Is it just a way to rip people off to buy their photos?
2006-09-06 09:33:54 · 13 answers · asked by bwadsp 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
Sorry about the spelling error - spellcheck put the wrong word in. Flash I understand but why not without a flash?
2006-09-06 09:40:05 · update #1
You can from the outside, who could stop you, so I suppose you mean from the inside. Well if you have been on the inside you will know that it is just another tourist trap, there to take your money, so you knew the answer all along.
It would obviously necessary to restrict photography during religious services. You might think that it would be unnecessary to say so, but I was in Istanbul, and there was an Imam there, reciting the Quran, and an American tourist was almost photographing his tonsils in close up.
PS The royals don't get married in St Paul's, I think it's Westminster Abbey. And it would be pretty hard to pray etc with scores of tourists going around yattering and buying cards, they wouldn't need to flash photo.
2006-09-06 12:16:24 · answer #1 · answered by comfasinga 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is my understanding that photography is banned in all places of worship and that photos of wedding ceromonies are also banned. Some churches do allow videos, but flash photography is very annoying, and for those in reflective contemplation an unwelcomed distraction. I found the noise level at Canterbury Cathedral totally destroyed what should have been a moving religous experience.
These buildings also require money to maintain them, so why should they not sell their own photos for this purpose?
2006-09-06 21:28:02 · answer #2 · answered by Breeze 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Besides the commercial part, all flashes produces ultraviolet rays that damage painting, specially the red colors; rendering therefore a flat image with the time; so to preserve it, we have to sacrifice and buy what ever is available.
2006-09-07 07:55:45 · answer #3 · answered by bigonegrande 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sometimes, yes, but repeated flash photography can damage wood and fabric surfaces and disturb people in places of worship. Flash can eventually also damage painted plaster - note - although our cathedrals are fairly bare now, the walls were once awash with colour.
2006-09-06 09:37:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
St Paul's Cathedral is a church, and people who want to sit quietly and think and / or pray, do not appreciate flash bulbs going off every few seconds.
2006-09-06 09:40:51 · answer #5 · answered by Jude 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do sympathise - but honestly the "official" photos/postcards are always the best. we do have photos taken in St Pauls when it was OK to do so in 1978 - also taken on the doorstep of no. 10 - complete with policeman
2006-09-06 10:20:17 · answer #6 · answered by DARNELL20 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That and I think the flashbulbs from the cameras damage the artwork.
2006-09-06 09:36:56 · answer #7 · answered by jim 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Course it is. Remember this is Britain and we get ripped off in every way.
2006-09-06 09:37:03 · answer #8 · answered by Charley G 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They want you to buy their prints and photos instead.
2006-09-06 22:01:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Royals get married there, and there are loads of brainless morons that want to kill our great royal family.
2006-09-06 09:41:38 · answer #10 · answered by thecharleslloyd 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋