Can camera flashes really damage historical sites?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter saim_
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the claim that camera flashes can damage historical sites, particularly 400-year-old tiles. Participants argue that while light can interact with materials, the damage caused by camera flashes is negligible compared to direct sunlight. The conversation highlights the absurdity of banning flash photography outdoors, while acknowledging potential concerns for indoor art. A professional photographer shared an anecdote about a powerful Metz flash damaging lacquer, illustrating that while individual flashes may not cause harm, cumulative exposure could be a concern.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of light interaction with materials
  • Familiarity with photography equipment, specifically flash units
  • Knowledge of conservation practices for historical artifacts
  • Awareness of UNESCO guidelines for World Heritage Sites
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the effects of light exposure on historical materials
  • Learn about photography techniques that minimize damage to art
  • Explore conservation methods for preserving historical sites
  • Investigate UNESCO regulations regarding photography in World Heritage Sites
USEFUL FOR

Historians, conservationists, photographers, and anyone involved in the preservation of cultural heritage will benefit from this discussion.

saim_
Messages
135
Reaction score
1
light damages buildings!?

I just heard an explanation for banning camera picture taking of World Heritage Sites by an official on TV: When asked about it he rhetorically replied, "Do you know how much one camera flash damages the 400 years old tiles?".

Its not unthinkable that light could interact with and damage some material but could it be to an extent that is worth even considering? I couldn't find any such explanation on the internet.

This guy is no scientist or engineer and frequently makes stupid statements with no basis, regarding all fields of knowledge known to man; so I had to ask :D
 
Science news on Phys.org


A camera flash is pretty negligible compared to direct sunlight, so that explanation is completely bogus. It has some merit as far as banning flash photos of old paintings (kept indoors), but none whatsoever for buildings.
 


This could be a thread starter: Inane scientific conclusions from the guy on the street.

Smoke is attracted to light, right?
 


Flash photography could reveal hidden cameras around buildings if there are any or even possibly damage their sensors.
 


@Phrak: he isn't really a guy on the street but he's not a science person either; a high ranking bureaucrat who has supervised maintenance of World Heritage sites and has even worked with UNESCO in such projects. One wouldn't expect someone like that to make such stupid claims but this dude continues to amaze and amuse.
 


saim_ said:
@Phrak: he isn't really a guy on the street but he's not a science person either; a high ranking bureaucrat who has supervised maintenance of World Heritage sites and has even worked with UNESCO in such projects. One wouldn't expect someone like that to make such stupid claims but this dude continues to amaze and amuse.

There's little difference. One is joe blow on the street. There other is an equally ignorant jo blo in a position to dictate rules on his own turf.

Defy authority that doesn't author anything. And then defy those that do.
 


Not using flash when taking pictures on the outside - obvious idiocy. Not using flash inside - not necessarily.

Some time ago a friend of mine (he is a professional photographer) bought a new Metz flash, one of their strongest (I don't remember the model). He accidentally discharged it when it was touching lacquered cover of some art album. Lacquer simply disappeared. You need thousands of flashes from distance for similar effect, but single group of Japanese tourists makes several kflashes per hour.
 
Last edited:


I've been in some places where they don't allow flashes, but I thought it was just because it's usually a place of enough religious/ historical significance where 1000 flashes would ruin the effect. It's not a sports stadium.

As for the light actually damaging the art...never thought of that.
 

Similar threads

High School Can light cones in relativity really be represented as hemispheres?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K