame - if your lucky
Re: (Score:2)
Years ago, I attempted to use a tripod at the Lincoln Memorial. Having just taken photos on the lawn outside, I had the small pointy metal extensions out, and had forgotten about them. The Park Service told me to get lost, and in retrospect, I don't blame them since the metal spikes could scrape the stone floors.
Re: (Score:2)
I just attach the camera to my dick. But I need a looooong lens.
Instead of just compensating, you might get the macro zoom out to find it.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you only need a long lens when taking photos OF your dick?
Re: (Score:2)
You are all fucking tools
I think you are confused about the meaning of the term "selfie stick". In this case, we are talking about a tool used for photography. Most people who own selfie sticks do not have sex with them. I can see how the name "selfie stick" would lead you in that direction, but if you're wanting a discussion about people fucking tools you'll need to look elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)