When I go to, for example, a museum I try to take some pictures.
Sometimes the museum staffs forbid me to use a flash. Do you know the reason? I don't think it is related to photo-electric effect, right?
|
When I go to, for example, a museum I try to take some pictures. Sometimes the museum staffs forbid me to use a flash. Do you know the reason? I don't think it is related to photo-electric effect, right? |
|||||
|
So it appears to me the main reason for the ban is not related to the photoelectric effect. |
|||||
|
|
My local museum prohibits flash photography because other people in the museum find it annoying. It's nothing to do with any effect, real or imagined, that the flash may have on the exhibits. Many organic pigments are slowly destroyed by light, so colours fade if exposed to light. I suppose in some special cases museums might be concerned about this. In some museums illustrated manuscripts are exhibited in rooms that are kept at low light levels - I seem to remember the Book of Kells in the Dublin Trinity Museum is exhibited in this way. I can understand why flash photography is banned in those cases. |
|||
|
|
|
Yes, as you guessed it is related to the photoelectric effect. The photons from the flash, certain frequencies there, can change the molecular composition of the surface paints and pigments. The precaution is the same as in avoiding a valuable painting or rug to be illuminated by the sun. It is the photoelectric effect. |
|||||||
|
|
It really does depend on the place. |
|||
|
|
|
As user9886 explained, the main reason is probably not physical. There are indeed cases where strong flashes can damage pigments that are fairly stable in daylight. I know that some modern documents use rhodopsin based ink that makes it impossible to use an ordinary photocopier to copy them without destroying them. I'm not sure if there are a lot of historically used pigments that are similarly senitive. The main other reasons are simply:
|
|||
|
|