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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential damage caused by camera flashes to historical sites, particularly in the context of World Heritage Sites. Participants explore the validity of claims regarding light damage to materials used in these sites, considering both theoretical and practical implications.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of claims that camera flashes can damage 400-year-old tiles, suggesting that the explanation lacks scientific basis.
  • Another participant argues that a camera flash is negligible compared to direct sunlight, implying that the concern for buildings is unfounded.
  • A participant humorously proposes that the discussion could lead to a broader examination of nonsensical scientific conclusions made by non-experts.
  • There is a suggestion that flash photography could potentially reveal hidden cameras around buildings or damage their sensors.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the authority of a bureaucrat who makes such claims, noting his lack of scientific background despite his position in heritage site maintenance.
  • A professional photographer shares an anecdote about the damaging effects of a strong flash on lacquer, indicating that while individual flashes may not cause immediate damage, cumulative effects could be significant.
  • Another participant reflects on the rationale behind flash restrictions in places of historical significance, questioning whether the concern is about light damage or the overall atmosphere of the site.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the extent to which camera flashes may damage historical sites. Multiple competing views remain regarding the validity of the claims and the implications of flash photography.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the actual effects of light on various materials, and there are unresolved questions about the thresholds at which damage may occur. The discussion also highlights the dependence on specific contexts, such as indoor versus outdoor photography.

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