Paparazzi - your views?

[fracster]

So shy people start kissing in a place as public as The South Bank? Don't think so Ade. Street photography, as per the examples above, has been a genre of photography for many years. It's a little unfair to suddenly start comparing it to "photographers" chasing down celebrities in the street, shoving cameras in their faces and then selling the photos to the media.

I see your point and understand it Marc, I also understand why some people like street photography and I would not dream of slagging them off. It isn`t for me and I would be very annoyed if somebody took a random shot of me and either posted it on the internet or printed off for some kind of freakish display somewhere........


I also agree with the points made about celebs needing paps and vice versa. But that is down to the huge "celebrity" market that the public seem to have a regrettable need for. I would like to hope that most intelligent and mature people really don`t give a damn if third rate footballer X is shagging forth rate actress Y..........

 

[simonblue]

There's been a couple of documentaries of paparazzi, the one following the Big Picture was very interesting. Lots of long hours, late nights and the pressure to get a picture or you didn't get paid, or worse still you got dropped.
There seemed a lot of photographers who thought it would be easy money/fun who didn't last very long. There was only a few paps who'd been at it over a couple of years.

I remember watching this,it's not a way I would like to make a living,but at the same time it's the pic that people want to see .

And sometimes I have seem photojournalist,act no better than some of the paparazzi.

In everything in life their are something we don't like,we don't have to look at it

 

[big soft moose]

And sometimes I have seem photojournalist,act no better than some of the paparazzi.

and thats another very thin line - where does news stop and prurient entertainment begin

okay most intelligent people dont care if third rate footballer is banging his team mates wife/girlfreind/mum/dad etc but what if either of the people concerned is an MP, a Cabinet minister, the PM , President of the united states, is that different and if so why ?

 

[ding76uk]

Pap shots can be works of art in the same way those street photography examples are. One of the best photos ever taken of Jackie O.

Another example, an amazing photo, pap shot or not

 

[simonblue]

It is still an invasion of privacy Marc. Wether that be street photography or pap stuff. Maybe the people in your picture are really shy and hate having their photograph taken, seems a bit off taking shots of people without asking them, well it does to me anyways.

So is having someone following you around all day on ctv,without asking them ok .

 

[simonblue]

and thats another very thin line - where does news stop and prurient entertainment begin

okay most intelligent people dont care if third rate footballer is banging his team mates wife/girlfreind/mum/dad etc but what if either of the people concerned is an MP, a Cabinet minister, the PM , President of the united states, is that different and if so why ?

To tell the truth I don't care who banging who,just as long as they are doing their job,to the best of their ability who every they are

 

[simonblue]

Pap shots can be works of art in the same way those street photography examples are. One of the best photos ever taken of Jackie O.

Another example, an amazing photo, pap shot or not

Also some of the early work of say someone like Richard Young,is thought of as quite highly today

 

[fracster]

So is having someone following you around all day on ctv,without asking them ok .

Fair point.

 

[rhody]

I chimp, therefore I am

"I'm pink, therefore I'm spam"

 

[MartynK]

and thats another very thin line - where does news stop and prurient entertainment begin

okay most intelligent people dont care if third rate footballer is banging his team mates wife/girlfreind/mum/dad etc but what if either of the people concerned is an MP, a Cabinet minister, the PM , President of the united states, is that different and if so why ?

Possibly not the best examples? Paid politicians choose a career in public service, knowing they're going to attract attention if they drop a clanger, or just by reaching ministerial level and above. It goes with the job. Mr/Mrs/Ms Average haven't signed up for that. I find the idea of people - identifiable to their friends and family - being photographed without their knowledge and consent, just because they're in a public place, distasteful. And, yes, I do object to the spy camera culture.

 

[akr]

There's an assumption that all 'celebrities' court publicity. In some cases this is true, in others it is not.

Let's say you are a footballer but would like a private life, why should you not be entitled to that? Why should you be followed around and have you picture taken outside of any club you go to, any holiday you are on etc?

Personally I've often thought people would have to sign a consent form before it can be published in a commercial way, paper, magazine, online, book etc - however that would of course stop press photographers - so I don't know what the answer is. You could go down some public interest, but what the public are interested can be worrying!

 

[big soft moose]

There's an assumption that all 'celebrities' court publicity. !

not really , if you are a celebrity by definition you are in the public eye, and you put yourself there - lots of footballers play a good game but arent celebs - the ones that are, have put themselves out there by trading on their success and doing sponsorship deals etc , or by marrying someone else who's even more in the public eye

thus if you trade on your status and court the media you cant be suprised when it bites you in the ass if you are daft enough to put yourself in the wrong.

And if you've put yourself in the public eye you have to be incredibly thick/naive to think the media wont find out if you regularly do coke with hookers, boink your team mates girlfreinds, or batter your girlfreind senseless etc

If you don't trade on your status then the chances are that the media wont care if you regularly have a 5 in the bed gang bang - so long as the other participants arent the cast of hollyoaks.

 

[akr]

If you don't trade on your status then the chances are that the media wont care if you regularly have a 5 in the bed gang bang - so long as the other participants arent the cast of hollyoaks.

It's getting late so I'll agree to disagree on the first part - on the last bit quoted, I have my doubts!

 

[rhody]

I find the idea of people - identifiable to their friends and family - being photographed without their knowledge and consent, just because they're in a public place, distasteful. And, yes, I do object to the spy camera culture.

Seconded.

 

[CaptainPenguin]

the basic difference in my view is that with a good street tog the subject doesnt know they are there - wheras paps harrass, get in peoples faces, and invade privacy

But you are still taking a shot without people's permission and whose to say that shot wont get on the net and cause embarrassment to the subject.

I mean if I was photographed in a clinch with big Beryl and my wife got to see it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[big soft moose]

But you are still taking a shot without people's permission and whose to say that shot wont get on the net and cause embarrassment to the subject.

I mean if I was photographed in a clinch with big Beryl and my wife got to see it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

if you nread my posts above you'll see that that was the very point i was making - my earlier point being that a good (by which i mean ethically responsible) street tog doesnt behave like a papparazzo and his subjects never find out they were shot (tho equally theres an argument that you and big beryl should go get a room if you dont want your wife to know )

 

[norters]

I find paps and what they do distasteful but they absolutely 100% would not exist if we the people weren't so interested in the subject matter. End of. It's not going to go away.

On the subject of street photography...I don't know about anyone else but i think photography would get very boring very fast if all it was was pictures of pretty flowers and rolling hills. You could say I an reading too much into it but i feel that the everyday lives of the people in the street need to be documented and documented well and often by as many people as possible. The picture of the couple kissing earlier in the thread appeals to me infinitely more than a dime a dozen photo of a lake surrounded by scenic hills.

 

[big soft moose]

. The picture of the couple kissing earlier in the thread appeals to me infinitely more than a dime a dozen photo of a lake.

which is fair enough - but how is it less distasteful than a pap picture of say ashley cole snogging some cutie outside a club ?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

if you nread my posts above you'll see that that was the very point i was making - my earlier point being that a good (by which i mean ethically responsible) street tog doesnt behave like a papparazzo and his subjects never find out they were shot

So what you're saying is that it's ok to do something as long as you don't get caught?

I find paps and what they do distasteful <snip>

On the subject of street photography...I don't know about anyone else but i think photography would get very boring very fast if all it was was pictures of pretty flowers and rolling hills. You could say I an reading too much into it but i feel that the everyday lives of the people in the street need to be documented and documented well and often by as many people as possible.

Sorry, but could you explain the difference to me between taking a picture of a celeb in the street and taking one of a member of the public?

 

[norters]

Maybe because it is a genuine intimate moment? The person that took the picture was probably not tailing these people waiting for them to fall into each others arms then hoping upon hope that a cheap mag would give them thirty quid for it. The more of this type of picture that is taken the better. I shudder to think that on fifty years time we look back on this moment in history as the time of bum flashing bimbos and drug sniffing footballers.

I don't know about anybody else but when I think about photography from previous generations the first thing that comes to mind is images of everyday folk on the street. I don't think of any of a million black and white images of the French countryside, I think of the newspaper vendor, the street urchin or the down and out.

That's just me though.

 

[big soft moose]

So what you're saying is that it's ok to do something as long as you don't get caught?

no - i'm saying that the sin of the paparazzo is a) invading the subjects personal space , and b) publishing compromising images

so if a street tog does either of those then theres no difference

but if you take the image discreetly and dont publish it if theres potential for it to cause trouble (as with shots of people kissing etc) then you arent going to cause the subject any 'harm'

 

[norters]

To me the biggest difference is that paps are motivated by money. I couldn't give a fig if I never make a penny out of photography to be honest. I do it as a hobby and as an extension of my interest in studying human history.

 

[big soft moose]

To me the biggest difference is that paps are motivated by money.

How does that differ from any other sort of professional - you could just as well argue that wedding togs are motivated by money, sports togs are motivated by money etc - Sure money is a factor but most people dont choose their proffesion soley so they can make a quick buck

If they did we'd all be MPs

Is the motivation really a big factor - take the hypothetical i outlined above where someones been caught on camera kissing a girl not his wife, published on the front of AP, and its blown his life out of the water

So he asks the Tog "why did you do it ?"

Tog says " I didnt do it for the money, its just a hobby for me "

"oh thats okay then, so long as you didnt do it for the money" :bang:

 

[Flash In The Pan]

To me the biggest difference is that paps are motivated by money. I couldn't give a fig if I never make a penny out of photography to be honest.

So if you took a shot that you knew would be worth thousands of pounds you'd just keep it to yourself?

 

[norters]

I'm not in it for the money so my answer, as ludicrous as this may sound to you would be I would not take any money for any picture I take.

I would respond further but I have an appointment to keep.

Nice interesting discussion this morning so far

 

[straycat]

what about the illegal dangerous driving,the bullying and aggressive nature,nothing can justify that.

 

[Ed Sutton]

One important difference between a 'street' photograph and a 'pap' shot is that the latter relies entirely for it's success on the majority of people who see it knowing who is in the photograph, the former can be said to work the other way - the identity of the people depicted being immaterial as they are portrayed as archetypes rather than individuals. When you know who the people are in photographs their meaning changes. There are dozens of wedding photos posted on this forum - what they mean to the majority of people who see them here is completely different to how the relatives of those brides and grooms feel about them.

Another major difference between 'street' and 'pap' shots is that the street photographer is trying to make pictures, the 'pap' is just trying to get a shot that will sell. Composition, light, gesture, all the things that 'make' any good photograph are the consideration of a good street shooter. Getting a photo of a known person, preferably in a compromising position, is all that counts to the 'pap'.

If people hadn't gone out on the streets and taken photographs of strangers photography would be the poorer for it. Many iconic images have been taken on the street without the knowledge of the subjects.

All this said, there is a lot of bad photography passing itself off as 'street photography' these days. Taking a photo of someone in a street isn't enough. There has to be something else to it to make it worthwhile. Like any other genre of photography there is more to shooting on the street than snapping away without consideration for making pictures. And that's where the real difference between 'street' and 'pap' photography lies - street photography is about making pictures, papping is about taking photographs.

JMO

 

[Flash In The Pan]

what about the illegal dangerous driving,the bullying and aggressive nature,nothing can justify that.

Don't do it then

 

[big soft moose]

what about the illegal dangerous driving....,nothing can justify that.

yeah well what can i say i was late for work ... too much time on Tp while having breakfast

 

[straycat]

Don't do it then

i dont

 

[DemiLion]

Pap shots can be works of art in the same way those street photography examples are. One of the best photos ever taken of Jackie O.

Yup it's a great shot (if not quite an iconic image) but given the nature of the discussion also quite ironic.

If I remember correctly Ron Galella was one of the first people to be labelled a Pap (following La Dolce Vita), and likewise one of the first to have a harassment order and injunction taken out against him in 1972.

 

[Phil V]

One important difference between a 'street' photograph and a 'pap' shot is that the latter relies entirely for it's success on the majority of people who see it knowing who is in the photograph, the former can be said to work the other way - the identity of the people depicted being immaterial as they are portrayed as archetypes rather than individuals. When you know who the people are in photographs their meaning changes. There are dozens of wedding photos posted on this forum - what they mean to the majority of people who see them here is completely different to how the relatives of those brides and grooms feel about them.

Another major difference between 'street' and 'pap' shots is that the street photographer is trying to make pictures, the 'pap' is just trying to get a shot that will sell. Composition, light, gesture, all the things that 'make' any good photograph are the consideration of a good street shooter. Getting a photo of a known person, preferably in a compromising position, is all that counts to the 'pap'.

If people hadn't gone out on the streets and taken photographs of strangers photography would be the poorer for it. Many iconic images have been taken on the street without the knowledge of the subjects.

All this said, there is a lot of bad photography passing itself off as 'street photography' these days. Taking a photo of someone in a street isn't enough. There has to be something else to it to make it worthwhile. Like any other genre of photography there is more to shooting on the street than snapping away without consideration for making pictures. And that's where the real difference between 'street' and 'pap' photography lies - street photography is about making pictures, papping is about taking photographs.

JMO

As the 3 ingredients for a great photo:

• Light
• composition
• a story

All three of which would have to be considered for a good street photograph, just like any other photograph which is created to be taken seriously.

Whereas a Pap shot only needs to be of someone 'famous' with which a story can be illustrated. It doesn't need to stand alone as a great or even good picture, there needs to be no consideration of light or composition it only needs to be reasonably sharp and reasonably well exposed. Therefore it could have been taken by anyone with an automatic camera.

For this reason I don't consider Paparazzo in the same sense as any other 'professional' photographers. They are merely media employees with cameras.

They exist because a large enough number of the population enjoys reading gossip about 'celebrities', an industry I personally have no time for. However, despite the furore surrounding the NOTW scandals, enough people still see nothing wrong with the blatant exploitation of other human beings for their entertainment.

 

[gingerjon]

As the 3 ingredients for a great photo:

• Light
• composition
• a story

All three of which would have to be considered for a good street photograph, just like any other photograph which is created to be taken seriously.

Whereas a Pap shot only needs to be of someone 'famous' with which a story can be illustrated. It doesn't need to stand alone as a great or even good picture, there needs to be no consideration of light or composition it only needs to be reasonably sharp and reasonably well exposed. Therefore it could have been taken by anyone with an automatic camera.

For this reason I don't consider Paparazzo in the same sense as any other 'professional' photographers. They are merely media employees with cameras.

They exist because a large enough number of the population enjoys reading gossip about 'celebrities', an industry I personally have no time for. However, despite the furore surrounding the NOTW scandals, enough people still see nothing wrong with the blatant exploitation of other human beings for their entertainment.

Thing is, what people have said about street photography is entirely correct in that, yes, its aims are often nobler, the thinking deeper and the purpose far less money-grabbing. But if you're the person walking down the South Bank who only wants to get from A to B with minimum of fuss does that really make any difference?

I write this as an avid street photographer but I'm very uncomfortable with claiming it as better because its practitioners care more about f/stops than slebs.

 

[big soft moose]

Yup it's a great shot

is it really tho? If that wasnt jackie O in the picture and someone submitted it here for critique I could see people saying " well half her face is obscured by hair, the windscreen on the car behind is burnt out, theres a blotch on her buttocks, and you've cropped her off at the knees... must try harder "

 

[Marc]

is it really tho? If that wasnt jackie O in the picture and someone submitted it here for critique I could see people saying " well half her face is obscured by hair, the windscreen on the car behind is burnt out, theres a blotch on her buttocks, and you've cropped her off at the knees... must try harder "

Those things aren't necessarily what make a great photograph though.

 

[gingerjon]

is it really tho? If that wasnt jackie O in the picture and someone submitted it here for critique I could see people saying " well half her face is obscured by hair, the windscreen on the car behind is burnt out, theres a blotch on her buttocks, and you've cropped her off at the knees... must try harder "

Yes. There would be plenty of idiots who believe that to be good a photo has to balance on a histogram.

 

[Mike Jackson]

But you are still taking a shot without people's permission and whose to say that shot wont get on the net and cause embarrassment to the subject.

I mean if I was photographed in a clinch with big Beryl and my wife got to see it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The answer to that is don't do anything in public which could cause you embarrassment or problems.

It strikes me that using an unethical act to prove that another act is unethical is a bit ironic.

 

[big soft moose]

Those things aren't necessarily what make a great photograph though.

going a little off topic here - but was is it that makes it a great photo ( other than it being of jackie O ) ? Okay she's a pretty girl and theres an okay sense of movement but take away the celebrity angle and mediocre at best imo

 

[Marc]

going a little off topic here - but was is it that makes it a great photo ( other than it being of jackie O ) ? Okay she's a pretty girl and theres an okay sense of movement but take away the celebrity angle and mediocre at best imo

Yes, we are going a little off topic but sometimes, that's just the way threads go. This one was started quite a while ago and it was inevitable tbh.

What makes it a great photo? Not sure I think it is to be honest, I was just pointing out that the criticism you suggested it may get if posted here would not necessarily mean that it isn't a great photo. You could make similar criticisms of many great & iconic photos, Henri Cartier-Bresson being a prime example.

 

[Byker28i]

Playing catchup

Tabs. Great picture of the kissing couple. Really like the processing and composition.

From the little I've seen Papping seems to involve a big flash gun, machine gun shutter speeds and good tips offs, usually from the celebs publicity agent.
A huge difference to anything else seen even on here.