If you only get three comments, that’s because your outreach is bad, not that no one cares about the topic. Heck, this blog post already has four comments. The Archives is doing this poorly.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by welovedc: No, National Archives, it does NOT make a better visitor experience to ban photography: http://bit.ly/8bT0c2 (thanks, @mcanner!)…

I do not agree with the second statement that photography ruins it for everyone else – I’m not sure I understand their point on that one.

If it were possible to only allow cameras in that didn’t have a flash, that would be ideal, but that policy is too difficult to enforce. Also, most tourists are bound to have point and shoot cameras which all have a built-in flash, and many of them take pictures using the flash, even if they’re taking a picture of the Washington Monument on a sunny day.

Lastly, don’t hate on South Dakota. :)

I’ve shot weddings and portraits, used equipment ranging from 35mm to 6×4.5 medium format, natural light, 3-strobe studio setups and probably more stuff I’ve forgotten.

And about four years ago, after being reminded not to use my flash and assuring the person taking me on a one-one-one tour through NASA’s VAB – the vertical assembly building where final prep is done on the space shuttle – I handed my pocket camera to someone to take a picture and left the flash enabled.

People, no matter how experienced, screw up. I’m not sure that a complete ban is the way to go and I wonder whether there’s not some superior way to cope with the occasional screw-up. But you could just as easily flip your statement over and ask “why are future generations having their opportunity to see this document put at risk just so some people can continue to take their own version of pictures of something that’s been photographed a million times?”

I am obviously a believer in the value of experiencing something through photography, but let’s not be glib.