"Pss, hey buddy. you want to see some photos in the back?"

[Robert Brummitt]

I have a question for my photographer friends. I went to the Portland Art Museum to see the Impressionist show. All the paintings were in well lit halls. Then I went to the photography show and I felt I was in a cave. The lights were down except for the spots on the photographs.
My question is why? Is it because the prints look better in dim rooms with spots? Does it increase their contrast and brightness? Is it because the museum is afraid the prints will fade with normal lighting? Is it because the photo dept doesn't pay its electric bill fully?
I know the museum did this same lighting for an Edward Weston show but not for an Ansel one.
I'm sure one of you know the answer? I hate feeling in a cave looking at photos. It feels like, "Pss, hey buddy. you want to see some photos in the back?"

[ic-racer]

Limit exhibition times, control light exposure, and monitor the condition of the photographs carefully. Prolonged or permanent display of photographs is not recommended. www.conservation-us.org

[Robert Brummitt]

But the prints are under spot lights. What about photos that are in individual ownership? What about photographs being sold at galleries? They are not in caves.
I just like being in lighted rooms.

[Oren Grad]

What was being shown?

Most of the photography shows I see have reasonable lighting, though some museums are exceedingly careful. There is extra reason to be careful if the particular photographs on display are already deteriorating, if they are made with materials known to be unstable - for example most color prints, untoned RC silver prints - or if the exact paper and the processing protocol used aren't known.

[Bill_1856]

I've had exactly the same experience, except that i don't recall any spotlights, just poor lighting. The Naples Museum had a good system -- the room displaying Edward Weston photographs were kept at a very low level until sensors detected patrons in the room, then the lights came up to a really good level.
It seems to me that there's no point in displaying photographs if they can't be seen and enjoyed adequately.

[tgtaylor]

The best lighting that I have seen so far was at a recentEdward Weston ehxibition in Monterrey, California. On exhibit were about 150 of Weston's prints and mostly 8x10 contact prints. The general room lighting was normal with small lights focused on each print. I didn't pay particular attention to the lighting but the prints were easily viewed from several feet away without the need to "nose-up" on them and I came away with a better appreciation of the 8x10 contact print. Under the right lighting you don't need a gigantic print to appreciate it>

Thomas.

[Robert Brummitt]

The show had Ansel. Edward and Brett Weston, Minor White, Stu Levy, Cunningham, Tice and others.
Nothing too. The show was 70 years of photography.

[Jody_S]

The Montreal Museum of Fine Art apparently prefers the 'cave' approach, but also only for photographs. Sculptures and paintings get extravagant amounts of light, photos get a candle shaded by a screen.

[Brian Ellis]

This has been discussed many times here. Apparently the concern among museum people is that light will damage the photographs in some manner or fashion. Of course if they're only going to be shown under light so dim that you can't properly see the photographs I'm not sure what the point of preserving them is supposed to be. I've sometimes suspected that they're shown under dim light for the masses, then the museum curators and other employees blast them with flood lights for their own private viewing pleasure.

[Doremus Scudder]

Can someone enlighten me as to the danger of displaying a silver-gelatin photograph under fairly bright light? After all, the image is metallic silver, which is fairly inert to light, and, assuming that the print has been adequately processed and washed and that the light does not contain a lot of UV, there should be no danger of photochemical reactions. I just don't see where the weak link is.

I like to display my work well-lit, and a bit brighter than the ambient lighting.

Best,

Doremus

[dsphotog]

Last time I visited the Oakland Museum all the photos were lit well, except one historic panorama print displayed in a much darkened room.

[Mark Sawyer]

Last time I visited the Oakland Museum all the photos were lit well, except one historic panorama print displayed in a much darkened room.

The lighting choice illuminates what value the museum puts on that old panorama, and on the others.

Most photographic materials are more sensitive to damage from light than paintings and sculptures.

Museums take their preservation duties veeerrrry seriously. And if they have a curator or conservationist dedicated to photography, they'll be the most obsessive-compulsive about it. It's in their job description.

Ansel Adams left his original negatives to the Center for Creative Photography so that students and photographers could study them and print from them. The negatives are locked away in deep-freeze and will never see the light of day, darkroom, or dim gallery again.

[Steve Smith]

Most of you seem to be missing the OP's point that the photos themselves were well lit but the rest of the space was dark.


Steve.

[Robert Brummitt]

If silver will fade with light, As the museums are saying and doing to preserve.
Then I guess ink jet prints will fair better in the future. It's just a shame that photography has to bee seen in cave lighting compare to paintings or other arts.

[CantikFotos]

Two years ago, I went to an Ansel Adams exhibition at the Columbia Museum of Art (Columbia, SC). The photographs were almost impossible to view. The lighting was extremely dim and the walls were painted a very dark gray. It was the worst show I've ever been to.

http://www.columbiamuseum.org/art/exhibitions?exID=59