tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4319986134869180964.post2944494136017633050..comments2023-08-01T16:01:10.734+02:00Comments on The journeys of Captain Oddsocks: Strictly No Photography!Captain Oddsockshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04171705425795102480noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4319986134869180964.post-39346051602893278612008-06-10T23:37:00.000+02:002008-06-10T23:37:00.000+02:00Nice work Icarus!A ancient fertility statue with a...Nice work Icarus!<BR/>A ancient fertility <A HREF="http://www.sansicarus.blogspot.com/2008/06/feel-like-making-love.html " REL="nofollow"><B>statue with a moving penis</B></A> that indicates the lady of the house's readiness to make the coitus.<BR/>I'm sure there are plenty of people who'd go to see that. Now that they know about it.Captain Oddsockshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04171705425795102480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4319986134869180964.post-13406534690164440842008-06-10T03:26:00.000+02:002008-06-10T03:26:00.000+02:00Charlie, it's definitely possible to take sneaky p...Charlie, it's definitely possible to take sneaky photos when you're not supposed to, check out my blog for one I snapped recently in Shanghai.<BR/><BR/>In terms of preservation, there are rules and then there are rules. Not climbing like monkeys all over the temples in Angkor Wat, Cambodia, obviously helps preserve the structures for future generations. However, photography without flash does no damage whatsoever. As you say Oddsocks, it often generates word-of-mouth advertising and subsequent revenue. It's a rule I'm quite willing to break.sansIcarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14719694257621197287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4319986134869180964.post-30161290093989598222008-06-09T21:09:00.000+02:002008-06-09T21:09:00.000+02:00Charlie, I don't really know. I know some places a...Charlie, I don't really know. I know some places are under camera surveillance and I'm sure some of those attendants could give you a nasty talking to if they caught you. <BR/><BR/>I've never really tried it. If those are their rules then I follow them. I just think it would be better for all parties if the rules were different; if people were allowed to photograph whatever they wished, within reason (religious sites, etc).<BR/><BR/>You mentioned not spoiling it for everyone though, and that's part of what I don't understand.<BR/><BR/>How does seeing a photo of the Eiffel tower or the Pyramids or the interior of the castle at Kuneticka Hora 'spoil it' for people?Captain Oddsockshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04171705425795102480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4319986134869180964.post-59730976395747407662008-06-09T17:49:00.000+02:002008-06-09T17:49:00.000+02:00Hi Oddsocks,My question is, how do they enforce th...Hi Oddsocks,<BR/><BR/>My question is, how do they enforce the photography rule? Is it possible to sneak a camera in to take photos stealthily? I know we all want to respect the rules of famous sites so that we don't spoil it for everyone, but charging for photos is a bit absurd, save for the points that you and Icarus have already made.<BR/><BR/>-CharlieMojoSaveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14273315806529727070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4319986134869180964.post-50180759723476475692008-06-09T14:11:00.000+02:002008-06-09T14:11:00.000+02:00In terms for admission fees for places, there is s...In terms for admission fees for places, there is sometimes a case to be made for charging fees and at the same time limiting the number of people who are in a place at a particular time. <BR/><BR/>I'm thinking of exhibitions at Art Galleries in the UK for example, where you had entry and exit times on your ticket, to ensure that a large amount of people could see the exhibition while at the same time ensuring that there weren't to many people in the one place at the one time.sansIcarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14719694257621197287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4319986134869180964.post-60571389617453433602008-06-09T10:57:00.000+02:002008-06-09T10:57:00.000+02:00That's a good point about buildings used for relig...That's a good point about buildings used for religious purposes. It would be nice to think that people with cameras could be relied on to use common sense, but I think we all know how that would turn out.<BR/><BR/>Cemeteries are another case. I've never seen photography banned in one. But the difference between photographing the grave of a three year old who died last week while a sad-looking couple walk towards you, and snapping a shot of Jim Morrison's grave is (should be)obvious to most people.<BR/><BR/>Greed is a strong word, but I guess that's what you call it if you demand a high price for something that's often (and arguably should always be) free.<BR/><BR/>'Shortsightedness' and 'stupidity' seem, for me, like better words to describe the practice. Unless you feel like your castle or museum has enough visitors already and you don't want to encourage more. (Putting up the 'closed' sign would also be effective if this were the case).<BR/><BR/>The photography fees remind me a bit of Prague's Golden Lane and its admission gates. Until recently you could walk along the lane just like any other. But it's a pretty street and somebody decided there was money to be made by fencing it off and charging (quite a bit if I remember rightly-anybody know?) for admission.<BR/><BR/>Now that's Greed. Imagine blocking off Fifth Avenue or the Champs d'Elysees and charging tourists to get in.Captain Oddsockshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04171705425795102480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4319986134869180964.post-78124089824765246982008-06-09T00:32:00.000+02:002008-06-09T00:32:00.000+02:00I think there are two cases where photography shou...I think there are two cases where photography should be banned at tourist attractions. <BR/><BR/>You've mentioned the first, when the use of flash can damage the sensitive materials used in museum or gallery pieces. But most museums I've been to worldwide don't ban photography completely, they just ban flash photography. <BR/><BR/>The other occassion is when we're talking about a religious building, - temple, church, shrine etc - which often double as a museum/gallery. In this case, when people are actually using the building as a place of worship, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ban photography. Buy a postcard.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, like you, I don't see the point. The extra price in the Czech Republic annoyed me too, Captain Oddsocks, and the only reason I can see for it is greed.sansIcarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14719694257621197287noreply@blogger.com