I told the ticket taker that I didn’t want to take the tour but she said that this was the only way to gain entrance. I told her that estate only entrance was supposed to be free on the first Sunday and she said it was not. That the only way to enter the Estate was to pay for tour tickets. I tried to pull up the original email to review it at the time on my iPhone but I could not get reception there.

I had zero interest in the tour, but once having paid decided that I may as well see it. I regret I even did that as the whole thing was irritating to me as I hate going anywhere period where I can’t take photos. Nowhere was the no photography policy disclosed prior to the mansion — either on the website or at the point of ticket purchase.

You say you don’t know many museums where you can take photos? Actually at most museums you can. Here in SF that includes the de Young, Academy of Science, Exploratorium, The Legion of Honor, the SF MOMA, even small little museums like the Cable Car Museum. In the East Bay you can take photos at the Oakland Museum of California, the Chabot Observatory, the Lawrence Hall of Science Museum.

Further afield I’ve taken photos inside the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, the Getty Museum in Los Angeles, The MET in New York, The Chicago Art Institute in Chicago.

In terms of historic homes/estates the only ones I’ve ever visited are Hearst Castle, the Filoli Estate in Woodside, the Pittock Mansion in Portland and the Pardee Home in Oakland’s Preservation Park.

Every single one of the above museums allows photography. With the exception of some contemporary arts museums who cite copyright concerns, in fact most museums allow personal photography.

Citing the concern of “slowing the tour down,” as a legitimate reason to restrict photography at the Dunsmuir Estate is lame and arbitrary. They need to get with the times and remove this unnecessary and visitor unfriendly policy. If they don’t then they need to prominently advertise it on their website, emails and at the gate prior to people paying money.

I also chose to take my kids to the Dunsmuir Estate on Sunday after reading the email, and I was fully aware that they would charge admission to the mansion – after all, it was pretty clearly stated right in the body of the email that the admission fee for the tour was $5. I agree that you should not have been charged for your children, but I do think you should have read the email before complaining.

As for not being able to photograph, that rule only applies to the mansion itself. I agree the rules should be mentioned on the site, but at the same time I do not know of many museums where you can actually take photos inside. The grounds are beautiful, and I took plenty of lovely photos of my kids on Sunday with no trouble from anyone.

People would do well to remember that this Estate is a non-profit, and does what it can to contribute to the East Bay. Obviously they are not working on a corporate budget, and have to rely on people who are kind enough to volunteer to take tickets at the door rather than trained employees. I am sure the estate will refund you for any errors made. But to complain about paying when you didn’t bother to read the advert they sent you? That’s just petty.

I have visited museums and estates all over the world and there really is a variety of what is allowed photographically. I agree that they should absolutely make this known on their website and it is somewhat underhanded to not to. I have visited sites that have not allowed photography and have quite enjoyed myself. I just suck it up and begrudgingly accept their rules. It is their property and their rules. So long as there is no public money funneled to them, I don’t see a big problem with them making a rule such as this.

So they allow people to take photos at SFMOMA now? Cool. May have to visit the place this Tuesday. Free entrance on first Tuesday of the month, just so you know.