5 ms·
It is because they don't know how to turn it off, but also it does not damage paintings.
by moron4hire 10y ago
It is because they don't know how to turn it off, but also it does not damage paintings.
- hkmurakami 10y agoI'm totally theorycrafting, but if sunlight can make things age and fade (ex: books), wouldn't the light from cameras build up to do some amount of damage as well? Or is the wave spectrum of the two substantially different so that this analogy is moot?
- 4ad 10y agoMost museums don't display watercolor paintings and many types of photographs or display them for short periods of time in very dark rooms. Watercolor paintings suffer greatly from light. (As to whether flash is particularly bad, that is debatable...)
- TheOtherHobbes 10y agoHigh-end photoprinters use special paper and ink that is tested for its lightfastness. Turns out that traditional processes like C-Type are less lightfast than high quality digital prints. But slightly more obscure processes like Selenium toning are more lightfast still. Of course if you have a digital source, you can always make a new print. This doesn't sit well with the commercial art world which considers most of the value to be in a unique handmade tangible object imbued with creative manna by the genius of the artist, and not in a reproducible image that anyone can copy.
- melling 10y agoIn another post, you said flash does cause damage. "Yes, flash definitely damages paintings."
- jbob2000 10y agoCamera flashes don't produce ultraviolet light, which is the damaging stuff.
- pvaldes 10y agoIt depends on the pigments used in the painting. Some are known to be unstable.