W/NW - Vatican

[frederick_muller]

Shots at the Vatican ... first, the colonade at Piazza San Pietro.<div></div>

[frederick_muller]

And the Swiss Guards ...<div></div>

[frederick_muller]

Some scenes inside St. Peter's are downright creepy ...<div></div>

[frederick_muller]

Others verge on the sublime. I only wish a crazy man hadn't once tried to take a hammer to Michaelangelo's pieta, so now they keep it behind bulletproof glass. I had no polarizer, but if you get it just right, you can negate the reflections.<div></div>

[frederick_muller]

The doors to the cathedral are grand. In the old days, without TV and magazines, the cathedrals were people's entertainment, the frescoes, sculptures and engravings their eye candy.<div></div>

[brambor]

Nice stuff. I like the first one the best.

[frederick_muller]

Still fussing with color-to-b&W conversion. I took the Swiss Guards shot and converted it to B&W, applying something of a yellow filter effect ...<div></div>

[ian blacklaw richardson]

Re: The Pieta. They say if Mary stood up, she would be ten foot tall. Sheer Genius! Good to see these pictures>

[frederick_muller]

The pieta is a true work of genius. There are any number of pietas ... in the Academy in Florence, you can see several more that Michelangelo did, one or two of them unfinished, with the figures still struggling to emerge from the stone. The one in St. Peters is the one I consider the definitive Pieta.

[mike_scecina2]

Frederick, I'd love to see number one in color. Do the columns still hold their translucence?

[frederick_muller]

I think they do, Mike. I actually had a hard time deciding whether I prefered this shot in B&W or color. Finally settled on B&W. Here is the original in color ...<div></div>

[nels]

Although the B/W is attractive as well, I prefer the color shot, Frederick. Just a personal taste, I guess.

[frederick_muller]

Color or B&W, those columns are as translucent as the shells they carve cameos from.

[mike_scecina2]

Thank you Frederick, the colonades in color are really beautiful.

[jd_rose]

I must say that I am not a big fan of superstitious/religious subjects but your B/W conversion of the Colonade transcends that and becomes art.

 

Nicely done!

 

--- JDR

[dr._karl_hoppe]

Not to be a nitpicker, but St. Peter's is not a 'cathedral'. Rome's cathedral, i.e. the Pope's church as bishop of Rome, is St. John the Lateran, more correctly the 'Patriarchal Archbasilica of the Most Holy Saviour in the Lateran', knicknamed 'St. John the Lateran' because it originally was staffed by priests from a nearby Benedictine abbey dedicated to St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist. The Lateran is considered the head and mother church of the world.

 

St. Peter's Basilica---the 'Patriarchal Basilica of the Vatican'---is not Rome's cathedral but exists as a shrine over the burial place of the Apostle Peter, the first bishop of Rome.

 

BTW, the pictures are great!

[tom_levidiotis]

Thanks Dr. Hoppe,

 

It's not nitpicking to call things, particularly things of great cultural significance, by their correct name.

 

It does not matter if one attaches any religous significance to the splendid artwork; it, the Western Church, the Vatican, St. Peter's and the treasures within are breathtaking and worthy subjects for photography.

 

Here's a from-the-hip shot inside the Sistene (no picture-taking allowed) Chapel. M6, 21f2.8 400 Superia December, 2004.<div></div>

[howard_roarke]

The Vatican and its treasures certainly are worthy photographic subjects, Tom. It's too bad you don't respect them enough to refrain from using your Leica where photography isn't permitted. Doesn't look like your efforts were very rewarding, either.

[tom_levidiotis]

What can I say Howard, I have no class.

[jd_rose]

Mr. Levidiotis,

 

 

Thank you for that picture. You did not use flash; you did not degrade the pigments in anyway. You did not, I suspect, steal any souls.

Technically, the picture is flawed, but it is wonderful that you captured a image that is rarely recorded. That is a great facet of photography.

 

THANKS!

[dr._karl_hoppe]

Italians honour regulations such as 'no pictures' more in the breach. The Sistine Chapel is no exception. As long as you do not use flash, there is no way to physically harm the artwork by the click of a shutter. 'No pictures' really means they want you to buy the postcards and booklets, that's all.

[frederick_muller]

I would have given my eye-teeth for an opportunity to photograph undisturbed in the Sistine Chapel, even without flash. The guards and guides were pretty strict though. It was explained to us at the start that one burst of electronic flash would degrade the pigment as much as months of direct sunlight. I personally never use flash, prefering the existing light mode anyway, but there were many, MANY idiots using flash even in those areas where photography without flash was permitted. I can see why management would find it easier to ban photography altogether. I really did find it amazing how many idiots would use flash even after having it explained that flash damaged the pigment. It seems like every point and shoot goes into flash mode indoors. Those guys really are inconsiderate, pricing their nugatory snapshots above lasting art for the people who come after them. I bought the book, which has better photographs of the chapel than anything I could do on the fly anyway.