1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Evicted From Durham Cathedral - Almost

Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by Tony Everett, Aug 6, 2011.

  1. filmlover

    filmlover Well-Known Member

    I was told that if I wished to photograph inside Canterbury Cathedral or its immediate precincts, I would have to apply in writing and a fee would be payable.....God moves in mysterious ways.....
  2. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    I've not come across one...

    As you said Chichester is free which I've taken frequent advantage of. They're even quite tolerant of tripods if it's quiet. I chuck a couple of quid in the donations box anyway.

    Others are also free but do charge for tripods while many charge a fee regardless. I don't think there are all that many that ban photography outright though.

    As there seems no offcial across the board policy one must assume that local policy is probably down to the Bishop/Dean/need for funds...
  3. pilliwinks

    pilliwinks Well-Known Member

    When I was there a few years ago, the wording (as I remember it) of the ban made it clear that it wasn't to do with wanting to extract money. It was stated that any photography would only be allowed for research purposes (or something similar), had to be approved in advance, and approval probably wouldn't be given anyway. They just didn't want photographs, which is understandable in a military establishment (which is, after all, what Durham cathedral was built as). I personally found it a depressing building to be in anyway.
  4. Roy5051

    Roy5051 Well-Known Member

    That obviously didn't apply when I was there in 2007

  5. Malcolm_Stewart

    Malcolm_Stewart Well-Known Member

    I've just got back from a weekend in Liverpool, and both cathedrals there were most welcoming of me and my taking photographs - when a service wasn't in progress. At the RC Metropolitan Cathedral photography isn't permitted in the separate and fascinating crypt, but having now visited it, and having seen the treasures, I can understand why. They were both rewarded by contributions to their collection boxes.

    We also went up the Radio City Tower for the panoramic views of the city. Excellent.

    The most unwelcoming cathedral I've visited was Southwark where I was pounced upon, before I even had chance to read any signs or whatever. So I left - and naturally without making any contribution to their finances.
  6. filmlover

    filmlover Well-Known Member

    We all seem to have different experiences in different cathedrals. When I visited Southwark Cathedral recently, I had no problems photographing some of the effigies inside. Looks like it's all down to whoever happens to be in charge on the day.
  7. frank1

    frank1 Well-Known Member

    When I did Southwark I asked the first person what was their policy. I was told pay two pound wear a sticker and enjoy yourself.
    To which I did, I think the very first thing we should all do is find out what each churches policy is. It's daft not to think there may be restrictions you may have to pay or there might an outright ban

    There's no right or wrong. There's only what the people in charge of each church decide what is and what's not. It is private property after all.
  8. Wheelu

    Wheelu Well-Known Member

    Durham is my "local" and I can remember the days when you could take photos without any restriction, sadly no longer the case. It is possible to take shots with prior permission and it does not have to cost, I was asked to phot a choir a couple of years ago and was issued with said purple sash without payment - shots later used for their CD cover ( freebie job).

    In my experience the catholic cathedrals are more welcoming to photographers. I asked permission to shoot inside Liverpool RC cathedral recently and was told that it was OK to go ahead. Despite being a confirmed atheist, I don't mind putting some money in the collection box in those circumstances ;)
  9. AlanClifford

    AlanClifford Well-Known Member

    I always do. Whatever my beliefs or lack of them, the church(es) have been influential in the development of world as we know it today. So I'm interested.
  10. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    As usual, God will overcome his scruples if enough money is paid.

    I have set up a tripod in just about every major church in Rome and got away with it. That's what all the display of affluence is about, to awe the masses.

    Also set one up in the doorway of Bom Jesus in Braga once and told visitors they couldn't come in for 30 secs or so.
  11. Alex1994

    Alex1994 Well-Known Member

    I almost went inside St Paul's cathedral (London!) a few months ago, until I saw the entry fee - around £15 if I remember correctly. And all photography and video was banned.

    I can understand the place of worship, and worshippers wanting their privacy, idea but the it was pretty busy and very much a tourist attraction, but apparently people milling around is acceptable so long as they don't take photographs!
  12. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Fascinating posts. I suspect that if those responsible for our Cathedrals could step in a time machine and travel back through several centuries they would be horrified at some of the goings on!

    I suspect they may also be horrified (although perhaps not to the same degree?) if there were no photographic records whatsoever of the interior and exterior of their buildings since 1839.
  13. MartyG

    MartyG Well-Known Member

    Surely if there is a all-knowing, all-seeing God there'd be the ten photography commandments.
  14. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    The Zone System 8-P
  15. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Yes, it's down to the first two, just as in parish churches where the Vicar or Priest in Charge holds sway.

    If I recall correctly, Ely and Peterborough had/have a reputation for being photographer friendly.
  16. Carrie

    Carrie Well-Known Member

    If you want to go into pray it's free. To have a look round they charge.

    I didn't have any problems with taking photos, indeed one of the volunteers even suggested a good place to take a photo from that would give me something different to the views that most people took.

    Have to admit I'd already noticed and taken it, but she was so helpful I went back and did it again.
  17. Ian_A

    Ian_A Well-Known Member

    I visited the Capuchin Crypt while in Rome a few years ago:

    "The Capuchin Crypt is a small space comprising several tiny chapels located beneath the church of Santa Maria della Concezione dei Cappuccini on the Via Veneto near Piazza Barberini in Rome, Italy. It contains the skeletal remains of 4,000 bodies believed to be Capuchin friars buried by their order. The Catholic order insists that the display is not meant to be macabre, but a silent reminder of the swift passage of life on Earth.
    Described by Frommer's as "one of the most horrifying images in all of Christendom", large numbers of the bones are nailed to the walls in intricate patterns, many are piled high among countless others, while others hang from the ceiling as light fixtures." Wikipedia

    No photographs were allowed - out of respect for the dead ...
  18. Meredith

    Meredith Well-Known Member

    That's the same policy as Coventry Cathedral. You can take pictures there with no problems. I asked when I last went.
  19. St Davids Cathedral regulations:

  20. AlanClifford

    AlanClifford Well-Known Member

    Why does permission affect anyone's health or increase safety?

Share This Page