Silent Shooting

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

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.

These are wonderful spots for photography but there are signs that say, "No photo/video".

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.

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.

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.

-- Holly Schultz (hollys@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002

Answers

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.

-- sunil (yatsunil@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

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.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 02, 2002.

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.

No one ever stopped us or informed us of our wrongdoing ... We never used flash or lights so I guess we never bugged anyone.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), April 02, 2002.


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!

-Ramy

-- Ramy (rsadek@cs.oberlin.edu), April 02, 2002.


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?

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!"

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.



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...

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), April 02, 2002.

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?

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

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).

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), April 02, 2002.

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.

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.

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.

Strange, isn't it?

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), April 02, 2002.


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.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 02, 2002.


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?"

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.

-- B. D. Colen (bdcolen@earthlink.net), April 02, 2002.


Mr. Colen-

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.

More power to you Holly.

-- jeff voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.


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.

Sneaking photos for ones own pleasure does not make one a hero, Jeff, it makes one rude.

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

-- B. D. Colen (bdcolen@earthlink.net), April 02, 2002.


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.

-- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), April 02, 2002.

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

You people have no respect.

-- Phil Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), April 02, 2002.



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?.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 02, 2002.

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.

BTW - How long have you been at LIJ? I was a medical writer for Newsday from 1980-1993.

B. D. Colen

-- B. D. Colen (bdcolen@earthlink.net), April 02, 2002.


Mr. Colen-

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.

All I'm saying is that sometimes rules should be flaunted a bit. It's not like someone got killed. Lighten up.

-- jeff voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.


Jeff - First, thanks for the compliment.

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.

But I guess it's okay to do something like this because, as Holly told us, she "had a lot of fun."

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

B. D.

-- B. D. Colen (bdcolen@earthlink.net), April 02, 2002.


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!.

I've been at LIJ since 1993.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 02, 2002.


Mr. Colen-

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.

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.

Someone should ask me sometime about how I feel about the value of silence in our national parks.

-- jeff voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.


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?

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), April 02, 2002.

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.

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.

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.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 02, 2002.


Firstly the British Government does not own St. Paul's it belongs to the Church Of England which is not part of the Government.

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'

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!

-- Philip P Woodcock (phil@pushbar.demon.co.uk), April 02, 2002.


Philip, you say "Firstly the British Government does not own St. Paul's it belongs to the Church Of England which is not part of the Government. "

and then you say

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

That's your opinion, fair enough. But what is the opinion of the Church of England. Surely it is 'No Photographs Allowed'?

You also say "Secondly I believe Sir Christopher Wren WOULD approve of you taking photos in his greatest of acheivements."

Not to blaspheme but I wonder what the Sole Authority greater than Sir Christopher Wren would say about this in His house of worship?

If you think that He will probably have nothing to say this is not a religious matter, one of sanctity of worship, but rather a simple secular matter of order and law.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), April 02, 2002.


That should read

If you think that He will probably have nothing to say then this is not a religious matter, one of sanctity of worship, but rather a simple secular matter of order and law.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), April 02, 2002.


But Wren did design it, the Church of England didn't like his design, he altered the design to appease them but went ahead with most of his original design in secret! If Wren had been bound by the word and deeds of the religious leaders of the time St Paul's would have looked pretty ordinary.

-- Philip P Woodcock (phil@pushbar.demon.co.uk), April 02, 2002.

Wow, what a lot of responses. Firstly, I'm Canadian, not American, hate me if you wish.

It is my opinion that the only desecration of holy places is when they are turned into showplaces; charging an entrance fee and posting silly rules to protect their own postcard, picture book income. Seems to be that God, Allah, or whomever you might believe in would prefer a humble place that welcomed everyone.

But maybe I'm a silly idealist. No one was hurt by may actions, no one. So your comments about my having fun and feeling alive coming at someone elses expense is quite misplaced.

-- Holly (hollys@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.


Religion has NOTHING whatever to do with banning photography in St. Paul's Cathederal or Westminster Abbey. Formal occasions in both places, such as royal weddings, are filmed by the TV stations and that is not deemed to be an offence against the church. Many other places of worship in the UK and elsewhere have no such restrictions. Photography is not a sacreligious act. It is wrong to say that people who take photos in churches have no respect.

I disagree with the view that the rest of the world hates Americans, although sometimes I can understand why someone might perceive that to be the case. Here in Indonesia, a country of 200 million people, about ~90% of them muslim, there appear to be very few people with anti-US feeling. It's true that a group of hard-core fanatics became violently active, just after the US military started to attack the Taliban last year, to the extent that the US Embassy in Jakarta had to be evacuated for a time. However, they quietened down nicely when the government threatened their leader with prosecution that could possibly result in his incarceration for 8 years, for trying to stir up hatred and for defaming the police (actually, what he said about the police was probably true but he should have had more sense than to say it in public). As far as I know, none of this had anything to do with American citizens taking unauthorized photos of religious places, probably because no such restrictions exist here.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.


"? 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."

Eliot, you really are one of the stupidest people on this planet.

-- Rob Appleby (rob@robertappleby.com), April 03, 2002.


Concerning he copyright laws that Chris Chen refers to in my photographing "Cirque du Soleil" ( sorry for the horrible spelling in my previous post): I think copyrights are for protecting against commercial exploitation of other peoples' work, but cannot be enforced against personal and private use like a vacation album. Frankly, there was no posting anywhere at the theatre that banned photography. Only an announcement "that no FLASH photograpy or video was allowed just prior to the performance. I simply took them at their word and shot sans flash. If a place wants to ban ALL photography, they should be clear about it. I figured "no flash" was specificly to avoid hundreds of point- and- shooters popping off during the performance.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), April 03, 2002.

'Fyask me, it's all a question of where you're at. You can often/usually take picturtes of Michelangelo, Van Gogh, St. Pauls, Churchill etc etc and nothing will ever happen, even if there are those signs there. BUT, being at the new Jewish Museum here in Berlin, and realizing what's all going on in Israel today, I wouldn't do it. I was there two days ago and I've never been checked out so thoroughly in all my life, even just to get in and buy the tickets. Ditto at the border between Greek and Turkish Nicosia in Cypress.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), April 03, 2002.

What a panoply of passion! I think most intelligent people can discern whether a ban on photography is for sensible, religious, or for commercial reasons. I also agree with others that whether you choose to follow the rules on this is rather akin to your view about taking pictures of people in the street with or without their permission. I would try and sneak a photo inside a place if there was no photography and if I thought I could get away with it, and more importantly, if I thought the result would be worth keeping. But in my experience, a grabshot (even with a Leica) inside a place where you are unable to prepare and frame accurately, and hold the camera still is not much use anyway, so I therefore do not bother. Of course I would say this as I shoot 100 speed slide film most of the time, I might feel differently if you were loaded up with 800 film.

Tourists as a group are always trying it on - Americans are no worse than anyone else, in fact in my experience not a patch on some other groups of tourists, so I do understand the zero tolerance policy of some places. But I also agree with some people here though that many bans have little logic other than for some supposed commercial gain. Often in this case I think that any financial gain to the owners is absolutely minimal compared to the annoyance it causes to the visitors.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 03, 2002.


"Churchill's tomb in St. Paul's or Westminster Abby"? I don't think so!

Regards,

-- Alan Purves (lpurves@mnsi.net), April 05, 2002.


Right Alan - it is a memorial - no body inside. O dear -- poor conned tourists!

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 08, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ