No photography at places

FlyingShrapnel

FlyingShrapnel

Suspended / Banned
Messages
924
Name
Kyle
Edit My Images
Yes
This is sort of a rant, I am a bit miff'd because Durham Cathedral don't allow the public to take photos inside, and its beautiful :(

On what grounds do "public" places like churches/museums ban photography? I understand the no flash bit cos its disruptive and/or damages artefacts etc but all out no photos? Are there specific rules concerning heritage sites?
 
Sectionate said:
It is their building, so they can do what they like with it in terms of rules etc
Click to expand...

Exactly...although I bet they will sell you a photography permit ;)
 
danny_bhoy said:
Yeah my mates just been and for about a 15 quid 'donation' he says they'll let you shoot in there. It is really spectacular inside!
Click to expand...

pfft, arent churches supposed to be charitable? although 15 quid isnt bad if they let me do it properly (with tripod etc)

the main reason it annoys me is that photos are of no cost to them, its not like im chipping a bit of stone out of the walls to take away with me :(

Sectionate said:
It is their building, so they can do what they like with it in terms of rules etc
Click to expand...
is it not a public place though because it is a heritage site? please correct me if im wrong :D
 
Last edited:
Sectionate said:
It is their building, so they can do what they like with it in terms of rules etc
Click to expand...

I thought churches were buildings for the people?

Gloucester Cathedral has a similar "rule" on entry, So I go round to the back entrance that not many people know about and then shoot to my hearts content.

I don't see the difference between me shooting a few select scenes but having to pay, and tourists shooting the entire time they are there and usually with flash and not having to pay a bean.
 
TCR4x4 said:
I thought churches were buildings for the people?

Gloucester Cathedral has a similar "rule" on entry, So I go round to the back entrance that not many people know about and then shoot to my hearts content.

I don't see the difference between me shooting a few select scenes but having to pay, and tourists shooting the entire time they are there and usually with flash and not having to pay a bean.
Click to expand...

still, privately owned though Tom by the Church of England or whatever denomination controls that building, sad but true

Les :shrug:
 
I don't agree with churches charging for admittance. But upkeep isn't cheap and people don't chip in 10% these days.

Have you thought they might want it to be a place of worship. Having hundreds of people clicking away may distract others from their prayer! In reality it's just a way to spin money.
 
First of all, if the laws are like in Portugal, Churches and stuff are not public. That's why they can apply different rules. :\

And usually they don't allow photography to preserve paintings. Usually "tourist" use flash all the time and all that light is like putting a painting in the sun. It will fade the colors and damage ink. The cost for the permit should allow restore the painting...

If there are no paintings, well.... It's just something that is common in other churches, so they do the same just because they can.... :\
 
Pedro Antunes said:
First of all, if the laws are like in Portugal, Churches and stuff are not public. That's why they can apply different rules. :\

And usually they don't allow photography to preserve paintings. Usually "tourist" use flash all the time and all that light is like putting a painting in the sun. It will fade the colors and damage ink. The cost for the permit should allow restore the painting...

If there are no paintings, well.... It's just something that is common in other churches, so they do the same just because they can.... :\
Click to expand...

In my experience churches and cathedrals do not have many paintings in the uk. They are more into stone work and nice bits of glass. But I'm not exactly a devout follower of religion.
 
supersammy said:
Have you thought they might want it to be a place of worship. Having hundreds of people clicking away may distract others from their prayer! In reality it's just a way to spin money.
Click to expand...

i really dont think Durham Cathedral "markets" itself as a place of worship, i see it is mainly a tourist attraction
 
You have to imagine how different it would be if almost everyone was taking pictures ever few seconds, flash or not.
 
TCR4x4 said:
I thought churches were buildings for the people?

Gloucester Cathedral has a similar "rule" on entry, So I go round to the back entrance that not many people know about and then shoot to my hearts content.

I don't see the difference between me shooting a few select scenes but having to pay, and tourists shooting the entire time they are there and usually with flash and not having to pay a bean.
Click to expand...

Churches are buildings for people to worship in and they all cost a fortune to keep going,i happily pay for my photo permit at those churches that have those rules and always make contribution in those that don't. In the same way if I am photographing but not travelling on a preserved railway I slip a couple of quid in the donations tin.
If we want these places for future photographers to enjoy then don't moan about coughing up a few quid for the privilege
 
CaptainPenguin said:
If we want these places for future photographers to enjoy then don't moan about coughing up a few quid for the privilege
Click to expand...

Of course there's nothing wrong with charging a small fee but £15 is not a few quid it's daylight robbery.
 
jackthekipper said:
Of course there's nothing wrong with charging a small fee but £15 is not a few quid it's daylight robbery.
Click to expand...

It does seem very excessive but if its as beautiful as you say is it worth it for the shots you can get,for me it would be to much but I guess the authorities at Durham have a reason for such a high price. Be interesting to know how many they sell, last time I was in York Minster they asked for a £5 donation but in a way that suggests if you don't pay watch out for the thunderbolts
 
I have paid on several occasions to go into Gloucester Cathedral. I'll happily pop a donation in the box, but when I'm told I have to pay, or I cant come in, even though someone in front of me with a compact camera walks straight on in, then I'm afraid I'll find other means to gain access.

Its not like the Church of England is short of a few quid anyway.
 
I work at Chester Cathedral were there is no admission charge and you can take photos if you like they do ask for a donation but that is your choice.
All churches are owned by the church and receive no government grants etc, so most will charge an admission believe me they are very expensive to keep going.
The original poster goes on about it being a "public building" and someone else said "I don't agree with churches charging for admittance ", if you go into worship there is no charge at any church or cathedral, but it isn't a public building like a library or museum its a popular misconception.
Go on holiday abroad there will be a charge to get into most churches and museums which nobody seems to complain about, well on this site.
 
A church is foremost a place of worship, normally supported (or at least it should be by it's worshipping congregation, tithing) sadly numbers worshipping in such large buildings has declined so the cost of upkeep outstrips resources. If you wish to avail yourself of them for photographic rather than worshipping is it not right that you should contribute to the upkeep. If you think that £15 is a lot, then that hardly represents 10% of most people's income, I contribute more than that to my church each week, where I could photograph to my hearts content should I choose to do so. Rather puts a different perspective on it.
 
They are not short of a few quid ask Mr Wonger ;)
 
danny_bhoy said:
Yeah my mates just been and for about a 15 quid 'donation' he says they'll let you shoot in there. It is really spectacular inside!
Click to expand...

A donation is just that, you can't charge a donation, by it's very name it's an option.
 
FlyingShrapnel said:
Allan can you clarify what "type" of building a church is? Is it private but they open it to the public or... ?
Click to expand...

Technically yes its private as say a stately home is, I understand what you are getting at it's a place of worship, if thats what you choose to do in that case there is no charge to use the building, its free.
TCR4x4 says church are rich not short of a few bob, really what do you base that on as an excuse for sneaking in, cameras are expensive too so you too could afford to give a couple of pounds surely.
The church are land rich i will give you that, but a lot of the buildings on the estate are in a poor state they cannot afford to repair them wether thats through bad management is another argument.
I am not religious in any way so I am not defending them from that point of view in fact before I worked there i would have probably had the same view but if you want to be able to use the building for whatever reason that may be then churches need the publics money.
 
Either charge everyone,or charge no one. Donations are one thing, entrance fees are another.
 
Durham have occasional photographic sessions, usually early morning and in the evening. The last one, a week or two ago was 5.30am to 9 or 9.30 I think. There is a limit on the number of places but I can't recall what the number is. If you get a "what"s on" booklet the dates are listed in there. However I had a chat with a nice lady on the help desk and if you contact the chapter office you can indeed pay to go in and snap away. No flash but tripods are ok. I explained that I would go in really early and be out by the time the hordes arrive and this was fine, so once the main tourist season is over I'm going for a session. Of course with a keen eye for swishing robes and a little discretion pictures can still be had!
 
alsjazzera said:
Technically yes its private as say a stately home is, I understand what you are getting at it's a place of worship, if thats what you choose to do in that case there is no charge to use the building, its free.
Click to expand...
Thanks, i was under the impression they are public buildings. And i see why they need money to keep their places going now, but to quote TCR4x4...

TCR4x4 said:
Either charge everyone,or charge no one. Donations are one thing, entrance fees are another.
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly :)
 
magirus said:
Durham have occasional photographic sessions, usually early morning and in the evening. The last one, a week or two ago was 5.30am to 9 or 9.30 I think. There is a limit on the number of places but I can't recall what the number is. If you get a "what"s on" booklet the dates are listed in there. However I had a chat with a nice lady on the help desk and if you contact the chapter office you can indeed pay to go in and snap away. No flash but tripods are ok. I explained that I would go in really early and be out by the time the hordes arrive and this was fine, so once the main tourist season is over I'm going for a session. Of course with a keen eye for swishing robes and a little discretion pictures can still be had!
Click to expand...

Wanna go together? :D

ofc, theres always the shoot from the hip whilst looking around trick :p just that I cant share any of those shots that i obviously didnt take online :|
 
If you are going to a service entry is free at any church or cathedral.
if you are a tourist there is a fee. The upkeep costs of a cathedral are staggering often several million a year. Photography is regulated especially the use of tripods which can restrict access for other people.
Seems reasonable to me. They were not built a photo oppertunities....
Not all religions allow non believers in at all, or put in place heavy restrictions as to times and dress.
 
TCR4x4 said:
I thought churches were buildings for the people?

Gloucester Cathedral has a similar "rule" on entry, So I go round to the back entrance that not many people know about and then shoot to my hearts content.

I don't see the difference between me shooting a few select scenes but having to pay, and tourists shooting the entire time they are there and usually with flash and not having to pay a bean.
Click to expand...

Are you doing your shots for commercial/money making reasons, rather than tourist shots?
 
Sectionate said:
Are you doing your shots for commercial/money making reasons, rather than tourist shots?
Click to expand...

No, Im doing it for my own pleasure, like all my photography.

Who's to say uncle bob with his bridge camera who gets in free isn't selling his images to a local postcard maker?
 
Charging people to enter a church? Isn't that 'Simony' (trafficking for money in "spiritual things")

I seem to remember that a certain J Christ had Strong Views on people money changing in temples... :)

I usually make a donation, in parish churches as well as the bigger ones, because they are gorgeous buildings that we need to keep, although my views on religion are, shall we say, sceptical. I agree with Lez325 about Wells. It really is stunning and three quid is peanuts. They also do a 'high parts' tour for groups at, if memory serves, about a tenner. You get a guided tour around the bits you won't normally see, with good historical info on the construction of the thing. It ends on the roof (weather permitting) with stunning views. Takes a couple of hours. Well worth it.

254416_1675236135452_946091_n_zpsa8f4f626.jpg


NB: Wells Cathedral costs around £4,000 per day in upkeep.
 
Last edited:
jon ryan said:
Charging people to enter a church? Isn't that 'Simony' (trafficking for money in "spiritual things")

I seem to remember that a certain J Christ had Strong Views on people money changing in temples... :)

I usually make a donation, in parish churches as well as the bigger ones, because they are gorgeous buildings that we need to keep, although my views on religion are, shall we say, sceptical. I agree with Lez325 about Wells. It really is stunning and three quid is peanuts. They also do a 'high parts' tour for groups at, if memory serves, about a tenner. You get a guided tour around the bits you won't normally see, with good historical info on the construction of the thing. It ends on the roof (weather permitting) with stunning views. Takes a couple of hours. Well worth it.

NB: Wells Cathedral costs around £4,000 per day in upkeep.
Click to expand...

Nobody is charged for the spiritual side of church, it's free if you want to pray, light a candle or attend a service.
 
When I was last in Liverpool, entrance to the cathedral was free and photography actively encouraged.
 
Dave1 said:
When I was last in Liverpool, entrance to the cathedral was free and photography actively encouraged.
Click to expand...

Good isn't it? :)

I always drop a quid in the box though. I've also been known to pay the fiver to go up the tower every now and again.
 
As Magirus said there are times when you can take photographs within Durham Cathedral during special sessions. Also, during the Durham Lumiere festival when the Carabosse installation was in there it was no problem.

I'm not a believer myself and I'm often frustrated when visiting such architecturally beautiful places that photography isn't allowed. However, I can appreciate that many people visit for different reasons (ie worship) and during busy periods the sounds of 100's of shutters (both simulated and actual) would be very audible in such a quiet place.
 
Went to St Davids Cathedral recently.
Entry is free.
Photography (without tripod) costs £2 for a permit, though I would doubt many of the iphone weilding tourists had one.

Photography with a tripod required contacting the dean for a permit and arranging a time / date which was advised at a quiet time. This cost £10 and I arranged it for 9am the next day.

Now from someone who hates paying for anything touristy I thought this was a fair price to pay and it gives you a certain amount of exclusivity. Who wants a large bunch of photographers with unweildy tripods obstructing the place when hundreds of tourists are around?
 
you guys have shown me the other side of the coin and convinced me that I shouldnt expect free photos in buildings that require maintenance :thumbs:

However they should at least advertise the opportunity, like say somewhere on their website or in the cathedral "£10 and photograph to your hearts content" or something. but then suppose that might make it a mass known fact and everybody would like a bit of this "privilege" and overwhelm the place with cameras :shrug:

just cant win eh? :bang:
 
Steve-T said:
Went to St Davids Cathedral recently.
Entry is free.
Photography (without tripod) costs £2 for a permit, though I would doubt many of the iphone weilding tourists had one.

Photography with a tripod required contacting the dean for a permit and arranging a time / date which was advised at a quiet time. This cost £10 and I arranged it for 9am the next day.

Now from someone who hates paying for anything touristy I thought this was a fair price to pay and it gives you a certain amount of exclusivity. Who wants a large bunch of photographers with unweildy tripods obstructing the place when hundreds of tourists are around?
Click to expand...

St Davids is stunning taken a few shots form outside last year but never taken any inside
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top