|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 9, 2015 23:00:33 GMT 12
A lot of museums these days display their aeroplanes inside a very dark building, with the aircraft being spotlit from above so they stand out. They are usually very minimalist displays, lacking in any clutter or smaller exhibits around the aeroplanes. I am thinking of in terms of the aircraft hall at Wigram, the aeroplanes in the Australian War Memorial Museum's aircraft hall, the RAAF Museum at Point Cook, the AHC at Omaka, etc.
A lot of older museums go with more of a fully lit building or hangar, and the aircraft often have a lot of other bits and pieces, memorabilia and other stuff around them. Rather than minimalist and focusing the viewer just on the aeroplane, there can be a lot more to see and learn from.
Do you have a preference? Do you think it matters? Just wondering.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Dec 10, 2015 14:43:27 GMT 12
The uncluttered option is certainly easier for photography - assuming that they let you use a tripod.
|
|
|
|
Post by baz62 on Dec 10, 2015 14:55:23 GMT 12
I like to see items associated with the aircraft, servicing equipment (if unusual enough like a hucks starter), external stores. Done correctly it enhances the aircraft rather than having it just sitting by itself. The Hudson and Devon (when it was in the main hangar) at Wigram I particulary liked, as with cowlings off you can see some deatil (which I'm sure some modelers would love.)
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnyfalcon on Dec 10, 2015 17:12:32 GMT 12
I like the approach used at the AHC in Omaka. Dark background (atmosphere and focus) with auxiliary detail for context.
|
|
|
|
Post by baz62 on Dec 11, 2015 13:08:10 GMT 12
Yes Omaka is a good example of aircraft able to be photographed and displays with them. Helps to have Weta workshops help there!  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 11, 2015 16:10:47 GMT 12
I like the darkened halls with spotlighted aircraft, but when there are glass cases the reflections of spotlights can be very annoying regarding photos.
|
|
|
|
Post by No longer identifiable on Dec 11, 2015 17:04:17 GMT 12
Interesting question Dave. The only examples I can think of are the aircraft at MOTAT and the Zero and Spitfire at the Auckland War Memorial Museum, and they are all in well-lit rooms. Even though the Spitfire and Zero are already minimalist presentations (with almost-bare concrete walls), I think they would look marginally better if the walls were more in shadow with the aircraft lit by directed lighting.
The Lancaster at MOTAT is really well-presented, but the rest of the aircraft are too close together to make any one of them stand out. From memory the Lancaster is in an area that is a bit darker then the rest of the area, or at least not in direct sunlight, and this may help to explain why it looks so good.
If there is room to walk around a single aircraft without getting too close to another aircraft, then perhaps a darkened background is the way to focus attention and enhance it. If there are many aircraft close together, then a well-lit area, such as the rest of the MOTAT hangar, is perhaps the better way to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by jp on Dec 11, 2015 17:20:40 GMT 12
My two pet hates for museums - poor lighting, and over-crowding.
Poor lighting - BoB Hall at Hendon, Aviation Hall at the Science Museum in London, and Wigram
Good Lighting - Italian Air Force Museum, Main Hall at IWM, Lambeth.
I don't thick a museum's primary goal should be to cater for photographers, but it should be possible to at least view the exhibits without stumbling around in the dark.
Overcrowding - Duxford is particulary bad - AAM is the only place I've been where its possible to leave a hangar and not really notice a B-52 parked inside, and too many aircraft here and in the Airspace hangar are suspended with no real viewing options...
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Dec 11, 2015 18:04:15 GMT 12
In general, A well lit hangar is my preference, although when well done a dark spotlit display is also impressive. depends on the context. There is one other option to consider. the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton is really unusual. It has displays in both Well lit hangar and Dark room settings, but the best bit is their walk through "Carrier" display which has the aircraft displayed on the "deck" of Ark Royal, and integrates it with Audio visual and robotic action. Its very good, and at the same time you can still get up close to the aircraft. Very good! gives context to the whole display. The other end of "Arty" Walk through displays is Imperial War Museum North in Manchester, where various "immersive" displays go on around you. Unfortunately it is so "arty" and conceptual you don't have the faintest idea what its about...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 11, 2015 19:11:27 GMT 12
From memory the Lancaster is in an area that is a bit darker then the rest of the area, or at least not in direct sunlight, and this may help to explain why it looks so good. There is zero sunlight in the MOTAT main aircraft hall. It is all lit artificially, and pretty well in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by denysjones on Dec 11, 2015 20:38:04 GMT 12
Just my tuppenceworth but!
One of the worst things that I see is enthusiasts museums where central aircraft exhibits are suddenly surrounded by numerous exhibit items which do not necessarily relate to the items that they are in front of but they're there just to fit them in as it were.
The enthusiast visitor will of course spend time looking into each item but joe public will walk in and get overwhelmed by cluter and leave.
Remember if you're lucky then 10% of your visitors are aviation focussed. The other 90% are general visitors who you have to draw into the display. Hence the more clear and clinical display (forget the degree of lighting) sites get the general visitor focus.
I've seen it time and time again where people walk into a site and nothing in specific draws their attention because it's just a bombardment of things that they don't have a clue about, more often than not with poor interpreative support,so that's it they leave.
Wigram was the first in the country, as I recall, to feature the diorama displays (I always recall the Devon) and we've been following that at Ferrymead. However other sites I can but say are the old style enthusiast "because it interests me it must others jumbles".
One of the other matters is lighting and the effects of lighting on materials such as fabric. Preservation must take precendence over illumination if the latter means subject matter degredation. So if it means subdued lights etc then it gets my vote. Even perspex needs this consideration.
just my bit!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 12, 2015 12:51:45 GMT 12
I completely agree with you there Denys. I am not against seeing items around an aeroplane but I'd much prefer to see them in context with that aeroplane - like the tractor next to the Anson at Wigram, the Cookie and Grand Slam and other representative weapons under the Lancaster at MOTAT, and the airport equipment next to Ferrymead's Viscount, etc.
I recall being told in the 1990's that the low light at Wigram was designed specifically for preserving the items, and that was why back then they would not allow photography. Later they allowed non-flash photos,and later still opened it up to flash photos as the policy changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Dec 12, 2015 15:59:45 GMT 12
I like to take photos inside museums, so my lighting preference is 'consistent'. I don't mind if the lighting is bright or dim, so long as light levels are reasonably constant with no dark shadows. I also dislike bright windows behind displays. JB mentions the Italian Air Force Museum - their display hangars are all well lit, and all have huge glass frontages. These let in lots of light into the hangars and give a great view out over the lake, but means that any displays that back up against that wall are backlight and hard to photograph.
As far as the content of displays, I prefer uncluttered displays so that you can see the entire aircraft from a number of vantage points, so I can photograph them without the need to use a 12mm fish-eye lens. I also like uncluttered, neutral coloured backgrounds. With large aircraft I like some sort of elevated view point, even if it is only on one side of the display hall.
However, I accept that museums don't exist just to make photographers happy. Their display policies are probably designed around their educational or business goals, so I take what I can get and stay happy that the aircraft are accessible and that someone else is paying the bills.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Dec 12, 2015 19:30:16 GMT 12
I recall being told in the 1990's that the low light at Wigram was designed specifically for preserving the items, and that was why back then they would not allow photography. To me, that does not make sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Dec 12, 2015 19:57:58 GMT 12
I recall being told in the 1990's that the low light at Wigram was designed specifically for preserving the items, and that was why back then they would not allow photography. To me, that does not make sense. Some primitive tribes and bureaucrats believe taking a photo steals something of the life spirit... |
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Dec 15, 2015 13:38:10 GMT 12
Interesting question Dave. More often than not the different approaches are because of necessity and practicality; museums are constrained by three factors, space for storage and display, availability of manpower, and funding. You'll note the 'minimalist' approach is taken by the bigger museums with lots of space and the funding to build new halls, which are almost always artificially lit. The approach of cluttering display spaces with random objects isn't confined to smaller space constrained establishments, however; the RAF Museum has been guilty of this, but better interpretation of display spaces in the past ten to twenty years or so has changed that; the quality of museum trained staff has an impact on that.
Smaller volunteer run museums have a tendency to clutter up display spaces and usually it's down to the fact that space for storage and display is limited, or it might be because the curators wish to put as much of what they hold in public view with limited display space. Nevertheless it works in some environments and not in others. MoTaT is an example of display space clutter before the new hangar was built; there was stuff everywhere (MoTaT was guilty of many display sins!), but much has changed and the new building is a fantastic space - illustrating what money and thoughtful interpretation can do.
Personally, I like both approaches for different reasons and both apply in different scenarios, although I agree with Denys' comments; that usually boils down to a lack of knowledge of display interpretation. Places like the Yorkshire Air Museum and Newark in Nottinghamshire were a bit cluttered once, but it somehow fit the venue and was a welcome change from the bad lighting and fresh look of places like the FAA and RAF Museums. At Hendon the lighting has always been bad; the green hue to the main halls ruin photographs, but altering the lighting effect can be done in action with a good DSLR, rather than having to rely on fiddling with light and colour balance in post production. The Battle of Britain hall has been roundly criticised because of low lighting and I believe that now the exhibits are no longer in as dark surroundings as they used to be. This used to be because of the huge Battle of Britain tapestry, (which Wigram has one of) which hangs on one wall overlooking where the Spitfire and Hurricane revetments are. Opening up the far wall with a glass front has changed that end of the hall; the Sunderland, Lysander and Seagull V are now bathed in natural light, whereas that end was always dark and dingy.
|
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Dec 15, 2015 13:40:58 GMT 12
That explains excessive selfie takers, then.
|
|
