Here's a photograph you're not allowed to take!

[bobt]

Here's a photo (several, actually) that you're not allowed to take - of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

I was standing there a few days ago (says he casually as a throw away line) admiring the ceiling which has been restored and is an amazing sight. In the crush of the mob loudspeakers kept warning me that photos and videos of the ceiling are not allowed. They also instructed us that absolute silence was required, a rather contrary amplified command that ironically made more noise than the assembled masses they were trying to silence!

Now I've been here before, and was greatly disappointed on that occasion not to have been able to photograph the ceiling, but unfortunately on this most recent occasion my thumb kept slipping on to the shutter button (the camera held at waist level) causing the camera to take multiple shots. What was even more coincidental was the fact that the camera happened to be pointed at the ceiling at the time, and to my amazement I ended up with stitch-able shots which yielded the image shown below.

I generally respect instructions involving art works, and the damage flash can cause - however my camera does not have a flash. In addition, in the Sistine Chapel the ban on photographs originated out of a copyright agreement which has now expired. I tend to evaluate the moral/ethical considerations and apply my own standards, and if I consider that I am causing no harm then I go with my own conscience. I am very happy indeed to have at least some record of one of my "bucket list" items rather than having to rely on my virtually useless memory.


small_sistine chapel.jpg

[Gazza]

Hi Bob, not bad for shooting from the hip...your secret is safe with me (Promise)

[farmmax]

Wow. I'm glad your finger slipped. That looks 10 X better than I've seen in any other photo. Does it look as good in real life? Now I want to go there and look.

No doubt it is photographed 1000's times a day now, but few people would have the knowledge to photo stitch them well.

[MattNQ]

Nicely accidentally taken
On our trip over there, my wife was the master of taking pics in places they weren't allowed.

[bobt]

Does it look as good in real life? Now I want to go there and look.

Better!! It's fantastic when you consider how long it took (4 years) and the fact that it's basically all one man's work. It's one of those things you can't really absorb within the short time you stand there - and I really wanted my own photo of it. Buying a book or a postcard just isn't the same. It's recently been restored and the colour is bright and the impact fantastic - you just have to put up with a zillion other people all milling around (plus a wife who thinks you're about to be nailed upside down for taking photos!)

[phild]

Beatiful work. Funny thing that, I had the same problem in the Victoria and Albert museum and at St Pauls in London..... damn thumb just wouldn't take no for an answer.

[old dog]

you naughty boy Bob........I too have one of these

[arthurking83]

.........
I generally respect instructions involving art works, and the damage flash can cause - however my camera does not have a flash...........

A pathetic attempt at an excuse concocted simply to sell over priced tourist goods.
Don't believe any such silly sign that pretends to protect any artworks from the inconsequential output of almost all consumer level flashes, no matter how many of these flashes are fired per day.

Oh! .... and nicely done considering the limitations imposed on you there.

[bobt]

you naughty boy Bob........I too have one of these

My wife is not amused! She is a very ethical, moral person and scolds me frequently for transgressions like this ....... however, it's amazing what a little jewellery can do to distract her ....

[Hamster]

Nice accidental work. I like it a lot.

[Erin]

Having never seen it and very unlikely to visit any time within the next decade or so (it's low on my list), I can only say a huge thank you for breaking rules.

[ameerat42]

That's a bit prophetic,* Bob. When I was there in 1998, the ONLY restriction was on the use of flash.
Of course, there were plenty of eedgets using flashes.

Nice shot here. Don't worry! I'm not awed that you got into the Vatican Museums, because I know you
had to line up for hours anyway

*Read "pathetic", but given the subject matter and the milieu...

[bobt]

Having never seen it and very unlikely to visit any time within the next decade or so (it's low on my list), I can only say a huge thank you for breaking rules.

It's pretty amazing what these guys produced back then - I still struggle with drawing stick figures!

That's a bit prophetic,* Bob. When I was there in 1998, the ONLY restriction was on the use of flash.
Of course, there were plenty of eedgets using flashes.

Yup ... doesn't matter where you go, people flash away without knowing how to turn it off - or not caring. My camera doesn't even *have* a flash! (Canon 6D). Mind you, some years ago I too made the mistake of not turning off my flash - nearly ended up in Siberia because of that .... the Russian guards were not amused when I accidentally flashed a Picaso in the Hermitage! I'm not so much of an idiot now .....

Nice shot here. Don't worry! I'm not awed that you got into the Vatican Museums, because I know you
had to line up for hours anyway

Nah ..... got caught that way last time. This time I bought tickets on-line and walked straight past the looooong queues!

Mind you, you still have to walk a very long way past other amazing stuff before you get to the Sistine!

[bricat]

I like your wife...............

[bobt]

I like your wife...............

You'd have liked her even more if you'd known about our Jewellery/Camera agreement. She gives me a blank cheque to buy whatever camera gear I like ..... as long as she can buy equal value in jewellery ! Works for me!

[Glen1]

Tsk,tsk,tsk. That "no photographs" rule is in place so that people can't go home and re-create the same scene in their bedroom. I bet you're planning a trip to the art supply store to buy some oil paints and brushes. Anyway, good job shooting from the hip.

Regards
Glen1

[Analog6]

What a lovely painting!

[arthurking83]

You'd have liked her even more if you'd known about our Jewellery/Camera agreement. She gives me a blank cheque to buy whatever camera gear I like ..... as long as she can buy equal value in jewellery ! Works for me!

I do foresee some issues with this arrangement at some point in the future tho!

Canon photographic gear seems to have a directly proportional relationship between cost and size(bigger generally costs more) .... whereas with jewellery the relationship between cost and size seems to favour the inversely proportional rule.

So as you both raise your respective stakes at burdening the cheque account, my guess is that at some point in the future you will end up blinking first!

y'know .. that $100K, 1200mm f/5.6 is damned big and heavy!!


If I were you Bob .. I'd be doing some more work on this 'arrangement' before the missus figures out a way to use it to her advantage!
( I dunno .. but maybe a dollar per kg on any goods clause, or something else to similar effect )

[bricat]

My wife has an "arrangement" with me. She goes on an overseas holiday. period. I try and scrounge what's left over to buy some gear. The last two times I was actually quite successful as I got 70-200 2.8 ii and 100-400 ii. Can't wait for her to go next year when the 5D4 comes out. hehehehe.
I think your arrangement might be cheaper than mine. Try selling her some of that fools gold jewellery? The one where they wave some real gold over the top of cheap jewellery.