When I was a kid, my parents took me to Disney World. It was a long time ago, childhood amnesia and so on, so forgive the fuzzy details here... But basically, they had a very early version of virtual reality (a headset a la Oculus Rift). They chose the same imagery, so I was immersed in the Sistine Chapel. I remember being deeply impressed at the time (although I was a kid, so who knows how great it actually was). Regardless, I have never been to Italy and have wanted to go ever since that experience.
Sistine Chapel
61–70 of 246 posts
Re: Sistine Chapel
#62Am I the only one finding it ironic that they used (Adobe) Flash to show the chapel to the whole world, when tourists can't use (camera) flash to show it to their close friends?
Well, just jacquesm, I simpathize with the stewards: "please, no flash" :(
Re: Sistine Chapel
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
And without the guards yelling "NO PHOTO!!!" every 10-20 seconds at people who dare to try to get a photo of the chapel that's not nearly as nice as this. Copyright is maddening sometimes. [1] 1 - http://mentalfloss.com/article/54641/reason-why-no-photograp...
That's two reasons, not just copyright, and the millions of flashbulbs discharging there over the course of a short timespan would for sure have an effect on the lifespan of the work. So that's a good thing for a bad reason and I totally sympathize with the position of the stewards of this amazing work. I have a super nice story about this but I'm actually somewhat hesitant to tell it in detail in public, but I once…
That's two reasons, not just copyright, and the millions of flashbulbs discharging there over the course of a short timespan would for sure have an effect on the lifespan of the work.
Has anyone actually done the math on this? Or is it just a social hack used by museum guards to dodge the real reason for the policy, which is to keep the gift shop in business?
Re: Sistine Chapel
#64What role do you think the `Sistine-Chapel.xml` file, included in the html source's `embedpano` script, plays?
Re: Sistine Chapel
#65For more renaissance goodness check out this site on the Ghent Altarpiece - zooms so far in that you can see between the paint cracks: http://closertovaneyck.kikirpa.be/#home/sub=altarpiece
Wow, that's center piece is incredible. I don't think it's humanly possible to paint something like that.
Re: Sistine Chapel
#66Very nice. In fact, almost nicer than being there (though you should do that anyway if you get the chance). Because now you can experience the details for as long as you want without a hundred other people around you who are just as annoyed at you as you are at them. I get it that a tourist complaining about tourist attractions being too crowded is total hypocrisy on my part. But at the same time what I wouldn't give…
And without the guards yelling "NO PHOTO!!!" every 10-20 seconds at people who dare to try to get a photo of the chapel that's not nearly as nice as this. Copyright is maddening sometimes. [1] 1 - http://mentalfloss.com/article/54641/reason-why-no-photograp...
I heard rumours they were considering closing the Sistine chapel to the public because people were using flashes when taking photos and it had the potential to damage the artwork.
I don't see why you would bother taking photos anyway. Go in and enjoy it. In a place so crowded your unlikely to get a good photo and there are plenty of photos already online for you to look at.
Re: Sistine Chapel
#67Very nice. In fact, almost nicer than being there (though you should do that anyway if you get the chance). Because now you can experience the details for as long as you want without a hundred other people around you who are just as annoyed at you as you are at them. I get it that a tourist complaining about tourist attractions being too crowded is total hypocrisy on my part. But at the same time what I wouldn't give…
I think the real thing gives you a better sense of the mastery artists (Michaelangelo) have put into this. It's majestic, really.
Re: Sistine Chapel
#68Very nice. In fact, almost nicer than being there (though you should do that anyway if you get the chance). Because now you can experience the details for as long as you want without a hundred other people around you who are just as annoyed at you as you are at them. I get it that a tourist complaining about tourist attractions being too crowded is total hypocrisy on my part. But at the same time what I wouldn't give…
The photo is way nicer than for real. Especially since for tourists the room is much darker normally in order to preserve the art better.
Re: Sistine Chapel
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's two reasons, not just copyright, and the millions of flashbulbs discharging there over the course of a short timespan would for sure have an effect on the lifespan of the work. So that's a good thing for a bad reason and I totally sympathize with the position of the stewards of this amazing work. I have a super nice story about this but I'm actually somewhat hesitant to tell it in detail in public, but I once…
That's two reasons, not just copyright, and the millions of flashbulbs discharging there over the course of a short timespan would for sure have an effect on the lifespan of the work. Has anyone actually done the math on this? Or is it just a social hack used by museum guards to dodge the real reason for the policy, which is to keep the gift shop in business?
The biggest enemy of pigments is ultra-violet and lots of cheap flash kits do not filter that out.
Sunlight is about 1 KW/square meter on a non-cloudy day at noon, directly from above.
4% of that is a typical value for the UV component.
So the UV power hitting a 1 square meter surface at noon is about 40 Watts.
Photographic flash is on the order of a millisecond give or take, and power output of a typical flash during that millisecond is 100 Ws, or 100 KW/ms. Depending on how far away you are from the work of art you're putting for every 10 flashes then the equivalent of about of a second of exposure to the sun on the totality of the work (much more than 1 square meter, so you have to divide by the total surface). In the case of the chapel all the light discharged in the chapel will hit the object somewhere so apart from atmospheric effects (likely small) you can assume all of that light would contribute to the fading.
So every 10,000 tourists passing through and making one picture each with flash on is the equivalent of about 1000 second's worth of exposure to direct sunlight (think of a window of one square meter opening for 1000 seconds once per day), all this assuming that the flash contains an equivalent amount of UV as sunlight which likely is not the case. About 20,000 tourists per day pass through during the peak of the season, so on such days that's the equivalent of 2000 such seconds of the open window.
So at a guess, this is probably not too much of a problem, unless the pigments used break down very easily. (Blue is usually the most stable, with other pigments being more susceptible to fading)
What would be a problem is the fact that if all these people are discharging their flashes all the time that this seriously interferes with the ability of others who do not engage in such annoying reproductive behaviour to appreciate what they are looking at.
edit: fixed some of the math
Re: Sistine Chapel
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's two reasons, not just copyright, and the millions of flashbulbs discharging there over the course of a short timespan would for sure have an effect on the lifespan of the work. So that's a good thing for a bad reason and I totally sympathize with the position of the stewards of this amazing work. I have a super nice story about this but I'm actually somewhat hesitant to tell it in detail in public, but I once…
I wish more places would specify "no flash photography" when that's really what they mean. I suppose some people don't know how to turn it off, but for those who do (or for those who don't bring a flash in the first place), it would be nice.
The best way I've seen it implemented was a museum that not only had a lengthy explanation about how to turn off your flash (including examples for Sony point-and-shoots, which were fairly popular), but also had a "test table" with similar light as you'd find inside, so experts could adjust their exposure/ISO accordingly.
Perhaps that's expecting too much from the average tourist, but still, I found it cool.