St Pauls (and the lack of Photography)

repap

repap

Suspended / Banned
Messages
154
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Went to St Pauls on Saturday with the Mrs and her sister who's visiting from Canada. I took my camera along and was getting excited at the thought of being able to capture some great indoor shots.

To my amazement, just after you pay your £12.50 entrance fee there's a tiny sign that reads "no photography". Would I be narrow minded if I thought this was mainly for commercial purposes?

Thought having this sign AFTER you pay was a little naughty to say the least.

Rant over :dummy:
 
repap said:
Would I be narrow minded if I thought this was mainly for commercial purposes?

Thought having this sign AFTER you pay was a little naughty to say the least.

Rant over :dummy:
Click to expand...

In my opinion, anyone that thinks religion isn't for commercial purposes is naïve. But that's just my opinion and doens't mean it's right.
 
I thought you could purchase a photo "pass"
 
Flamez said:
I thought you could purchase a photo "pass"
Click to expand...

No for private use it's strictly prohibited.

must maximise postcard sales you know.:(
 
Same thing in St. Davids (west Wales) had to be crafty shots and no flash !;)
 
Did everyone stick to it?

I was on holiday in North Italy recently and found a beautiful church that unfortunately had a "no photo" sign.
Just as I was about to leave though, a pile of Italian (I think) tourists came in snapping away at everything with flash and video cameras etc so I thought, When in Rome... and got some nice images.
 
Lots of places like that have photography restrictions, especially places of worship. Regardless of whether you think it's a commercial decision on their part I think you should be respectful of it.
 
Exeter Cathedral, I believe charges £2 admission, and you get a free photo pass with it.
 
I can see why they have done it, as having a huge amount of tourist wandering around snapping away would create a bit of havoc...

It was nice to wander around Liverpool Cathedral and have one of the staff nudge me and say "Do you want to go up on the Bridge? The perspective is much better"
 
Liverpool's Anglican Cathedral

No problems at all, except during a service, free to get in, free to photograph.
 
york is about £12 , but durham was the most expensive it was £18 just for photography.

most seem to have some sense and charge around £2 for none comerial use.

Cheers Steve
 
Norwich is £2.00 as well. That sort of price seems reasonable but £12 is a bit much.
 
repap said:
Went to St Pauls on Saturday with the Mrs and her sister who's visiting from Canada. I took my camera along and was getting excited at the thought of being able to capture some great indoor shots.

To my amazement, just after you pay your £12.50 entrance fee there's a tiny sign that reads "no photography". Would I be narrow minded if I thought this was mainly for commercial purposes?

Thought having this sign AFTER you pay was a little naughty to say the least.

Rant over :dummy:
Click to expand...

:thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown:
 
Went all over Rome last year and no resrictions anywhere on photography unless there was a service going on. I took some amazing pics inside some stunning churches including St Peters Basillica.
Seems like the church here are just interested in fleecing the public just like everyone else.
 
Not just churches, signs everywhere in Cairo Museum, Egypt forbidding photography earlier this year ... tourists wandering around everywhere with phone cameras.
 
gramps said:
Not just churches, signs everywhere in Cairo Museum, Egypt forbidding photography earlier this year ... tourists wandering around everywhere with phone cameras.
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to think thats the answer, a really good small compact for the places that don't (or wont) like slr cameras.
 
gramps said:
Not just churches, signs everywhere in Cairo Museum, Egypt forbidding photography earlier this year ... tourists wandering around everywhere with phone cameras.
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to think thats the answer, a really good small compact for the places that don't (or wont) like slr cameras.
Edit I wonder if I could bulid one into a baseball cap.. like that one on thundrbirds ;)
 
Last edited:
AFAIK, the conditions of entry - including any restrictions - have to be brought to your attention when you buy a ticket to be legally binding, because they form part of the contract between you and the owners of the property. You can't insist on taking photographs just because you weren't told that it is prohibited though, or because you didn't see the sign, but you can probably leave and demand a refund on the basis that you wouldn't have paid the admission fee if you had known about it.

I'm not religious, and I know a lot of the visitors to cathedrals etc are tourists, but I still have reservations about a church charging for admission. Its distasteful.
 
MartynK said:
I'm not religious, and I know a lot of the visitors to cathedrals etc are tourists, but I still have reservations about a church charging for admission. Its distasteful.
Click to expand...


I agree with the whole charging thing, and refused to go into York Minster for that exact reason (it's also why I haven't been inside St Paul's for years), but I can see their point to a certain extent. If you have an increased number of visitors, then you have increased wear and tear and the need for a higher level of staffing; which has all got to be paid for in some way or other.

The simple answer is, that if you want to visit a church for free, go to a service! :D
 
MartynK said:
I'm not religious, and I know a lot of the visitors to cathedrals etc are tourists, but I still have reservations about a church charging for admission. Its distasteful.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if Herr Pope would just flog off a few of his gold bits, then he could not only allow people in for free but feed half the world's starving as well.
 
hollis_f said:
Yeah, if Herr Pope would just flog off a few of his gold bits, then he could not only allow people in for free but feed half the world's starving as well.
Click to expand...

Ermmmmmm...

You do realise that St Peter's in Rome and Westminster Cathedral are free entry, whereas Westminster Abbey, St Paul's and Canterbury are all paid entry, don't you?
 
DemiLion said:
I agree with the whole charging thing, and refused to go into York Minster for that exact reason (it's also why I haven't been inside St Paul's for years), but I can see their point to a certain extent. If you have an increased number of visitors, then you have increased wear and tear and the need for a higher level of staffing; which has all got to be paid for in some way or other.

The simple answer is, that if you want to visit a church for free, go to a service! :D
Click to expand...

Yes, I can see their point too, and I suppose the money has to come from somewhere. OTOH, these are national treasures and perhaps they should be maintained by the state? I'm guessing, but I doubt if the costs would amount to a drop in the ocean compared with what the state squanders and wastes in other directions.

You don't have to pay to attend a service, as you point out, but I do know some people who like to go into a church to pray, or just to sit quietly, in their own time. I'm not religious, in the Christian sense anyway, but I respect these people.
 
I wonder if St Pauls has a regular congregation and a steady stream of the devout wishing to use the church for its original purpose?
It would be interesting to see how they handle that...
Parishioner pass? Bible fluency test? Neither... that'll be £12.50 please.
From memory, it always was expensive in there. My recollection was that if you wanted to go up to the whispering gallery that was one price, and if you wanted to go up into the cross that was more. Also, if you were up there and a service was about to start, you had to come down and pay to go back up again.
 
Can't remember how much Coventry Cathedral costs to get in, but they didn't mind me taking picutres once I was inside. Most Church's/Cathedrals will actually indicate that the charges are a suggested donation, but they all know we are too polite to refuse to pay.

Don't get me started on a local church where a famous person is buired !!!
 
DemiLion said:
I agree with the whole charging thing, and refused to go into York Minster for that exact reason (it's also why I haven't been inside St Paul's for years), but I can see their point to a certain extent. If you have an increased number of visitors, then you have increased wear and tear and the need for a higher level of staffing; which has all got to be paid for in some way or other.

The simple answer is, that if you want to visit a church for free, go to a service! :D
Click to expand...

What £12 a head wear and tear? don't make me laugh, thats a rip off, they should be ashamed of themselves.
I wonder how much a ticket for the sermon on the mount was? Nothing I suspect, maybe thats a lesson they should learn.
 
DrRusty said:
Can't remember how much Coventry Cathedral costs to get in, but they didn't mind me taking picutres once I was inside. Most Church's/Cathedrals will actually indicate that the charges are a suggested donation, but they all know we are too polite to refuse to pay.

Don't get me started on a local church where a famous person is buired !!!
Click to expand...

Shakespeare?

I went there in the summer and the nice man at the desk actually encouraged us to take photos of the grave and church.

I think I paid £2.50 for entry but that may have been a student rate.
 
Luckily both Cathedrals in Liverpool don't charge for entry, and don't have any restrictions on photography. :D (as far as I know) :shrug:

I wouldn't pay to enter any church, but if I did, I would expect to be able to take pictures inside. :shrug: Anything else is just a rip off imho.

I went in the Basilica di San Marco in Venice, which is free to enter, but then it was a few euros to see this part of the church, a few euros to see that, a few euros to go on the roof. :eek: They could go and eff off. :bang:
 
swanseamale47 said:
What £12 a head wear and tear? don't make me laugh, thats a rip off, they should be ashamed of themselves.
I wonder how much a ticket for the sermon on the mount was? Nothing I suspect, maybe thats a lesson they should learn.
Click to expand...

Wear and tear on a Grade I listed building, perfectly justifiable if you look at if from that point of view.

Horrific if you look at it from the point of view of it being a religious site and the amount other Cathedrals charge.
 
Truro Cathedral charged a couple of quid to take photographs the last time I was in Cornwall and Chester Cathedral charge £5. Manchester Cathedral are perfectly happy for you to take photographs, and although they don't make any charge, they do encourage you to make a voluntary donation.

Lincoln Cathedral charged me £6 a short while back and they did allow photography.
 
Last edited:
no photography allowed in the sistene chapel - now..its very dark in there - repeated flashes from cameras I assume could damage the frescos, the security guards were especially ansy about people snapping The Last Judgement. I think thats the case anyway :shrug: the Mona Lisa is kept in strict lighting, temperture and humidity conditions
 
No charge to enter Leicester cathederal and photography is allowed.
When I went in a couple of weeks ago a very friendly lady welcomed me and encouraged me to take photos by pointing out various subjects to photograph.
 
timmygcsc2308 said:
no photography allowed in the sistene chapel - now..its very dark in there - repeated flashes from cameras I assume could damage the frescos, the security guards were especially ansy about people snapping The Last Judgement. I think thats the case anyway :shrug: the Mona Lisa is kept in strict lighting, temperture and humidity conditions
Click to expand...

There was no restrictions on photographing the Mona Lisa in the Louvre when I was there. It is kept behind glass like.
 
Nutty667 said:
There was no restrictions on photographing the Mona Lisa in the Louvre when I was there. It is kept behind glass like.
Click to expand...
Or, if you believe the rumours, it's kept behind a large steel door in a vault and what you can see over the heads of the throng is a copy.
 
just for interest sake:
http://www.westminster-abbey.org/faq

Photography: Why am I not allowed to take photographs in the Abbey?

* It can disturb other visitors’ experience of the Abbey
* Flash photography is bad for conservation
* It holds up the movement of visitors when there are lots of people in the Abbey
* We have to be careful about and protect what the image of the Abbey is used for - with digital photography and photoshop it is easy for someone to use the image in a way that we aren't happy with or to advertise or promote something
* We can't be sure what is for personal use and what is for professional

As a visitor, you are welcome to take pictures in the Cloisters and College Garden for personal use only. Several postcards showing the interior of the Abbey are available to buy in the Abbey shop.
Click to expand...
 
gman said:
In my opinion, anyone that thinks religion isn't for commercial purposes is naïve. But that's just my opinion and doens't mean it's right.
Click to expand...

:clap: :beer:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top