Paparazzi - your views?

[Marc]

Playing catchup

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

Thank you.

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.

A point I've been trying to make.

 

[big soft moose]

Henri Cartier-Bresson being a prime example.

well yes but In my view a lot of HCBs work is overated tosh too - I remember reading a book about HCB which was full of pretensious waffle about capturing the definitive moment ,then looking at the shots and thinking 'what definitive moment'

 

[big soft moose]

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

Well yes - but then again I was with a good freind of mine in public when we found out her dad had died, she was absolutely distraught and naturally I gave her a hug and let her sob against my chest... all entirely innocent and above board, but it still wouldnt have looked too clever out of context if some one had togged it

 

[Ed Sutton]

well yes but In my view a lot of HCBs work is overated tosh too - I remember reading a book about HCB which was full of pretensious waffle about capturing the definitive moment ,then looking at the shots and thinking 'what definitive moment'

If you don't like pretentious waffle, try Elliot Erwitt for size:

'Good photography is not about 'Zone Printing' or any other Ansel Adams nonsense. It's just about seeing. You either see, or you don't see. The rest is academic. Photography is simply a function of noticing things. Nothing more.'

 

[IGADIZ]

Worst example of the paps I have seen recently was when Gary Glitter was on that flight out of Thailand, now I have no sympathy for him per se but the paps were rediculous! Climbing over seats (and other passengers) and sticking lenses a few inches from his face. The cabin crew should have done their jobs!

Yeah..I am so disappointed with the cabin crew, they didn't throw the bas£@*% out of the plane at 35000f... Now, that one picture, I would be more than happy to pay a fortune for.
As for the paps and celebs... As far as I am concerned, both species are parasites. But hey!, whatever pays the mortgage mate!

 

[Marc]

well yes but In my view a lot of HCBs work is overated tosh too - I remember reading a book about HCB which was full of pretensious waffle about capturing the definitive moment ,then looking at the shots and thinking 'what definitive moment'

That's as maybe but the point stands.

 

[big soft moose]

yeah but the point was that " you could make the same [comments about lack of sharpness, exposure, composition etc] criticism about many of the great works HCB being a prime example"

and my point in response was that the reason that you can thus critique many of the 'greats' in this way is that much of their work is overated tosh, which is only considered great because it was taken by HCB (or whoever), if it was submitted for critique here it would be laughed off the screen

case in point - http://erickimphotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/henri-cartier-bresson-umbrella.jpg

composition is appalling , theres a half person on the left, the horizon is on the wonk, and its soft - if you or I or anyone submitted that here we'd be slated , and rightly so - but because its by HCB its automatically a 'classic'

 

[Marc]

yeah but the point was that " you could make the same [comments about lack of sharpness, exposure, composition etc] criticism about many of the great works HCB being a prime example"

and my point in response was that the reason that you can thus critique many of the 'greats' in this way is that much of their work is overated tosh, which is only considered great because it was taken by HCB (or whoever), if it was submitted for critique here it would be laughed off the screen

I know what your point was, mine was that lack of technical perfection does not necessarily mean a photograph isn't great. HCB was just an example as there are plenty who would call his photographs great (I'm not even saying I'm one of them).

 

[FruitFlakes]

yeah but the point was that " you could make the same [comments about lack of sharpness, exposure, composition etc] criticism about many of the great works HCB being a prime example"

and my point in response was that the reason that you can thus critique many of the 'greats' in this way is that much of their work is overated tosh, which is only considered great because it was taken by HCB (or whoever), if it was submitted for critique here it would be laughed off the screen

case in point - http://erickimphotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/henri-cartier-bresson-umbrella.jpg

composition is appalling , theres a half person on the left, the horizon is on the wonk, and its soft - if you or I or anyone submitted that here we'd be slated , and rightly so - but because its by HCB its automatically a 'classic'

I think that's a great shot. Strong forms (the tilt is what makes it work) and an interesting subject (the shot invites the viewer to wonder what it's like under the protective shade of the umbrella, what interaction there is between the couple there). Analysing photographs for their technical adherence to the 'rules' is a very reductive way of looking at art. Btw, it's 'the decisive moment' not the definitive - if you can't find it in his photographs you're probably looking at the wrong examples of that famous phrase. But we're veering wildly off topic here.

 

[Ed Sutton]

composition is appalling , theres a half person on the left, the horizon is on the wonk, and its soft - if you or I or anyone submitted that here we'd be slated , and rightly so - but because its by HCB its automatically a 'classic'

Not one of his 'classics' IMO, but there's more to photography than making 'perfect' photographs. Have a look here - picking a better HCB at random.

I can think of lots more 'great' photographers whose work you probably won't like. But if you take the time to look at some of it you might expand your own horizons of what is possible in photography.

Try this 'classic' for size.

Following the 'rules' and repeating what one has seen and liked before is mind-numbingly dull. It's the stuff of most camera magazines and 'how-to' books, but it's still tedium of the highest order.

 

[Wookee]

I have three friends who would be classed as 'celebs' I suppose, all of the thespian variety but in different fields. Between them they have over 100,000 images on Google images, yet none of them get papped, nor do their celeb friends. Why? Probably because they live pretty normal lives outside of their day-jobs. They are far more likely to have a fellow restaurant diner take a snap with their camera phone.

The paparazzi exist, mainly, for those who want to be in the public eye. Let them get on with it.

 

[big soft moose]

Not one of his 'classics' IMO, but there's more to photography than making 'perfect' photographs. Have a look here - picking a better HCB at random.

I can think of lots more 'great' photographers whose work you probably won't like. But if you take the time to look at some of it you might expand your own horizons of what is possible in photography.

Try this 'classic' for size.

Following the 'rules' and repeating what one has seen and liked before is mind-numbingly dull. It's the stuff of most camera magazines and 'how-to' books, but it's still tedium of the highest order.

you're right that that HCB is better - I didnt say that all his work was over rated tosh - just some of it

that red ceiling on the other hand is arty *******s

and I agree with you about rules being there to be broken, but it equally doesnt follow that breaking rules automatically makes for a good photo - most of the rules are there for good reason, because they've been proven to work. Unfortunately some modern day artists seem to think that a prententious explanation gives out of focus cack higher meaning - it doesnt its still out of focus cack.

On the otherhand maybe i can come up with some meaning for the 'artistic' shots I took the other day - may be i could title the series "my feet" , or "shots of the inside of my lens cap"

 

[simonblue]

I guess i just dont 'get' street photography - personally i dont see any point in pictures like that, presumably you dont put it on your wall, it isnt artistic enough to sell (or equally they arent famous enough), its not a record of anything contemporary, so why....

Sometimes street photography is about the history of the time we live,its a record of those times,if you dont get you dont have to do it

 

[simonblue]

well yes but In my view a lot of HCBs work is overated tosh too - I remember reading a book about HCB which was full of pretensious waffle about capturing the definitive moment ,then looking at the shots and thinking 'what definitive moment'

HBC a load of tosh,maybe to you,know one is forceing you to look at it

 

[simonblue]

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.

I guess most of us live in the real world,every time you leave your house someone is watching you,cctv in the street, shops,buses,etc.

And even before cctv & camera,people were watching each other,that the human race,alway has been alway will be

 

[big soft moose]

HBC a load of tosh,maybe to you,know one is forceing you to look at it

quite and i usually dont - but when people bring him up in discussion like this those who dont rate him are prefectly entitled to say so.

on the other point about a social history of our times - how does (for example, i'm not having a go at fabs personally) a picture of a couple kissing in doorway acheive that ? Leaving the privacy aspect aside its a good picture but theres nothing about it that particularly says 2011 - it could pretty much be anywhere from the 70s onwards.

which is the key for me, good documentary street photography (and journalist photography that is essentially historical) (imo) tells a story or in HCB speak captures a definitive moment - it tells the viewer looking back at it something about the times in which it was taken - masses of the so callled street photography you see today is just random shots of nothing in particular , quite often badly exposed and composed , but given a 'explanation' which seeks to justify this as art or social documentary

 

[Ed Sutton]

most of the rules are there for good reason, because they've been proven to work. Unfortunately some modern day artists seem to think that a prententious explanation gives out of focus cack higher meaning - it doesnt its still out of focus cack.

Rules can be just as much a justification for poor photographs as a pretentious explanation. Just because a photograph follows the accepted rules no more makes it good than one that breaks them.

 

[big soft moose]

Rules can be just as much a justification for poor photographs as a pretentious explanation. Just because a photograph follows the accepted rules no more makes it good than one that breaks them.

I agree , but where a lot of the prentious artiste photographers go wrong is thinking that the reverse is not also true ie

just because a photo breaks the accepted rules no more makes it automatically good than one that follows them.

 

[MartynK]

I guess most of us live in the real world,every time you leave your house someone is watching you,cctv in the street, shops,buses,etc.

And even before cctv & camera,people were watching each other,that the human race,alway has been alway will be

Yes, we all live in the real world, and we always have, but the UK has the greatest concentration of public surveillance cameras in the world, if I'm not mistaken. I just don't like the idea of being tracked, monitored and recorded by the state, for reasons that are, at best, questionable. This goes a lot further too, if you consider the implications and abuse of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. I - like most people - am law abiding, but there are still parts of my life that are none of anyone else's business.

Anyway, this is peripheral to the "pap" and street photography issues, and a bit of a distraction.

 

[simonblue]

Yes, we all live in the real world, and we always have, but the UK has the greatest concentration of public surveillance cameras in the world, if I'm not mistaken. I just don't like the idea of being tracked, monitored and recorded by the state, for reasons that are, at best, questionable. This goes a lot further too, if you consider the implications and abuse of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. I - like most people - am law abiding, but there are still parts of my life that are none of anyone else's business.

Anyway, this is peripheral to the "pap" and street photography issues, and a bit of a distraction.

A big agreement here on public surveillance

Mine main thing was that I felt,that the thread has been hijack for people to have a go at street photography,which has nothing to do with paps

 

[big soft moose]

Mine main thing was that I felt,that the thread has been hijack for people to have a go at street photography,which has nothing to do with paps

I think you've missed the key point - ie that several of us were questioning the difference between pap work and street photography.

If it's ethically justifiable to take pictures of strangers kissing etc and publish them on the internet or in photomagazines, is it not also justifiable to take pictures of celebs kissing etc and publish them in heat - the diference would appear to be purely semantic

(also its hardly a thread hijack when you highlight to a mod that a question is going OT but he says you should discuss it anyway)

 

[MartynK]

I think you've missed the key point - ie that several of us were questioning the difference between pap work and street photography.

If it's ethically justifiable to take pictures of strangers kissing etc and publish them on the internet or in photomagazines, is it not also justifiable to take pictures of celebs kissing etc and publish them in heat - the diference would appear to be purely semantic

I know what you mean, but I can't help thinking that taking and publishing photographs of so called celebrities - who are used to it, and seem to invite/welcome publicity - is more justifiable than capturing random members of the public who aren't, and don't. I suppose it's all a matter of interpretation and opinion though.

 

[gingerjon]

I know what you mean, but I can't help thinking that taking and publishing photographs of so called celebrities - who are used to it, and seem to invite/welcome publicity - is more justifiable than capturing random members of the public who aren't, and don't. I suppose it's all a matter of interpretation and opinion though.

Staggeringly I've almost come to that conclusion myself.

I honestly don't know what to make of an internet discussion that's made me revise my opinion.

 

[CanonEOS]

I have been thinking all day about paparazzi and how tuff but slightly rewarding it might be. I was recently watching a program about a guy who went out to the states and decided to "Pap" Britney Spears, he targeted her with guilt at first only because of the TV show, but as he continued through 2 weeks they became more and more adictive and he was even prepared to break the law on Camera for "that shot". Although in doing this he missed the shot and got nothing.

So my questions (an open view):
What are your views on Pap photography?
Is it a form of photography that you would or have taken up?
Is it morally wrong? I'm sure its something that all will have different views on and some quite strong.

It was paparazzi who took gruesome photographs of the late Princess Diana in the moments after her 1997 car crash appearing in a documentary about her death.

Celebrities like Britney Spears, for example, are infamous in the industry for letting their assistants tell the paparazzi when they'll be leaving the gates.

Paparazzi are dogs and we need a harsh punishment law for those who are guilty of privacy, also it put's photography to shame IMO. The new California law makes it a crime to take and sell unauthorized photos of celebrities in "personal or familial activity." Violators face fines up to $50,000.

 

[Marc]

I think you've missed the key point - ie that several of us were questioning the difference between pap work and street photography.

If it's ethically justifiable to take pictures of strangers kissing etc and publish them on the internet or in photomagazines, is it not also justifiable to take pictures of celebs kissing etc and publish them in heat - the diference would appear to be purely semantic

(also its hardly a thread hijack when you highlight to a mod that a question is going OT but he says you should discuss it anyway)

As I have pointed out several times, the big difference is the way in which the photos are taken and what is done with them afterwards. A street photo of a kissing couple appearing on a magazine cover is a rather extreme example and extremely rare to boot.

Also, in a street photo, the subjects would be anonymous compared to photos of celebs who are obviously recognisable, not to mention that, in all likelihood, something, possibly derogatory, will also be written to accompany said photo.

 

[acetone]

I'm in the over rated camp, as I do belive many photos are great just by the fact that a certain person took them.

To Ansel Adams I say: it's just another black and white mountain, show me someting diffrent.

 

[big soft moose]

As I have pointed out several times, the big difference is the way in which the photos are taken and what is done with them afterwards. A street photo of a kissing couple appearing on a magazine cover is a rather extreme example and extremely rare to boot.

Also, in a street photo, the subjects would be anonymous compared to photos of celebs who are obviously recognisable, not to mention that, in all likelihood, something, possibly derogatory, will also be written to accompany said photo.

This is becoming increasingly circular so i'm not going to reiterate everything again , but while i respect your right to the view , I dont agree that it is correct - for one thing while it is relatively rare for street candids to wind up on a magazine cover it isnt rare at all for them to wind up on the internet , whether on flickr, facebook, or forums like this and others - all places where they could easily be seen by someone who recognises the subject.

and thats also key to the second point - while street candids may be anonymous compared to celeb pictures they are still recognisable to freinds and family - and If i photographed you in a potentially compromising position (or one that construed as such) it wouldnt matter a jot, or indeed a tiffle, that you were anonymous to the masses if the photo was seen by your family, freinds, colleagues etc.

So again i come back to the bottom line that if its wrong to pap celebs behaving badly, why is it okay to take the same type of shots of people you dont know without their permission ? and if street photography of drunks, kissing couples, people in varying states etc is okay , why isnt it okay to photograph celebs in those states too ?

 

[MartynK]

It was paparazzi who took gruesome photographs of the late Princess Diana in the moments after her 1997 car crash appearing in a documentary about her death.

Celebrities like Britney Spears, for example, are infamous in the industry for letting their assistants tell the paparazzi when they'll be leaving the gates.

Paparazzi are dogs and we need a harsh punishment law for those who are guilty of privacy, also it put's photography to shame IMO. The new California law makes it a crime to take and sell unauthorized photos of celebrities in "personal or familial activity." Violators face fines up to $50,000.

I'm not in the least surprised that the People's Republic of California have introduced these laws. They seem to be obsessed with "celebrities", and I dare say a lot of lobbyists applied pressure in the state legislature. Expensive lawyers can now lick their chops over the pickings to be made from arguing about the constitutionality of this, and the meaning of personal and familial.

 

[big soft moose]

I'm not in the least surprised that the People's Republic of California have introduced these laws. They seem to be obsessed with "celebrities", and I dare say a lot of lobbyists applied pressure in the state legislature. Expensive lawyers can now lick their chops over the pickings to be made from arguing about the constitutionality of this, and the meaning of personal and familial.

I also wonder where this leaves street photography in the PRC, as if celebrities have those rights to privacy presumably they cant be denied to the average joe - could be some nteresting courtcases coming up.

 

[Chris Primadona]

I done a bit of papping recently and found it quite fun! It's not something I would do for a living though.

 

[Marc]

This is becoming increasingly circular so i'm not going to reiterate everything again , but while i respect your right to the view , I dont agree that it is correct - for one thing while it is relatively rare for street candids to wind up on a magazine cover it isnt rare at all for them to wind up on the internet , whether on flickr, facebook, or forums like this and others - all places where they could easily be seen by someone who recognises the subject.

Well it's going to be circular if you ask a question and ignore the answer. What is this obsession about someone's photo ending up on the internet? So someone recognises the subject, and?

and thats also key to the second point - while street candids may be anonymous compared to celeb pictures they are still recognisable to freinds and family - and If i photographed you in a potentially compromising position (or one that construed as such) it wouldnt matter a jot, or indeed a tiffle, that you were anonymous to the masses if the photo was seen by your family, freinds, colleagues etc.

What compromising positions? Why would it matter if I was photographed and the photo was seen by friends and family? Oh look, there's Marc, in a public place, how awful!

So again i come back to the bottom line that if its wrong to pap celebs behaving badly, why is it okay to take the same type of shots of people you dont know without their permission ? and if street photography of drunks, kissing couples, people in varying states etc is okay , why isnt it okay to photograph celebs in those states too ?

I've actually never said it's wrong to pap celebs behaving badly but that isn't what this is about. It's about comparing paps to street photographers and, as I've been saying until I'm blue in the face, the difference is in how the photo is taken and hows it is used.

 

[simonblue]

I think you've missed the key point - ie that several of us were questioning the difference between pap work and street photography.

If it's ethically justifiable to take pictures of strangers kissing etc and publish them on the internet or in photomagazines, is it not also justifiable to take pictures of celebs kissing etc and publish them in heat - the diference would appear to be purely semantic

(also its hardly a thread hijack when you highlight to a mod that a question is going OT but he says you should discuss it anyway)

I also think you missed a key point,street photography has been about for years,and some of the most highly respected photographers in the history of photography have been street photographers.

You have made it clear you don't like it,as I have said no one forcing you to look at it,or take street photography.

 

[DemiLion]

It's fairly simple. If you don't want to be photographed in a compromising position, don't get into a compromising position in public!

 

[big soft moose]

I also think you missed a key point,street photography has been about for years,and some of the most highly respected photographers in the history of photography have been street photographers.

You have made it clear you don't like it,as I have said no one forcing you to look at it,or take street photography.

You still arent getting my key point - Its not that i dont like street photography , its not something i want to do, but some of the images are brilliant (there is an awful lot of dross though) - I dont even dislike all pap photography (though again a lot of their work is crap photographically) - chances are every field of photography has more dross than talent.

The point I'm getting at is that its more than a little hypocritical to have a thread composed mainly of people taking a pop at pap photography, when many of the same people either do, or laud , or both, street photography which isnt much different in content from the pap work they are condemning.

 

[big soft moose]

It's fairly simple. If you don't want to be photographed in a compromising position, don't get into a compromising position in public!

which is fair enough - but what about things like the example I cited above where someone (me in this case) isnt doing anything wrong but the situation (hugging a female freind who'd suffered a bereavement) would be distinctly open to misinterpretation if taken as a 'moment in time' out of context

 

[big soft moose]

What compromising positions? Why would it matter if I was photographed and the photo was seen by friends and family? Oh look, there's Marc, in a public place, how awful!

suppose you were photographed doing something you shouldnt be (whether thats kissing some girl, coming out of a bookies, being the worse for drink etc) or doing something you'd prefer to keep private (coming out of a 'clinic' etc) - of course you can say oh but i'd never do anything like that... but thats being incredibly literal minded - maybe you wouldnt, but people do every day and surely you have the empathy to understand that not everyone would be happy to be photographed in that way

. It's about comparing paps to street photographers and, as I've been saying until I'm blue in the face, the difference is in how the photo is taken and hows it is used.

Which is only your opinion and repeating it til you are purple doesnt make it a fact - and Ive repeatedly said that in my opinion (note i am not stating it as a fact) there isnt much difference in how the photo is taken (you say pap work is badly composed etc and you are largely right, but look at some of the crap passed off as street photography - not everyone has your degree of talent), nor is there that much difference in how it is used ( paps publish photos in magazines and on the internet - street photographers keep their images at home, and publish them in club competitions, in different magazines, and on the internet )

but whatever we arent going to agree so i'm done with this increasingly pointless and circular debate (and for the record I didnt ignore your answer - its just not compulsory for me to agree that you are correct )

 

[Splog]

Regarding Pap photography versus street photography, I would say the main difference is WHY the shot was taken?

 

[Marc]

suppose you were photographed doing something you shouldnt be (whether thats kissing some girl, coming out of a bookies, being the worse for drink etc) or doing something you'd prefer to keep private (coming out of a 'clinic' etc) - of course you can say oh but i'd never do anything like that... but thats being incredibly literal minded - maybe you wouldnt, but people do every day and surely you have the empathy to understand that not everyone would be happy to be photographed in that way

Then that would be my problem, not the photographer's. I'd hardly be in a position to make a moral judgement about them.

Which is only your opinion and repeating it til you are purple doesnt make it a fact - and Ive repeatedly said that in my opinion (note i am not stating it as a fact) there isnt much difference in how the photo is taken (you say pap work is badly composed etc and you are largely right, but look at some of the crap passed off as street photography - not everyone has your degree of talent), nor is there that much difference in how it is used ( paps publish photos in magazines and on the internet - street photographers keep their images at home, and publish them in club competitions, in different magazines, and on the internet )

I haven't actually commented on the photographic merit of pap photography. I was talking about the behaviour of the photographers (pushing people out of the way, shoving cameras in peoples' faces, preventing people from entering/leaving their homes, chasing them down the street). That is fact, not opinion.

but whatever we arent going to agree so i'm done with this increasingly pointless and circular debate (and for the record I didnt ignore your answer - its just not compulsory for me to agree that you are correct )

Who said you should agree that I'm correct?

I wouldn't like to think that the debate has been pointless though.

 

[simonblue]

You still arent getting my key point - Its not that i dont like street photography , its not something i want to do, but some of the images are brilliant (there is an awful lot of dross though) - I dont even dislike all pap photography (though again a lot of their work is crap photographically) - chances are every field of photography has more dross than talent.

The point I'm getting at is that its more than a little hypocritical to have a thread composed mainly of people taking a pop at pap photography, when many of the same people either do, or laud , or both, street photography which isnt much different in content from the pap work they are condemning.

Fair enought,but i did not have a go in any of my posts at the paps.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Regarding Pap photography versus street photography, I would say the main difference is WHY the shot was taken?

Nicely put.
One taken which adds to the wealth of our diverse culture. The other driven by an artless consumer market.

--

Interesting thread. Personally I kinda feel obliged to shoot all aspects of street, from the mundane through to intimate. I accept people might shoot me in uncompromising positions, but I’d back their rights to do so over my rights not to be caught compromising myself.