Natural history museum [C & C]

Ricky91t

Hi took these yesterday with my nifty fifty which i got about an hour before going there.:D
Tell me what you think
1

2

3
(Ps...Only noticed iso was at 1600 at the end so some images are noisy:p)

Karoma

I have to ask: Did you get permission to shoot or just do it on the sly?

DaireQuinlan

ricky91t wrote: »

Hi took these yesterday with my nifty fifty which i got about an hour before going there.:D
Tell me what you think

Very nice, I really like the first one, great colour and use of DOF. The third one doesn't really do anything for me at all.

More to the point though, how on earth did you get into the natural history museum ? I thought it was closed until 2009 or something ?!?

Ricky91t

Oh no i just noticed meant to say this is the london one
Im here on holidays till tomorrow and no you dont need permission photography is aloud
Thanks Dairequinlan

5uspect

The first one is great!

Cabaal

First one is very nice, photograghy not allowed in the Dublin one?
Even when you don't use a flash?

DaireQuinlan

Ah, the London one. You should have said :-)

Cabaal wrote: »

First one is very nice, photograghy not allowed in the Dublin one?
Even when you don't use a flash?

AFAIK you're allowed non-flash photography in all the Museums in Ireland (or at least all the ones I've been to) with the possible exception of the national gallery. The problem is that over-zealous security guards will kick you out on occasion, happened to me in the national history museum. Its the same old story, take pictures with a P&S and they have no problem at all, even the ones with automatic flash, there were a bunch of people around the day I got asked to leave with little pocket cameras snapping away. Take out an SLR though and they're down on you like a ton of bricks ...

Dades

No. 1 ftw!

Cabaal

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Take out an SLR though and they're down on you like a ton of bricks ...

Typical eh?
(POINTS FINGER) Your trying to make money from the pictures!!!!!

sigh,
ah well sure, suppose all you can do is fight your case when the time comes and point out the users of the pocket camera's and camera phones

AnCatDubh

no 1 is great - it just like the scene in Alien where Sigourney Weaver meets the mama ;o) You picked up a few light reflections(?) - presumably they had the alien in a glass case? You could probably clone them away if they bothered you.

with no 2 - the picture is technically quite good (imho) - the composition may have been improved by including more of the creatures leg - it just looks that the chap's growth was stunted at the knee! - people pictures regularly suffer from this err. And although the chap looks fairly stuffed (a little unreal but that's not your fault), nice DOF obtained here ensuring correct focus on the beast.

although no 3 doesn't do much for me - i presume you were basically getting as low an aperture as possible and seeing what would be the result. oh but the DOF at lower apertures are sweet eh?

didn't notice too much noise on first viewing but that could be the crap laptop display i have (grrrrrr...)

Cheers.

magicbastarder

got this lot while trying to avoid the attendants in the irish NHM; they seem to disallow all photography on the basis that it's easier than explaining the difference between non-flash and flash photography.

kinda made the experience more fun.
http://www.stroma.org/galeria/thumbnails.php?album=19

50mm f2 macro OM MF lens on an olympus E500, btw.

Ricky91t

AnCatDubh wrote: »

You picked up a few light reflections(?) - presumably they had the alien in a glass case?

Yeah it was came out beeter than i thought it would

AnCatDubh wrote: »

didn't notice too much noise on first viewing but that could be the crap laptop display i have (grrrrrr...)

No if you look at the full size's on flickr noise if alot more noticeable i cant really see much in these shots

And thanks for the detailed comment

jlang

Not going to be relevant for a few years to come, but the Stuffed Animal Museum in Dublin definitely had a ban on all photography in place for the last few years at least.

bradnailer

jlang wrote: »

Not going to be relevant for a few years to come,

Is it still closed after the accident with the stairs ?

Ricky91t

Why is photography banned if the stuffed animal museum

Alun

bradnailer wrote: »

Is it still closed after the accident with the stairs ?

Yes .. closed for a couple of years at least according to the sign outside. Quite how it's going to take that long to repair, god only knows.

magicbastarder

they're going to do a full renovation of the building, not just repair the stairs.

Alun

magicbastarder wrote: »

they're going to do a full renovation of the building, not just repair the stairs.

Even so ...

Anyway, I hope they don't renovate it too much ... it'll spoil it. Part of it's charm was that it was an anachronism, a museum within a museum as it were. One of the guide books, Lonely planet IIRC, described it as the Dead Zoo which is quite accurate.

magicbastarder

the dead zoo is its common nickname.

Chunky Monkey

Love the first one Ricky!

Ricky91t

Chunky Monkey wrote: »

Love the first one Ricky!

Thanks yeah its my fave too

Fionn

hmm - i was surprised too until i found out it was in London, I really dont see why they dont allow photography, after all it's our tax euros that pay for all this stuff! if other countries can allow it why not here?
last year i went to the National Museum, Collins Barracks - the mistake i made was to take a few shots of the main square, after that, some pretentious, self important 'curator' or whatever followed me all over the place, i didn't have a big camera with me. Unfortunately the photography policy of these places have a stifling effect on the whole experience of the visit and irritates no end.

anyway i should have left the square til i was finished.
btw there was "Strictly No Photography" signes all over the place
Wish i could have taken a photograph of one of them

here's the square! apologies for the size!! :eek:

decsramble

Fionn wrote: »

btw there was "Strictly No Photography" signes all over the place

When it comes to history I believe the stance is "They dug it up, they own the copyright"? ;-)

Mellor

When it comes to history I believe the stance is "They dug it up, they own the copyright"? ;-)
I didn't thinjk it was a copyright issue. Ans was more because of the fact that repeated camera flashes could damage some art work. Unforntunity, the rule is applied too liberally over here, to all work not just those that may be damaged.

they seem to disallow all photography on the basis that it's easier than explaining the difference between non-flash and flash photography

well to be honest, thats fair really.
Assuming its the flash thats the problem, they could allow non-flash photography. But what would happen then is people would forget the flash was on, or it would go off on auto etc, these are joes with P&S cameras. So because it would be very hard to prevent this happening if non flash was allowed, the blanket ban is safer.

But i'd prefere if the ban was similar to the louvre in paris. much better system

decsramble

Mellor wrote: »

well to be honest, thats fair really.
Assuming its the flash thats the problem, they could allow non-flash photography. But what would happen then is people would forget the flash was on, or it would go off on auto etc, these are joes with P&S cameras. So because it would be very hard to prevent this happening if non flash was allowed, the blanket ban is safer.

But i'd prefere if the ban was similar to the louvre in paris. much better system

I was only half joking when I said that. :-) I was in the National Museum one time and the guide told us that the items on display were copyrighted by the museum. The example she gave was the little bronze age (?) gold boat they have on display. It is one of the centre pieces of their collection. If you see it in publication it should either be a museum publication or one they sold the image rights to.

Cabaal

Mellor wrote: »

refere if the ban was similar to the louvre in paris. much better system

and that is?

Cabaal

decsramble wrote: »

I was only half joking when I said that. :-) I was in the National Museum one time and the guide told us that the items on display were copyrighted by the museum. The example she gave was the little bronze age (?) gold boat they have on display. It is one of the centre pieces of their collection. If you see it in publication it should either be a museum publication or one they sold the image rights to.

Would it not be copyright to the state though?
As the Gov owns the museum,

decsramble

Cabaal wrote: »

Would it not be copyright to the state though?
As the Gov owns the museum,

Possibly. They may have been simplifying the copyright and saying it was copyrighted by the museum. That way some bright spark, like myself, would have said, but as a taxpayer surely that means it's part mine too

trooney

Not so sure bout other museums, but the National Gallery will allow you in to take photos if you apply in writing, or at least thats what the guys in there have told me. Have been thrown out on me ear on occasion, but have never bothered to go through the whole rigmaroll of sending them a letter asking permission - yet.
Frankly, there are many other places/things to take shots of without any preamble. Maybe one day though...

Mellor

Cabaal wrote: »

and that is?

Sorry, should of been specific,
in the louvre when you enter you get a map, this has all different areas colour coded by period, location and type. Sensitive pictures are grouped together and those areas are clearly highlight as "no photography". Sculptures are together and free to photograph, suitable paintings together and free to photograph. Renaissance art is together and can't be photographed. So you can walk around with a camera in the area allowed, but it must be kept down in restricted areas. There are a few guards about, most noticably at the mona lisa, two either side, as there is always a crowd and a few chancers.

Mellor

Cabaal wrote: »

Would it not be copyright to the state though?
As the Gov owns the museum,

As for the copyright, Are you sure the museum holds it?
What about work on loan, or exhibit? I seen a display from the Turner collection in ireland recently, surely thats not irish copyright.

magicbastarder

Cabaal wrote: »

Would it not be copyright to the state though?
As the Gov owns the museum,

can 'the state' hold copyright?
i would have assumed that if copyright is held, it is held by the national museum, possibly on behalf of the state.

Cabaal

Maybe not copyright but surely the works belong to the state..eg: book of kells etc would belong to the Irish Gov,

magicbastarder

i think the book of kells belongs to TCD.
that aside, is there a legal entity known as 'the state of ireland', or similar?
i would have assumed the state is composed of all of the bodies which make up the government and civic bodies; e.g. government departments, OPW, etc., and that there is no such all-encompassing legal entity.

that said, that's just an assumption.

Mellor

No, I think its the state.
Like schools are DoEd buildings, but are under the state. The departments wouldn't own the school, afaik. For example, Fas buildings don't belong to Fas.
There are probably exceptions to this, where a civic body has its own ownership,

decsramble

Cabaal wrote: »

Maybe not copyright but surely the works belong to the state..eg: book of kells etc would belong to the Irish Gov,

Jaysis, dont tell Bertie. He'll accidentally pack it in his box when he's cleaning out his desk in a couple of years.

jlang

Mellor wrote: »

Like schools are DoEd buildings, but are under the state.

A very large proportion of the schools in the country are owned by the church, but I think we're veering off the photo topic here.

Chunky Monkey

92% at the moment (was 96% only a few years ago)-not sure if that's just primary schools though.

Anyway I was one of much more then a few chancers who took a photo of the Mona Lisa. Can't find it now but it wasn't great as I'm small and was at the back of the crowd. It's a disappointingly small painting.

Nothingcompares

Fionn wrote: »

here's the square! apologies for the size!! :eek:

RAPID PHOTO!

i think the distinction between flash photography and non-flash is bogus anyway, i don't think it makes any difference, they're exposed to daylight and the museum lights all the time (except the stuff under covers obviously). i loved the old NHM in dublin, been up there loads of times, it's a pity it's closed.

Mellor

Chunky Monkey wrote: »

92% at the moment (was 96% only a few years ago)-not sure if that's just primary schools though.

Anyway I was one of much more then a few chancers who took a photo of the Mona Lisa. Can't find it now but it wasn't great as I'm small and was at the back of the crowd. It's a disappointingly small painting.

Yeah most people are surprised at the size of it, I knew how big it was so wasn't disappointed. But I didn't expect much, imo a far better painting hangs opposite it, the massive wedding at cana

Nothingcompares wrote: »

RAPID PHOTO!

i think the distinction between flash photography and non-flash is bogus anyway, i don't think it makes any difference, they're exposed to daylight and the museum lights all the time (except the stuff under covers obviously). i loved the old NHM in dublin, been up there loads of times, it's a pity it's closed.

Its not bogus, to say so is silly. And they are generally not exposed to direct light. Sunlight would be damaging to alot of paintings. Lights in musuems are often special to have little impact, non UV etc.

templeathea

the first one is terrific.