Comments on: no photos

no photos

sgt.serenity — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:42:06 -0800

Strictly No Photography is a site where people can upload and share photos taken in places where you are not allowed to take photos. Lots of photos from art galleries, airports, museums, and even places in Glasgow (nsfw).

By: mr. strange

mr. strange — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:59:56 -0800

Unexpectedly tedious.

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:12:37 -0800

Curiously tiny.

By: TheNewWazoo

TheNewWazoo — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:13:35 -0800

Intriguingly undescriptive.

By: telstar

telstar — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:14:56 -0800

these pixels, they violate?

By: josher71

josher71 — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:19:53 -0800

Weirdly dull.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:21:45 -0800

No complaining, please.

By: Item

Item — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:21:52 -0800

Adverb verb.

By: arcticwoman

arcticwoman — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:26:47 -0800

Dangerously purple.

By: Citizen Premier

Citizen Premier — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:34:50 -0800

Inscrutably malicious.

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:35:29 -0800

snarkily snark.

By: otolith

otolith — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:36:17 -0800

Deliciously punctual.

By: Reggie Digest

Reggie Digest — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:42:57 -0800

What, no locker rooms?

By: josher71

josher71 — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:43:25 -0800

Sorry, to be jerky. I just was expecting more "Wow!" from the pictures since they are taken of things that are not meant to be photographed.

By: josher71

josher71 — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:43:47 -0800

I meant: "Sorry to be jerky."

By: Artifice_Eternity

Artifice_Eternity — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:44:09 -0800

A good idea, but not well-realized. It needs more content, and better editing. Here's a related self-link: My forbidden photos from Mark Twain's house in Hartford, Connecticut.

By: The Bellman

The Bellman — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:47:58 -0800

Magically delicious.

By: DU

DU — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:48:03 -0800

Curiously strongpeppermint.

By: ChuqD

ChuqD — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:52:15 -0800

I wouldn't buy a coffee-table book of that stuff anyway.

By: quin

quin — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:05:39 -0800

Unexpectedly tedious. I don't disagree, but I find this interesting. We went in expecting something exciting, arguably because the idea that something can't be photographed makes it forbidden, and that makes it hot and interesting. Of course, when we are presented with the mundane reality; that many places forbid photography as a way of dealing with flashes, or security, or whatever, we are disappointed, because we wanted it to be awesome, and it's just unexpectedly tedious.

By: fuq

fuq — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:05:51 -0800

Probably more fun to do than to look at the results.

By: horsewithnoname

horsewithnoname — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:05:56 -0800

Emily Dickenson.

By: ORthey

ORthey — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:08:21 -0800

Adverb verb. Adverb adjective?

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:12:29 -0800

Well I liked it.

By: The World Famous

The World Famous — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:17:07 -0800

tragically hip

By: HuronBob

HuronBob — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:17:58 -0800

The (-)quality of the photos, the lack of interesting composition, subject, and complete lack of skill certainly explains why these photos were not to be taken to begin with. Now I'm left with the question, why was the website created, which only leads to the question, why was the link posted on the Blue...which, of course, ends with the question...why was I enough of an idiot to click on it...? And...there was no porn, really...all in all, disappointing

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:18:02 -0800

Dangerously Johnny.

By: bondcliff

bondcliff — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:24:51 -0800

Now I'm left with the question, why was the website created I'm not sure, but I bet it has something to do with sticking it to The Man.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:32:57 -0800

no photos fabulously absolute

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:45:50 -0800

I liked this as well. Also, Glasglow certainly isn't safe for work, or for anything else for that matter, so thanks, sgt.serenity.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:58:43 -0800

item writes "Adverb verb." Surreptitiously photograph?

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:07:44 -0800

Where's the NSFW? I'll get fired if I'm not looking at porn!

By: pax digita

pax digita — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:09:48 -0800

Needs more Area 51.

By: exlotuseater

exlotuseater — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:26:57 -0800

thingly thingish.

By: Aversion Therapy

Aversion Therapy — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:47:37 -0800

Metafilter: Adverb adjective.

By: the_very_hungry_caterpillar

the_very_hungry_caterpillar — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:59:11 -0800

Adverb or adjective?

By: nedpwolf

nedpwolf — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:00:37 -0800

Site suggestion: You're not allowed to take pictures of other people while you're hidden in their bedroom closets. Just saying.

By: Bovine Love

Bovine Love — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:34:37 -0800

quin: I don't disagree, but I find this interesting. We went in expecting something exciting, arguably because the idea that something can't be photographed makes it forbidden, and that makes it hot and interesting. Agreed; that is what makes it really interesting. One wonders if the web site creator had that in mind, or thought it would be lots of cool pictures. I suspect the latter and hope for the former. I have taken my fair share of forbidden photo's. Of course, they are kind of neat to me often simply for the pleasure of having snuck them; in reality most of them suck. It really gets under my skin to be told no photographs (I don't mind the flash prohibition) for things which aren't violating anyones privacy, etc. Of course a really great photo essay about forbidden photography would almost certainly be made with special permission to photograph or totally staged. It is an interesting idea to let people down instead, though it would need something more of a statement then this was. A kind of "there is no man behind the curtain" kind of thing.

By: smcniven

smcniven — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:47:24 -0800

On a somewhat related topic, my wife and I were in the Sistine chapel about 6 years ago and the security people kept making announcements not to take pictures etc.. Every time someone did take a shot they would embarrass the person by basically yelling at them to not take anymore pictures. Being the rebel that I am, I took my old Canon AE-1, set it for a slower shutter speed, meandered over to the middle of the room, held the camera at waist level and took a snap (without flash). I still get a chuckle when I look at the photo. Perfectly centered on God and Adam's fingers. Oh and I took a sneaky pick of some reporter's whale tail at Trafalgar Square a few weeks ago.

By: cavalier

cavalier — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:51:53 -0800

Malkovich Malkovich.

By: davidmsc

davidmsc — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:23:17 -0800

Mildly interesting, but I'm puzzled: why are there places that you can't take photographs? I can understand a very few -- such as military installations or stuff that is private -- but why on earth would a museum (for instance) forbid photos?

By: The World Famous

The World Famous — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:26:20 -0800

but why on earth would a museum (for instance) forbid photos? Maybe it sold photographic rights to certain works of art to fund the restoration of those works, or to build a wing on the museum, or to buy lots and lots of sushi. Mmm. Sushi.

By: bwg

bwg — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:41:02 -0800

Photography prohibited.

By: sebastienbailard

sebastienbailard — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:26:30 -0800

Sometimes museums are concerned that if folk take photos of works, they're less likely to buy the associated books. Similarly, touring exhibitions often have a "no photos" rule which the borrower is required to enforce.

By: 6am

6am — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:31:07 -0800

Man, it's picky of me - but I went to MOMA quite recently...and photography (as long as it's 'for personal use') is permitted.

By: philfromhavelock

philfromhavelock — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:48:34 -0800

>but why on earth would a museum (for instance) forbid photos? to protect objects from the flash

By: potsmokinghippieoverlord

potsmokinghippieoverlord — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:05:03 -0800

I was in Paternoster Square, near St. Paul's (feeeeeed the birds....) , trying to take a photo of this statue, when two rent-a-cops wandered up to me and said "You can't do that." Me: What? I can take a photo of the sheep? Dumbass Rent-a-cops: Photography is not permitted here. Me: Why not? Dumbass Rent-a-cops: Is not permitted. Me: But it's a public square.... Dumbass Rent-a-cops: Is not permitted. (and apparently it's not public square) I suspect if I used my cellphone camera, they wouldn't have blinked.

By: The Deej

The Deej — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:54:35 -0800

Cool! (Besides the boring ones.) Here's mine. Boring? Yes!

By: Slithy_Tove

Slithy_Tove — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:11:00 -0800

>but why on earth would a museum (for instance) forbid photos? philfromhavelock: to protect objects from the flash A bit of explanation is in order. Great paintings, like thoroughbred horses, are high-strung, nervy, and prone to bolt. Any sudden movement, loud noise, or flash of light may set them off. In the early days of photography there were several ugly incidents in which a crowd of museum patrons were trampled by a stampede of Matisses, Renoirs, and Cézannes, panicked by a photographer's flash powder going off. Nowadays, when paintings are to be professionally photographed, they are heavily sedated beforehand. This explains why photographs of paintings in books and magazines can never match the beauty and liveliness of great paintings seen in person.

By: Tube

Tube — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:44:46 -0800

While in a medical museum in the Netherlands, I learned after the fact that I was not supposed to have taken this photo.

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:14:13 -0800

It's too bad the images aren't larger. I'd love a better copy of this no photos sign.

By: xo

xo — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:39:09 -0800

pax digita: Here's your Area 51. [self-link]

By: davidmsc

davidmsc — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:27:14 -0800

Ah - thank you, Slithy_Tove -- now I get it. Rather like King Kong, then.