Silent Shooting

[holly2]

If you ever want to realize the value of the silent shutter on an M6

try stealing a couple of shots in St. Pauls Cathedral and

Westminster Abby.

 

<p>

 

These are wonderful spots for photography but there are signs

that say, "No photo/video".

 

<p>

 

Don't jump because I took pictures where they didn't want me to,

that's not the point. These are family shots with no commercial

value. The point is that I could scale focus and shoot from an

opening in my coat an come away with great shots.

 

<p>

 

No one noticed and no one cared as I happily snapped pictures

of my son at Wellington's crypt, in the whispering gallery, next to

the coronation chair and at Churchill's tomb, just to name a few.

The subdued lighting was wonderful on Velvia.

 

<p>

 

I had a lot of fun and for those of you still bothered by my violation

of rules there is another rule to remember; Every now and then

you need to do something bad just to know your alive.

[sunil]

I'm not totally comfortable with your actions but to each his own I

suppose. I am however, rather curious that you managed to shoot

indoors, handheld (inside a coat no less) with Velvia.

[eliot]

Well it's a silly rule. I've been to St. Paul's cathedral, which as

I recall was designed by Sir Christopher Wren. IT is one of the most

historic and photogenic sites in London, yet no photography (like the

Crown Jewels at the Tower of London. I didn't take any pix but I'm

glad you were able to do that. This rule seems arbitrary and

senseless. If they wanted, they could allow photographs without

flash. That would seem more sensible.

[godfrey]

I visited St. Paul's Cathedral several years ago. I guess I never

noticed the signs ... I meandered about shooting with a Minox

and a Rollei 35S all day long, taking pictures of anything I could.

My brother did the same with his video camera.

 

<p>

 

No one ever stopped us or informed us of our wrongdoing ... We

never used flash or lights so I guess we never bugged anyone.

 

<p>

 

Godfrey

[ramy_sadek]

I'd be mad if you DIDN'T take pictures. Showing up at St. Pauls with

an M6 and not snapping? Now, that's something to be ashamed of. Good

job, and keep up the good work. I hope some of those pictures turn

out real nice so you have pleasant memories!

 

<p>

 

-Ramy

[ray_moth]

There is nothing wrong with what you did, IMHO. It is hardly an

offence that cries out to heaven for vengence. Who decided that

photography should be disallowed? Who gave them the right to do so?

Do these great monuments belong to them personally?

 

<p>

 

I feel there are too many idiotic restrictions being applied by dim-

witted bureaucrats, attempting to stop or curtail actions that do no

harm. I say "All power to those who ignore them!"

[fotografz]

Holly, I was a bad, but alive, person also. When in Las Vagas

I attended a performance of "O" ( Circ' d' Sole). They announced

no flash photography or video. So I shot sans flash. Like you, not

for commercial gain but instead for my travel album. The Nazi

ushers rushed to my seat and demanded my camera. Since I

had just pocketed a finished roll and loaded a new one, I refused

to hand over the camera. Instead, I dramatically yanked out the

film in a long streamer and gave them the blank film. They

retreated, and my album has some great shots of my vacation.

But, I must say that it wasn't fair to the folks sitting around me.

So, I promise not to do it again. Yes, er..um .. I promise...

[Robin Smith]

It is infuriating. I agree. The reason particularly is that

photographers do not move along with the crowd, want to stand still in

annoying places, use flash ("sorry it just went off!") when they are

told not to. Want to put up tripods. Videographers are often the worst

- they stand in everyone's way for minutes at a time. This all leads

to massive congestion and annoyance to others. Westminster Abbey is

the busiest tourist site in London and I guess the authorities have

decided to make it a blanket ban. I think this is not desirable, but

it is understandable. 20 years ago I used a tripod in St Paul's, but

Westminster Abbey has always been much stricter. I bet people take

sneak shots anyway. I certainly would do so, but I do understand why

the ban exists. I have to say that St Paul's seems now to be on the

"tourist map" much more than it was 20 years ago. This seems to be

almost solely due to the Charles and Diana wedding. Always strikes me

as slightly bizarre since it was not exactly a happy marriage was it?

[chris_chen4]

As I posted a few threads up (Michel Vandeput's "photos not allowed"),

"I believe the main reason that museums & cultural/religious

institutions often prohibit photos isn't to prevent damage to precious

artworks from flash photography, etc., but to protect the sales of

postcards & books, which are an important source of revenue." With

regard to theatrical performances & such like the Cirque du Soleil

that Marc Williams's discusses, you have copyright issues involved,

too (just like @ a concert).

[preston_merchant]

Religious sites often ban photography for reasons of decorum (the

faithful and the tourists mix). Temples and mosques in India will

make you pay 5 rupees to bring in your camera (whether or not you use

it), but they won't let you in shoot certain chambers at all.

Sometimes videography is banned altogether. No one is in an uproar.

 

<p>

 

But I do get peeved when some place that's part of MY culture

attempts to regulate my behavior. I am an Episcopalian--if a guard

at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York tells me I can't

take a picture, I'd tell him where he can get off.

 

<p>

 

If I were an Englishman and wanted to snap Churchill's tomb, I might

bloody well do it. But I wouldn't in a million years consider firing

away at the tomb of the Emperor of Japan if a sign said not to.

 

<p>

 

Strange, isn't it?

[jay_.]

There are ligitimate reasons for prohibiting photography, and then

there are bs explanations. At the old Synagogue in Rome visitors are

welcome to bring a camera inside but asked not to take photographs,

the reason given is that they might be used to plan a terrorist

attack. Outside, Italian militiamen armed with automatic weapons are

on patrol 24/7...because there was indeed a terrorist attack some

years ago and little children were killed. At a similar Synagogue in

Florence, a young woman sits at a desk in an alcove outside the

visitor entrance, behind which are open wooden shelves where visitors

are required to leave their cameras. Of course I refused to do so

with my bag of Leicas, and I was really ticked off I had to rearrange

my schedule to come back the next day. But by the following day I

had a different attitude: it was 9/12/2001. OTOH, although

photography was permitted all throughout the labrynthine corridors

leading to the Sixtine Chapel, yet not inside that one single room,

it didn't make sense to me until I got to the gift shop which was

crammed with books and posters of: the Sixtine Chapel! Of course I

was completely mindful of the rules nonetheless...funny thing,

though, it seems that on my M6 with the 15mm Heliar, the shutter

release must've gotten accidentally tripped while I was putting the

camera into my bag standing in the center of the room, and the lens

must've been accidentally pointing up at the ceiling, because when I

got home lo and behold there was a nice shot of Michelangelo's

handiwork.

[b._d._colen]

I am an avowedly non-religious person. But I have to say that I am

appalled at the idea of someone thinking that it is not only "okay,"

but somehow cute to violate a rule against taking photos inside a

church or any other form of religious ediface. What is it about "no

photos" that you don't understand? And what is it that makes you

think that you are somehow exempt from honoring the rules under which

you were allowed to spend time in someone else's "holy place?"

 

<p>

 

If you want to feel alive, go dodge traffic - but don't give people

in other countries yet another reason to complain about the arrogance

of Americans.

[jeff voorhees]

Mr. Colen-

 

<p>

 

Why do you care? What about Eisenstadt? He shot where there were "no

photos". No one complains about him. Eliot Erwitt just coughs before

the clicks.

Mr. Colen, perhaps your are afraid to click the shutter.

 

<p>

 

More power to you Holly.

[b._d._colen]

I'm hardly "afraid to click the shutter," Jeff. Nor am I afraid to

point out that carrying a camera should not be seen to set one above

the rules of the society of which one is a member. Was Eisenstadt

taking snapshots in a cathedral of his children, or was he shooting

as a journalist, doing his part to insure that the rest of us were

well informed? And was Erwitt "coughing before the click" in a

Cathedral where he was specifically instructed - with a sign in a

language he could read - not to take photos? I doubt it.

 

<p>

 

Sneaking photos for ones own pleasure does not make one a hero, Jeff,

it makes one rude.

 

<p>

 

B. D. Colen

http://www.a-day-in-our-life.com

[pat_dunsworth]

I suppose that the worst-case scenario is that when you stand before

St. Peter at the pearly gates (assuming that's your destination)

he'll confiscate your M6. You'd then have to ask yourself, "am I in

Heaven or Hell?" Cheers, Pat.

[phil_kneen]

The sign says NO PHOTOGRAPHY....simple,don't take any photo's.

 

<p>

 

You people have no respect.

[eliot]

The issue was about photography in St. Paul's Cathedral in London.

Here, there are multiple daily tours, sanctioned by the British

government. It is a major tourist attraction. Somehow I doubt if

the no photography rule has anything to do with religiosity. But it

may have something to do with the tourism industry wanted to sell its

own postcards and photographs in books of this site. So why not let

us photography without flash or tripods, since thousands of tourists

trek through this place year round with the blessing of the

government?.

[b._d._colen]

Eliot - You may be absolutely correct in your analysis of the reason

for the ban. But it would seem to me that the thing to do then - if

this is worth the time and effort - is to work with a British photo

group to try to get the ban lifted, or the rules changed - rather

than simply announce that rule breaking makes one feel alive, and

snap away regardless.

 

<p>

 

BTW - How long have you been at LIJ? I was a medical writer for

Newsday from 1980-1993.

 

<p>

 

B. D. Colen

[jeff voorhees]

Mr. Colen-

 

<p>

 

First off, your work is very nice. Second, I don't understand the

"hero" comment. My intent was not to attack you, but to elicit

responses to a subject people obviously get very passionate about. As

far as having no respect, that is not true at all Phil.

 

<p>

 

All I'm saying is that sometimes rules should be flaunted a bit. It's

not like someone got killed. Lighten up.

[b._d._colen]

Jeff - First, thanks for the compliment.

 

<p>

 

As to the need to flaunt rules...Sure, ocassionally flaunting rules

is good for the soul. The question is what rules and under what

circumstances? In this case, we are talking about not only a church,

but also about about one of the most

politically/historically 'sacred' places in Great Britain. I don't

know about you, but I would be offended if some British mother posed

her little nippers in their little nappies around Lincoln's box at

Ford's Theater and started snapping away with the Leica hidden in her

coat - because she needs to break rules to feel alive.

 

<p>

 

But I guess it's okay to do something like this because, as Holly

told us, she "had a lot of fun."

 

<p>

 

And we wonder why so many people around the world hate us. ;-)

 

<p>

 

B. D.

[eliot]

Mr. Colen. Sorry. You must have me confused with someone else. I

never broke the ban against photography, nor did I ever say anything

about this making me feel alive or any such thing. Were you

referring to another poster? I only said I have sympathy for Holly

and that this particular rule is very silly. Same thing with the ban

against photographing the Crown Jewels at the Tower of London (and

this is hardly a religious shrine of any kind). I took my camera but

no pictures. But if anyone sneaked in a picture, I wouldn't turn

them in!.

 

<p>

 

I've been at LIJ since 1993.

[jeff voorhees]

Mr. Colen-

 

<p>

 

I would be offended if a tourist here (or anywhere else) made a big

production of taking their vacation photos, if it were

specifically posted not to do so. On the other hand, I personally,

see no harm in the occasional, surreptitious, "clicking of the shirt".

It's like street photography, some people find that practice ethically

reprehensible as well. So much of it depends on your methods.

 

<p>

 

As for the rest of the world hating us, it is unfortunate. Obivously,

we all have a diplomatic responsiblity to respresent ourselves as

desirable members of the world community. People seem to forget that.

On the other hand, I cannot be an apologist for what others have done

before me.

 

<p>

 

Someone should ask me sometime about how I feel about the value of

silence in our national parks.

[dan_brown4]

Leica people are different, that's why the no-photographing thing

has to be thought through. I believe what they don't what is a

million flash pops everyday in these national treasures. Or a

million SLR ker-flaps either. It irritates everyone and probably

does some photon-damage to certain surface. But a Leica with

a Summilux, now that's a horse of a differenet color altogether.

Kinda feels like it might be an exception to the rule, eh?

[eliot]

Jeff, if you want to get into politics, you picked the wrong subject

matter. Just who are you afraid hates us so that we are propelled to

behave better? The vast majority of other nations around the world

are more or less brutal dictatorships where people enjoy little or no

freedom. Some of these nations hate us because we are a free, open,

and wealthy society. Is it the French you are worried about (the

same people who sold nuclear technology to Iraq), perhaps the

Russians (where society is ruled by kleptocrats and crime

syndicates). Perhaps it's Saudi Arabia you're concerned about, a

place which finances and breeds terror. Or Libya? Rwanda? Cuba?

Germany? The list goes on an on.

 

<p>

 

Don't accept foolish statements like Americans need to be ashamed of

their behavior at face value. Don't let anyone bully you into

blithely accepting this contention. Ask the person who makes such a

statement to explain himself.

 

<p>

 

And ask yourself why so many people will do just about anything to

emigrate to America if our citizens convey such a bad image abroad.

When it comes to the international community as a whole, I for one,

make no apologies for my behavior, at home or abroad.

[philip_woodcock]

Firstly the British Government does not own St. Paul's it belongs to

the Church Of England which is not part of the Government.

 

<p>

 

Secondly I believe Sir Christopher Wren WOULD approve of you taking

photos in his greatest of acheivements. I'm not sure if it's the

correct quote but it's close, anyway in London there is no monument

to Wren except a small plaque in St Paul's which reads...

'If you are looking for my monument, look around you'

 

<p>

 

A photograph does not diminish one's faith or a church's sanctity, it

enhances it. I am not relgious but I love the churches and cathedrals

here in Britain. They are wonders of man's acheivement and man's

faith and devotion. The first picture I took with my first Leica was

of the interior of Rochester Cathedral, it was on a autumnal sunday

afterboon during evensong, it's beautiful it's spiritual and it's

mine forever. Photography can praise too!