Taking photographs abroad is governed by three different sets of rules at once

The law is the narrowest of the three and the most variable

National law decides whether photographing people in public is permissible, whether publishing such an image requires consent, and what may not be photographed at all. Those answers differ substantially between countries that otherwise feel similar, and the differences are not intuitive.

The restrictions that appear most often concern military installations, border posts, airports, police, government buildings and sometimes transport infrastructure. In some countries these are enforced seriously, and a traveller pointing a camera at a bridge or a checkpoint can find the situation escalating quickly.

There is also a distinction, made explicitly in several legal systems, between taking a photograph and publishing it. A picture that is lawful to capture may still require consent before appearing anywhere public, which is worth knowing before posting anything that features identifiable strangers.

Property owners set their own conditions and are entitled to

Museums, galleries, churches, gardens, stations and shopping centres are private or managed spaces whatever they feel like, and the operator can permit, restrict or charge for photography as a condition of entry. Signs at the door are the rule, not a suggestion.

The common restrictions have practical reasons behind them. Flash is prohibited around pigments and textiles because light damage accumulates, tripods and large bags are excluded because of crowding and hazard, and some collections restrict images because they hold objects on loan under conditions set by the lender.

Commercial use is a separate permission almost everywhere. Many sites allow personal photography freely and require a licence for anything commercial, and the definitions are written in the site’s own terms rather than in general law, so the answer is site by site.

Photographing people is where most of the harm happens

The reliable principle is that a camera pointed at a person is a social act before it’s a technical one. Asking, even by gesture, changes the interaction entirely, and the answer is usually yes in most places, which suggests the asking costs less than people fear.

Some subjects deserve more care than others regardless of what the law allows: children, people at prayer, people at work in ways they may not wish recorded, people who are unwell or destitute, and funerals or memorials. Guidance from photographers who work in these situations is consistent on all of it.

There is a specific problem with photographing poverty as scenery. It is worth being honest that a striking image of somebody else’s hard circumstances mostly benefits the person holding the camera, and that this is one of the areas where travel photography is most often criticised from within.

Religious and ceremonial settings usually publish what they want

Most active places of worship state their position at the entrance, and the range runs from open to photography, through no photography during services, to no photography at all. Where a sign exists, it is the whole answer and no further judgement is required.

Where it doesn’t, watching what local worshippers do is the reliable guide, and refraining is the safe default. Ceremonies, processions and festivals are often welcoming of cameras and occasionally have specific moments during which recording is not acceptable, which participants will indicate clearly.

Some sites also have rules about drones, tripods and dress that apply to photographers specifically. Drone regulation in particular has tightened in many countries and is national law rather than site policy, with registration, permission and no-fly zones around heritage sites, airports and borders.

A camera changes how you see a place, in both directions

Carrying one makes you look harder at light, structure and detail, and people who photograph a city routinely notice things that other visitors walk past. That is a genuine benefit and it is why the habit persists among travellers who are not remotely interested in the pictures afterwards.

It also mediates. Time spent composing is time not spent watching, and an experience recorded is not the same as an experience attended to, which most photographers acknowledge and manage by putting the camera away for stretches rather than by giving it up.

The compromise most people settle on is to shoot deliberately for part of the day and not at all for the rest. It produces better pictures than continuous shooting, and it leaves the hours when something unexpected happens free for you to actually be there.