
Does flash photography really damage art? The persistence of a myth. - ldayley
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/07/19/does-flash-photography-really-damage-art-the-persistence-of-a-myth
======
LoganCale
Even if it does require billions of flashes to begin to fade artwork in a
gallery setting, consider some of the most popular pieces of artwork, such as
the Mona Lisa, which are heavily photographed and will continue to be so over
hundreds of years. Over time, it's feasible that enough people would
photograph it with a flash that it would begin to fade.

If the data and its analysis in this article are correct, it doesn't make much
sense to ban flash photography in most settings, but it does for things which
are and will continue to be extremely popular for centuries.

~~~
freehunter
I'm surprised they allow photography in art museums anyway. Even putting aside
the "buy a print at the gift shop" argument, you're taking a picture of a
painting. What's the point? Are you really going to be looking through your
photo album for pictures of the Mona Lisa?

Have an experience for once that doesn't exist through the lens of a camera. A
famous painting isn't something that can only be seen once in a lifetime by
traveling to Paris.

~~~
alphang
I take photos (where allowed) of artworks simply as a reminder that I liked
the piece, not to preserve a realistic reproduction of it. In that sense it's
like any other photograph - I'm capturing a facsimile of my experience.

Regarding the article, I think flash photography should still be banned,
simply because it makes for a better museum experience. Can you imagine the
crowd in front of the Mona Lisa? It would be like red carpet for the Oscars.

