Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Fri Aug 22, 2014 11:47 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Celebrity Photography
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:39 am 
curious to know if we have any redcarpet photographers here, I have done a few, but not many, I know a few friends in the bigger cities of my state that does Poparazzi type photography, I am not sure if I am ready for the stalking title that comes with that, just curious if we have anyone that does this for business?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:10 am 
Poparazzi- - stalking- -hmm

what is the point of this type of photography? why would you realy want to follow some movie star around hoping to catch them doing something, or how much weight they have lost/gained? making them almost afraid of going outside or for a walk with there kids. I think it is wrong to constantly be right there in the faces of people who just have a job like the rest of us. What is the point :?: :?:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:43 am
Posts: 512
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Sorry to say, but to be honost this is more stalking than photography, in my eyes at least.
I would never take pictures of a person who didn't want me to. However if you ask first and they agree, no problem then.

_________________
Jake

Canon EOS 400D + EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS + EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS + EF 50mm f/1.8
My Photos - My webpage (danish)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:58 pm 
i think there is a really a limit to this type of photography and i am completely ok with it as long as it is actual red carpet photography. if its being a stalker paparazzi then its very intrusive in my opinion. So i agree with Noceo on this one


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:10 pm 
The point in doing it is that there is silly money in it. If i had my camera and I saw a celebraty doing something and could take a photo and sell it for several grand I would do it.

It also has a sence of fun in it, a bit like hunting but legal and nothing dies. I have never done it though but i would be up for a go.

Celebraties need the pparatzi anyway as they create hype and fame for that person which in quite a lo of cases is what they want and what makes them money.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:32 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9812
Location: UK
tobywuk wrote:
It also has a sence of fun in it, a bit like hunting but legal and nothing dies...

Sorry, but I can't agree. How about one's own self-respect and the human rights of the celebrity. They both die a little.

OK, that's a bit of a harsh riposte, I know, and I don't mean to offend (so I hope no offence is taken) but you would be upset if someone started hanging around your Granny's house with a camera. Most celebrities are famous because they do something exceptionally well - otherwise they are just perfectly normal fallible human beings. Does that mean that they should be hounded by the press in their private lives on the off-chance that they make a mistake. Heck, on that basis they can't even give their friends a goodbye kiss on their own doorsteps in case the tabloid press comes up with the headline "Is xyz having an affair with a married man?". :x

Bob.

_________________
Olympus OM-D E-M1 + M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, Lumix 7-14mm f/4, Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH, M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8, M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8.
Leica D Vario-Elmar 14mm-150mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 ASPH.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:59 pm 
in some cases this is the case, but this is one of the drawbacks to being famous, they can’t have everything. celebs need the paparazzi for their career. Take Britney spears for example, cutting her hair off was one of the best things she has done for her career lately and without the pictures and media coverage she wouldn’t have got anything out of it apart from a cheap haircut. The paparazzi benefit both the celebrities and the people who take the photos.

There are two sides to this topic really. I think it would be best if there was a boundry that the paparatzi followed not to upset anyone. Quite often the paparatzi make deals with celebraties so they lay off for a while but in return the paparatzi get an interveiw or a photoshoot in return, which I think is a good way to go.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:58 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9812
Location: UK
.
I couldn't agree more about boundaries and yes, without appropriate publicity those celebrities who are in the entertainment industry might see less successful careers.

The Britney Spears reference is unfortunate, though, given this Times Online story. Of the two images published in that article I, for one, would happily do without the first and I am pleased that I didn't buy a paper which published it. I guess it has the virtue of being fairly distant but it is still invasive and I wouldn't draw attention to it except in the context of this thread. This wasn't a publicity stunt - as the article stated "this was a desperate, ill woman". Read the whole article to see what depths some people will stoop to in order to promote their own selfish interests and then click the "right arrow" below the picture at the top and look at the paparazzi. No sign of respect or sorrow there that I can see.

Bob.

P.S. Sorry that this post is such a downer. I guess I'm just getting old and grumpy and have seen too much misery in the world.

_________________
Olympus OM-D E-M1 + M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, Lumix 7-14mm f/4, Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH, M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8, M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8.
Leica D Vario-Elmar 14mm-150mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 ASPH.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:48 pm 
These paparazzi and the celebs they shoot live in a symbiotic relationship and are completely co-dependent.

Red-carpet photography is the culmination of this symbioses - the celebs want as many photographers there as possible, because this is where they fuel the buzz. New dresses, haircuts, jewelry, cars, new love-interest etc. etc.

That is very different from the nauseating stories about paparazzi stalking the celebs - climbing trees to shoot them in their back yards. Using 4000mm lenses to capture a grainy noisy shot at them in their bathing suits on some private beach in Bali.

The vast majority of these professional photographers (i.e. those who make a living off of it) live a rather miserable life. Crazy hours, wild fluctuations in income, very low income, stressful, etc. etc. It's not a very enviable existence, nor is it a position that gives much respect anywhere either.

Cheers :-)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:19 pm 
I agree with everyone here, when shooting paparazzi you are A) a photojournalist for a media outlet. B)Freelance (the worst like LahLahSr said, low income, crazy hours ect.) or C) the people or as some of you would think of jerks or stalkers that do it for pleasure. I am not going to lie, I have indeed sold images to tabloids before, however they were just photos of someone at an event that I was covering, I did not go out of my way to get the shot.

I am deciding whether I want to go out and do this with my bud one day, because he is on more of the freelancer side of things. US laws allow anyone to shoot anyone from public property. someone talked about sitting in a tree with a larger lens, that is legal, maybe not morally correct, but legal none the less. I agree with Bob, and everyone else, they are "legal" Stalkers, but it is a win or lose situation for the people at the other end, they can ruin their rep from these people shooting them while they are drunk or w.e, OR they can help their rep by doing something good, playing with their kids, ect. In my city there will be people specifically out there to protect any kids from these mobs, which are good, because that I don't agree with, I've seen some guys scream and celebs, trying to anger them, reminds me of monkeys in a zoo, I don't like that, keep in mind that some celebs actually TIP off the paparazzi at times, actually most of the time, my buddy had "insider" information that while give a when and where, type of deal.

paparazzi=careless stalkerish type, but can go both ways for everyone. but some people have to make a living some way or another.

redcarpet photographers=okay, harmless, and fun.

I suppose it is a very touchy subject, because I truly see both sides


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:06 am 
tobywuk wrote:
It also has a sence of fun in it, a bit like hunting but legal and nothing dies.


what about the Paparazzi Vs Princess Diana? If I am not mistaken, she lost her battle with the paparazzi. (may god rest her soul :cry: )

I think it should be whats on the red carpet and not whats off. bad hair cut or not. Do people realy care how much fat one has on their bum? or why they wanted a wedding away from the public eye? or even better. why they had white bread instead of rye? :roll:

I can see getting pics of someone that just did something stupid. for example the mug shot of Mel Gibson after his drunk driving issue.
or Janet Jacksons "wardrobe malfunction"

whats even worse is that most movie stars can't even trust their "friends" with information because they could sell it for cash and not care what happens.
sure they may have done something stupid, who here has not :?: :!:
Why do people care/make a bigger deal about what or why this star did what, and not care about the movie they did? thats what their known for, is it not? (with the exception of Paris Hilton who can't act to save her life. not even in smut films :twisted: )

Nick


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:15 am 
I guess the world is all about gossip and money these days, I never was interested in anything with celeberties, i just like the movies thats it.

sadly everything connects back to money, where there is money there is someone snapping of shots, its a huge industry. and i dont think anything is going to stop it anytime soon


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Paparazzi
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:48 pm 
Frank Sinatra had enough of these guys and punched a couple out as I recall. The guy with the camera on the FX series DIRT is a near psycho. In one scene his assistant is being beaten up by some thugs while the celeb he has waited on finally appears, what to do, help the assistant or get the photo, he gets the photo of course.

I believe I will pass, check out the scene in the movie Casino when DeNiro catches someone trying to cheat on him in the casino, hint, the scene involves a hammer and an electric saw....

Hmm, how about wedding photography instead?


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group