Wouldn't it be nice to get some decent shots in the Museums?

I take my Panasonic GX1 (and previously an RX100 and before that a GF1) and relied on natural light - knowing the places would be busy.

Oh, and I agree 110% with everything Lindsay has posted in here about badly behaved little darlings. It seems acceptable these days to allow them to do whatever they want for fear of some repercussion.

What delightful adults they will turn into too thinking they will be able to behave however they wish.
 
Flightphoto said:
Forgot about shouting, that's also banned according a to a friend who's a teacher, it's down to that 'mental abuse' method - some kids said that it broke them down mentally lol!
Click to expand...

I know a man who's dad shouted at him almost every day for the slightest thing. It had a profound effect on his mental health, LOL.
 
Some of you might like to try going to museums to look at the stuff they have. People walking around just to take pictures get in the way of those who want to view the collections.
 
This is a photography forum, so it's not unreasonable to expect discussion about taking pictures in these places. It is perfectly viable to both look at the exhibits AND take pictures of them, without causing any kind of distraction to the others there.
 
Merluza said:
Some of you might like to try going to museums to look at the stuff they have. People walking around just to take pictures get in the way of those who want to view the collections.
Click to expand...

Agree. The pictures are going to be pretty compromised anyway aren't they, so not sure what you would do with them.
 
I suppose you would do what you normally do with pictures - share with friends/family who weren't able to accompany you. And it is possible to get perfectly decent shots without lugging heavy kit around. You need some patience and you need to wait and pick your moments, and I agree that the picture-taking shouldn't detract from your enjoyment of the exhibits. A compact camera also means that you and your rucksack aren't in other people's way.

I took some pictures during my last visit a few months ago: http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/fujifilm-xe1-at-the-natural-history-museum/
 
Lindsay D said:
I suppose you would do what you normally do with pictures - share with friends/family who weren't able to accompany you.
Click to expand...

I guess. Although I would think there are better ones to look at via Google?

I always see people taking pictures of well know paintngs at art galleries and wonder what the point is - a poorly shot picture of a painting, reflections/bad light and all.

If you like the picture buy a proper print of it.
 
Number45 said:
This is a photography forum, so it's not unreasonable to expect discussion about taking pictures in these places. It is perfectly viable to both look at the exhibits AND take pictures of them, without causing any kind of distraction to the others there.
Click to expand...

Photography might be possible, but arriving with a large DSLR, camera bag, 2 off camera flashes, stands and a tripod is always going to be a distraction to others and probably also going to get in the way of other visitors.

Wherever you, your tripod and flash stands are going to be, it's safe to assume other people, (adults and kids), are allowed to be as well.

If you want to set up a photo shoot, pay for it and do it out of hours, if you don't want the expense, then just a body and lens, or a good compact are the logical way to go.
 
ernesto said:
I guess. Although I would think there are better ones to look at via Google?

I always see people taking pictures of well know paintngs at art galleries and wonder what the point is - a poorly shot picture of a painting, reflections/bad light and all.

If you like the picture buy a proper print of it.
Click to expand...

You're right Ernesto, why take pictures of anything when someone else has probably photographed it. After all, telling our friends and family to enjoy their Google search will save us the bother of carrying a camera around.
 
Lindsay D said:
You're right Ernesto, why take pictures of anything when someone else has probably photographed it. After all, telling our friends and family to enjoy their Google search will save us the bother of carrying a camera around.
Click to expand...

That is not my point (and you know it). For example if you were in Paris and could only get a poor shot of the Eiffel tower why would you bother. To show your friends and family what the Eiffel tower looks like?

If my family or friends brought round crappy pictures they had taken in a gallery I would tell them what they could do with them. :)
 
I used to love museums when I was a kid, well still like them now too a bit, used to go all the time with my dad and nephew, don't go very much now though.

For me I think it creates a good atmosphere when there's kids running around all over, sure they may seem uninterested in a lot of it and hyperactive because they've got the day out of school, they're kids after all, but then they see just 1 item or object that they love and they show more emotion in that one thing than most adults show in the whole museum, when I was younger me, my dad and nephew used to go to the DLI Museum in Durham several times a year at least, a lot of it did get repetitive, but there were 2 items which both me and my nephew loved every time we went, the big machine gun you could stand behind and pretend to fire, and the 4x4 vehicle you could climb into and pretend to drive.

Even if just a few of the kids learn one thing during the day or have one good experience in the museum that they'll always remember then it's definitely more valuable than any shot a photographer can ever take in my opinion.

Photographs are just memories too after all.
 
Last edited:
I think the best idea would be to set up the tripod & camera, and have two unruly kids holding the flashes : best of all worlds!
You can clout them later for holding them wrong.

Next time I'm down in the infested city I'll try the Geological museum approach : although I might just stay there, it sounds good to me.
 
I would rather see a museum with kids running around than one with the doors locked as they are not attracting enough visitors.
 
I work in one of these museums and we all work hard to make the visitor experience as good as it can be, having said that, from a personal point of view all these visitors can be a nuisance when you're trying to do your job, even getting to a meeting can need planning. The basic reasons behind the photography rules are to do with health and safety, general comfort of all visitors and copyright issues.

You'd be amazed at what people will trip over and walk into so tripods are a definite hazard, you can probably get away with a monopod. A few year years ago somebody was going around museums systematically having an 'accident' and then asking for compensation, allowing potential hazards in galleries would be a gift to people doing that.

The odd flash has never bothered me and I find it hard to believe that it does much damage to most things but it seems that it's an irritant and I suppose it might cause damage.

Museums have to make money, grant in aid is cut every year and people still expect the museums to be putting on a professional and up to date show. Selling publishing rights to images is an important part of that and needs to be protected as far as possible. Tripods and lights are what you need to get that quality of shot, so far at least.

Most museums have decent quality pics of their collections on-line and downloadable, they're good enough to enjoy the object and good enough to teach from. People taking snaps of their visit is of course all part of the fun for general visitors and is welcome.

Having said all this I do have some sympathy with Dave, I was in a church in Venice, massive place, with about half a dozen other people spread around and I whipped out my tripod. After a few minutes somebody appeared from nowhere to make me put it away. Taking photos was allowed, tripods weren't mentioned but they do bring out the worst in officials, they must suggest ulterior motives.

If you really want crowd hell go to the Louvre. I stupidly went to look at the pictures and my wife and I were standing in front of one when a Japanese man asked us to move so he and his family could have their pcture taken in front of it. They proceded to do this despite my snarling at him and each one of his family, six in all took it in turn to stand and be snapped.
 
Can't believe this is now 4 pages long! I did take the Polarizers but there wasn't any need as I was more interested in the skeletons. Jonney, you'll be surprised with the 1DX, although it's a fantastic camera I don't use the high ISO much as it does still add apparent noise in different situations and I really wish it would shoot well in the dark :)
 
It should be fine shooting at 12800? my 5d3 is quite good at 12800. 12800 paired with a 2.8 lens and you can shoot it quite low light situations.

You can do it mate :)

1dx can :)
 
I know I know :) I just got ****ed off in the process at the time and had a hissy fit so I decided to pack it all away, All I wanted to do was a bit of strobist work but I'll never get the chance unless the Mrs books the Midnight museum tickets :)
 
Hugh Jarse said:
For something different in London try The Horniman Museum

http://www.horniman.ac.uk/visit

Off the beaten track but worth the effort.
Click to expand...
Just down the road from me!
Not so good if you don't like kids though - it's kiddie central at the Horniman!

Regards the NHM - some of it is very busy and some bits are almost completely ignored. Everyone heads to the dinosaur hall, but - surprisingly - the rather excellent section on bivalves doesn't seem to attact the same attention from the children... ;)
I love the NHM - one of the world's top museums and it's FREE. :thumbs:
 
Llamaman said:
Just down the road from me!
Not so good if you don't like kids though - it's kiddie central at the Horniman!

Regards the NHM - some of it is very busy and some bits are almost completely ignored. Everyone heads to the dinosaur hall, but - surprisingly - the rather excellent section on bivalves doesn't seem to attact the same attention from the children... ;)
I love the NHM - one of the world's top museums and it's FREE. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Like many places its when you go.

I have to say the Horniman was my first memory of a museum way way back. I tend to go after Easter and when the weather is nice. The kids are back at school and the gardens are in Spring bloom.

It was an easy journey when we lived in Camberwell so friendly too.

Have to agree that the NHM is the best though.

S
 
ernesto said:
Yes the parents are ultimately accountable but they are not with their child for the 35 hours a week at school, they are not there during the trip etc,. so the teachers are responsible at that time. The kids could be little angels when at home.
Controlling children is a key part of the job and if they can't do it they should be taught how to or should not be teaching at all.
Click to expand...

If little Nigel is taught no respect or manners at home then why will they be any different at school. Teachers are there to teach not babysit & probably dread taking the little brats out anyway
 
Very interesting read this for me as both a patent and a snapper.
Yesterday I was at the transport museum at Glasgow (and due to my wifes friends will be again today!) and if I'm honest my boy (2) was probably the worst behaved there and apart from excitedly running from car to car he wasn't that bad, but then I'm pretty firm with him, our daughter (6 yesterday) was very well behaved, well unless you count being always hungry :)

I would say I was more of an inconvenience than them and my cameras on a hand strap and I only ever shoot with available light and try my best not to get in anyone's way.
 
johnb said:
If little Nigel is taught no respect or manners at home then why will they be any different at school. Teachers are there to teach not babysit & probably dread taking the little brats out anyway
Click to expand...

Controlling kids, especially as a 'mob' is part of teaching. They may not be any different at school if taught poorly from scratch at home but it is still the teachers job to know how to deal with them. If they can't deal with them they can't get to the teaching can they and the class become a complete waste of time. I can still remember classes exactly like that, usually at the cost of a relief teacher or new starter and I may as well not have bothered turning up to those lessons.
 
My wife and I were discussing this earlier and we thought it would be a good idea if we could sign a waiver to free up the teacher to reprimand our children, this could at least give the poor buggers a chance
 
Teachers have had their disaplinatry methods eroded away over the last 30 years or so

If parents donot bring their kids up to have respect for anyone or anything how can you expect them to have rrespect for teahcers or anyone else. Kids know they cannot be punished now, unless a letter is sent home a week in advance saying their brat is going to be put in detention for talking in class or worse, then they have the parent kicking up holly carp because the teacher dared to punish the kid for talking.
 
johnb said:
So the teachers have to put right the sins of the parents as well as everything else?
Click to expand...

Yep. And what is this everything else, planning all the things to do with the 12 weeks off?
 
You really don't know any teachers do you?
A mate of mine was in most days of the entire summer "holidays" prepping lessons, coursework, rotas, classrooms, etc, not to mention sorting out all the out of hours extra stuff such as plays, media studies and so on, to top it off during term time he's usually in around six am and often leaves after seven, I bet you don't go 65 hours a week!

Anyway rant over.
 
I do know teachers yes, in fact my direct neighbour for 10 years was a teacher. My comment was however tongue in cheek and mimicking what people typically think.

Anyway, I still believe that being able to control kids (however good or bad they or their parents are - they may not even have parents remember!) is the first part of being able to teach. If you can't do that you will never be able to teach to anything but a class of angels.

Not sure what your schools were like but mine were very rough and my lessons were very different based on who the teacher was. Some were great (the teachers who could control kids) and some were dreadful (those who couldn't control kids). If all the teachers were in the latter category I am not sure it would have been worth me turning up.
 
Last edited:
I think you get that in every school though Chris.

I remember a couple of teachers at my old school that could not control a class if their life depended on it, and that was in the days when a bit of punishment could be administered.

My daughters school has a got a levels system with rewards for getting no levels, things like cinama nights, trips out, etc, its seems to work majority of the time but there are kids that have never had any treats or rewards since the day they started.

level 1 - being told more than once not to do something (talking etc)
level 2 - being told again not to do the same thing
level 3 - letter sent home with detension
level 4 - somthing a little more serious (swearing at a teacher, fighting) results in seeing head teacher and detension but a bit longer
level 5 - susspension
level 6 - expelled

only one kid has been expelled in the 3 years she has been there but he was a baddun.
 
Last edited:
I know many parents who have resorted to the "if you do your homework/make your bed I'll buy/give you XXX". If asked, they say they do it for a quiet life, or because they're scared of disciplining their child. If not managed carefully this can take things to the point where, if they don't get what they want, the child will argue that their bad behaviour is a natural consequence of the parent failing to continually reward them. I've seen it happen - a reverse scenario develops where there are massive tantrums if the treats/incentives fail to materialize and the bad behaviour escalates.

I'm not saying children shouldn't be commended for being good - they need positive reinforcement designed to increase their self-esteem and confidence. But go too much beyond that and the child has the parents over a barrel - and the parent can't win either way.

Perhaps some of the museum trips we're discussing were precisely that - treats for the kids designed to appease them!

It's pointless blaming the teachers - most teachers genuinely want to be allowed to take charge in class and when necessary discipline and punish bad behaviour - but all too often the school and society itself either completely prevents or inhibits them from doing either.
 
Not pointless to lay blame at the teachers at all. In reality a lot of people who are teaching should not be doing it as they do not have what it takes. Unfortunately we have to make do with less than ideal teachers as the demand is greater the than supply.

As I said, I had a neighbour who was a teacher and I don't think I have come across such a waster (in all aspects). He wouldn't have been working for me for 10 minutes.
 
ernesto said:
Not pointless to lay blame at the teachers at all. In reality a lot of people who are teaching should not be doing it as they do not have what it takes. Unfortunately we have to make do with less than ideal teachers as the demand is greater the than supply.

As I said, I had a neighbour who was a teacher and I don't think I have come across such a waster (in all aspects). He wouldn't have been working for me for 10 minutes.
Click to expand...

Do you ever actually read back the things you post on here and face palm yourself? Half of what you post reads like a daily mail reading rent a quote sensationalist crossed with a 19 year old who just left home and thinks he knows everything! If you were 19 at least it would be understandable.
 
ernesto said:
Not pointless to lay blame at the teachers at all. In reality a lot of people who are teaching should not be doing it as they do not have what it takes. Unfortunately we have to make do with less than ideal teachers as the demand is greater the than supply.

As I said, I had a neighbour who was a teacher and I don't think I have come across such a waster (in all aspects). He wouldn't have been working for me for 10 minutes.
Click to expand...

Difficult to comment on their ability as a teacher unless you've seen them in action at school. To bring it back to football, Paul Gascgoine (in his prime) was a bit bonkers when he was away from the football pitch - practical jokes, burping in response to Journalists, difficult to hold a sensible conversation with. If you were to judge his football abilities based on that you'd expect him to be rubbish. He wasn't. You need proper context to make judgements on his teaching ability. He may be giving his all at work so that when he comes home he winds down.

I stand corrected if you have witnessed him in action teaching

S
 
a1ex2001 said:
Do you ever actually read back the things you post on here and face palm yourself? Half of what you post reads like a daily mail reading rent a quote sensationalist crossed with a 19 year old who just left home and thinks he knows everything! If you were 19 at least it would be understandable.
Click to expand...


I don't have time to read them back, I'm a busy man. I have strong opinions and write short posts (see the busy man point). Try to focus on the discussion rather than personal attacks though eh.

So presumably you are saying all teachers are great and they are all in the ideal job for their abilities?
 
Last edited:
I suspect he's saying they do what they can with a bad lot, and in what profession are there not both those that are great and those that are not.
 
JohnN said:
I suspect he's saying they do what they can with a bad lot, and in what profession are there not both those that are great and those that are not.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, he may well be but we are discussing teachers here though and not other professions. In my profession those that are not so great don't stay around long and ultimately the fact they are good or bad doesn't actually make any difference to anyone but the shareholders so the stakes are far less than bad teaching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top