Paparazzi - your views?

WeddingHack said:
Supply and demand - the paps only have work because someone is prepared to buy and print their photos. The photos are only printed because someone is prepared to buy the newspapers and magazines. That someone is the great British public, well the female half anyway.

Celebrity is the new religion in this country, all kneel at the altar of Heat.
Click to expand...

Which I have never bought in my life and certainly don't intend to. :nono:

So you absolve the likes of Nuts, Zoo and the rest of the trashy airbrushed airheads with fake **** that men buy then?

I think we can happily agree that there is a market for gutter reporting but that it is consumed by more than those sporting only Y chromosomes.

Would I do it, not a chance in heck. Standing around in the cold for hours for some vacuous airhead or scumbag that can just about manage to kick a bag of air around? No thank you.

As for the morality, I think they are as bad as each other. Most of it is staged so the so called celebs get their publicity and the publications get their shots. When that get caught doing something naughty they don't like it. Awwww didums :bang:
 
AliB said:
Which I have never bought in my life and certainly don't intend to. :nono:

So you absolve the likes of Nuts, Zoo and the rest of the trashy airbrushed airheads with fake **** that men buy then?

I think we can happily agree that there is a market for gutter reporting but that it is consumed by more than those sporting only Y chromosomes.
Click to expand...

Nuts, Zoo, etc are hardly quality publications, but they are not 'pap' mags - most men don't really care about the lives of celebs - they have, err, simpler interests :)

I'd be very suprised if at least 80% of pap output wasn't funded by women. It's not a men v women thing, just look at where Heat, Hello, OK, Now, More, etc, etc, etc are located in the newsagents - with the car and computer mags ? Nope. Do they have blokes in the TV adverts ? Nope.

The Daily Mail realised last year that their female readership was falling away - their strategy to change it ? Include more celeb stories. Problem fixed.
 
As long as idiots suck up any information or images of the famous, infamous or Royal... we will have paparazzi who cater to the idiots' need for that gratification.

It is certainly not the career in photography which I would have selected (and I didn't) since I don't really give a tinker's damn about famous, infamous or Royal personages...

I must confess though, I don't believe that all readers of the trash publications are idiots just as I believe that I just spotted a herd of pigs flying over my roof...
 
AliB said:
Which I have never bought in my life and certainly don't intend to. :nono:

So you absolve the likes of Nuts, Zoo and the rest of the trashy airbrushed airheads with fake **** that men buy then?
Click to expand...

not wanting to start the philosophy forum off, but don't think nuts and zoo have much pap in them. methinks nuts, zoo, and the more "upmarket" mags of FHM type have pics of beautiful (fake) women photoshoped to make them unrealistically perfect....

As a consequence, real women feel like crud for not looking like that, then want to buy up the gutter press pics of cellulite, sweat marks, facial hair, hungover, VPL and any other imperfect celebs so buy the magazines with pap pics in showing that these perfect bodies aren't really so they feel a bit better. or at least can show their boyfriends that the lass they fantastised about last night ain't all that the morning after.

so sort of in a way FHM and such are part of the pap stuff - but only in a slightly weird distant way. saying that, haven't really read nuts of zoo (just seen the TV adverts). they may be full of pap pics of footballers with VPL or cellulite. But then Men's health magazine might actually be about men's health, and not a closet gay mag. :shrug:

and also, I am drunk at the minute. So might not be correct about any of that!
 
because i'm lazy i havent read all this but my view...

If you don't want paps to intrude on celebrity lives, stop buying those magazines... bottom line really.

Otherwise there will always be a market for paps to stalk celebs
 
I've been to quite a few "celebrity-rich" events, especially polo, but some music stuff too. However, I'm totally useless at recognising anyone.

At the Cartier Cup polo extravaganza, I shot a few pics of a pretty lady with dark hair and very pale skin. Then there was a massive scrum around her. "Who's that" I asked innocently. "Dita Von Teese (you knob)". "Who's she then?" etc etc.

Useless really :lol:

Back to the question - where there's demand there will be supply. Vacuous people who buy celebrity mags feed vacuous publishers who demand vacuous inane "celebs" who result in paps. With that amount of vacuum its a wonder it doesn't all implode. Dont worry about the large hadron collider - watch out for OK! and Hello.
 
My view is its the lowest form of photography. for Scum. youve got to have no morals to do it.

But i'll be shooting it for the next 6 month because i want a mortgage. I know how much money there is to be made. i only have to work 4 days a month.

A means to an end.
 
I find everything about it disgusting.

Not only do I find the hordes of photographers following celebrities around like flies flocking to crap extraordinarily pathetic, but even more so I find it revolting that we live in an age where people worship celebrities to the point that they want to see photos of their cellulite while they're wearing swimming gear on vacation. The fact that many, if not most celebrities come across as knuckle-dragging troglodytes makes the whole concept of celebrity worship all the more nauseating.

The entire phenomenon of paparazzi and celebrity rags can be summed up as such: morally-bankrupt scumbags hounding random people deemed worthy of attention because they're attractive or controversial (talent in some regard is entirely optional) to satisfy the shallow and equally morally-bankrupt desires of the vacuous, mouth-breathing cretins that tragically appear to make up the majority of our western population.

Yeah, I'm not the biggest fan of humans sometimes.
 
would I do it - no as its not what interests me in photography

whats my view - paps are a result of the public. less public demand = less of the celeb type pap.

is it morally wrong - no, so long as it is done in a legal manner.




gazedd said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Can't say I've given it much thought, it's not something that strikes me as very important. I don't read the newspapers and magazines that publish paparazzi photographs, and have just about no interest in "celebrities". I do suspect, though, that a lot of them revel in the attention and the opportunity to moan about it.
 
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.
 
NOw the real question is, barring using a stupidly long zoom and shooting people in their own privacy (house/garden etc.) and their kids, what is the difference between pap'ing and street photography?

And as an extension, is street photography morally wrong as well as it is essentially the same thing.

Now dont get me wrong, like the example with Gary Glitter above, once you start becoming violent/climbing over people/bashing about then yes, there are fundemental differences, but is the principle not the same?
 
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
 
big soft moose said:
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
Click to expand...

Well yes, but like I pointed out that is wrong obviously. The point I was trying to emphasise was, like many people have suggested, if pap'ing is an invasion of privacy, isnt street photography also?

Dont get me wrong, I wouldnt do pap'ing for love nor money, but if I could sell my street photography for money I would... how thin is the line here?
 
I agree the line is pretty thin - I wouldnt go out of my way to pap but if i got a saleable shot of a celeb in the street i wouldnt think twice about offering it to the papers.

personally i dont really have a problem with paps earning a living like this as most celebs ask for it and indeed court it - its when they start harrasing peoples kids, victims of crime, wives of victims etc - thats a different kettle of fish

that said i also agree that a lot of street stuff is invasive - its not if its done well, but i dont see the justification for shooting pics of kissing couples etc, or getting in peoples faces
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
I agree the line is pretty thin - I wouldnt go out of my way to pap but if i got a saleable shot of a celeb in the street i wouldnt think twice about offering it to the papers.

personally i dont really have a problem with paps earning a living like this as most celebs ask for it and indeed court it - its when they start harrasing peoples kids, victims of crime, wives of victims etc - thats a different kettle of fish

that said i also agree that a lot of street stuff is invasive - its not if its done well, but i dont see the justification for shooting pics of kissing couples etc, or getting in peoples faces
Click to expand...

Youre absolutely correct, I think it is a case that some people simply have lower morals, or are able to ignore them for a certain period of time, in order to get a shot that they know will pay their rent...
 
big soft moose said:
I agree the line is pretty thin - I wouldnt go out of my way to pap but if i got a saleable shot of a celeb in the street i wouldnt think twice about offering it to the papers.

personally i dont really have a problem with paps earning a living like this as most celebs ask for it and indeed court it - its when they start harrasing peoples kids, victims of crime, wives of victims etc - thats a different kettle of fish

that said i also agree that a lot of street stuff is invasive - its not if its done well, but i dont see the justification for shooting pics of kissing couples etc, or getting in peoples faces
Click to expand...

What's the problem with that as long as you're not getting i their faces.

Here you go, capturing the moment, they're anonymous, I've not published it and written anything about them.

DSC00360-Edit-2-Edit.jpg
 
Strictly speaking you have published it by putting it on the net

the issue is its an invasion of their privacy - how would you feel if that was you in the pic , or your daughter ?
 
big soft moose said:
Strictly speaking you have published it by putting it on the net

the issue is its an invasion of their privacy - how would you feel if that was you in the pic , or your daughter ?
Click to expand...

I said publish it AND written about them and that they were anonymous (unnamed). How is it an invasion of their privacy? They were on a bench on The South Bank in London, couldn't get more public!

How would I feel if it was me or my daughter in the pic? Couldn't care less, see the paragraph above.
 
I've not got much time for the paps it's a sad way to earn a living - invading the privacy of other people. Then again I don't have a great deal of time for the celebs either who've courted the attention of the media and often moan when they get it, so as someone said earlier, they're two groups who definitely deserve each other.

I'm sure also, that we all suffer to some extent from the perceived public view of photographers which the paps generate with their antics.
 
onona said:
I find everything about it disgusting.

Not only do I find the hordes of photographers following celebrities around like flies flocking to crap extraordinarily pathetic, but even more so I find it revolting that we live in an age where people worship celebrities to the point that they want to see photos of their cellulite while they're wearing swimming gear on vacation. The fact that many, if not most celebrities come across as knuckle-dragging troglodytes makes the whole concept of celebrity worship all the more nauseating.

The entire phenomenon of paparazzi and celebrity rags can be summed up as such: morally-bankrupt scumbags hounding random people deemed worthy of attention because they're attractive or controversial (talent in some regard is entirely optional) to satisfy the shallow and equally morally-bankrupt desires of the vacuous, mouth-breathing cretins that tragically appear to make up the majority of our western population.

Yeah, I'm not the biggest fan of humans sometimes.
Click to expand...

The photographers exist to fill a need who are worse the Paparazzi or the people who buy Ok,Now etc etc that feed the market
 
When I shot pap stuff I do respect the people I'm shooting and I don't get in there way. I don't shout stuff at them and to be honest I usually apologise to them because I feel guilty for papping them.
 
f it does have to be done which I think, regardles of whether we agree with the principles of the matter, we agree it does for the simple fact that it sells papaers/mags etc. Then this ^^ is how it should be done IMO. :thumbs:
 
fabs said:
I said publish it AND written about them and that they were anonymous (unnamed). How is it an invasion of their privacy? They were on a bench on The South Bank in London, couldn't get more public!

How would I feel if it was me or my daughter in the pic? Couldn't care less, see the paragraph above.
Click to expand...

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....
 
It's disgusting there not proper photographers in my eyes there giving the photography a bad name down the years

Wasters
 
big soft moose said:
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....
Click to expand...

Given this is a thread about Paparazzi rather than street photography, I don't really want to take it too far off topic but, when I shoot as an amateur, I wouldn't be doing it very long if I was only shooting to put the photos on my walls. There are competitions for one, the above shot did very well in one.
 
fabs said:
There are competitions for one, the above shot did very well in one.
Click to expand...

which presumably involved publishing this shot in a public forum , thus invading the privacy of those photographed in an intimate moment without their knowledge or consent

I know that legally we have the right to do so, but I still say ethically it isnt right, or indeed different to how many paps behave. - while you are correct that theres no expectation of privacy in a public place I would contend that while you might expect to be seen you wouldnt usually expect to find some geezer taking photos of you.

How would you feel for example if that turned out not to be his wife /girl freind and your publication of the image trashed his entire life - If the answer is that you'd shrug and say "well its not my problem, he was in public so he's fair game" then I fail to see how that would differ from the attitude a pap takes when he photographs a celeb in a compromising position
 
big soft moose said:
which presumably involved publishing this shot in a public forum , thus invading the privacy of those photographed in an intimate moment without their knowledge or consent
Click to expand...

What privacy? And not all competitions are on public forums, this one was actually entered into a camera club competition.

big soft moose said:
I know that legally we have the right to do so, but I still say ethically it isnt right, or indeed different to how many paps behave. - while you are correct that theres no expectation of privacy in a public place I would contend that while you might expect to be seen you wouldnt usually expect to find some geezer taking photos of you.
Click to expand...

To be honest, comparing me to paps is rather insulting. I don't stand outside peoples' work/homes/restaurants waiting for them to come out and shove a camera in their face the sell the shots to the papers/magazines who will write all sorts or crap about them.

If you are in a busy public place which is full of people with cameras, you wouldn't expect someone at some point to take a photo of you?

big soft moose said:
How would you feel for example if that turned out not to be his wife /girl freind and your publication of the image trashed his entire life - If the answer is that you'd shrug and say "well its not my problem, he was in public so he's fair game" then I fail to see how that would differ from the attitude a pap takes when he photographs a celeb in a compromising position
Click to expand...

Now you're just being ridiculous! I've posted it in a thread on a forum, I haven't published it in the national press! I think you are making a desparate attempt to take the moral high ground here. Maybe we should all leave our cameras at home when we go out in public.
 
fabs said:
I think you are making a desparate attempt to take the moral high ground here. .
Click to expand...

I dont need to "make a desperate attempt to take the moral highground" - as far as i'm aware this is a debate not an argument so there's nothing to take - all i'm saying is that i dont see any difference between a pap taking a shot of a celeb kissing someone outside a club, at a gig, in the street etc and a street photographer taking a picture of a couple kissing on the street, in a club, at a gig (note i'm talking about any street tog , not you specifically, i mean ive sen that kind of shot on the front of AP in the past). Either it's ethically acceptable or it isnt , and I fail to see how you can justify the latter and still be insulted by the comparrison with the former :thinking:


but whatever let's just agree to differ and leave it there
 
Last edited:
Oddly, i`m in agreement with Pete on this.................:lol:
 
big soft moose said:
I dont need to "make a desperate attempt to take the moral highground" - as far as i'm aware this is a debate not an argument so there's nothing to take - all i'm saying is that i dont see any difference between a pap taking a shot of a celeb kissing someone outside a club, at a gig, in the street etc and a street photographer taking a picture of a couple kissing on the street, in a club, at a gig (note i'm talking about any street tog , not you specifically, i mean ive sen that kind of shot on the front of AP in the past). Either it's ethically acceptable or it isnt , and I fail to see how you can justify the latter and still be insulted by the comparrison with the former :thinking:


but whatever let's just agree to differ and leave it there
Click to expand...

There's a world of difference Pete, not least is what is done with the photo after it is taken.
 
401px-Legendary_kiss_V%E2%80%93J_day_in_Times_Square_Alfred_Eisenstaedt.jpg


Totally unethical.

doisneau_kiss50.jpg


Doisneau, what a scumbag (he did ask though!).

I think the line between paparazzi and street photography is merely a matter of purpose. Paps don't take into account artistry or expression they just want to grab that shot and get paid, whereas street photographers almost always shoot with an intention to fulfil some form of aesthetic philosophy. IMO, celebs need paparazzi as much as paparazzi need them, publicity is publicity after all.
 
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.
 
fabs said:
There's a world of difference Pete, not least is what is done with the photo after it is taken.
Click to expand...

Fair enough in your case

but going back to what i was saying about seeing shots like this on the front of AP , is there really much difference between taking a shot of a celeb snogging and selling it to the papers, and taking a picture like that of a non celeb and sending it to a photo mag ? (or publishing it on facebook etc)

The only actual difference i can see is that the celeb shot is more justifiable , because they court the media attention (particularly true of the C list Why am I famous crowd).
 
fracster said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
big soft moose said:
Fair enough in your case

but going back to what i was saying about seeing shots like this on the front of AP , is there really much difference between taking a shot of a celeb snogging and selling it to the papers, and taking a picture like that of a non celeb and sending it to a photo mag ? (or publishing it on facebook etc)

The only actual difference i can see is that the celeb shot is more justifiable , because they court the media attention (particularly true of the C list Why am I famous crowd).
Click to expand...

The big difference there is that the non celebs aren't identified.
 
fabs said:
The big difference there is that the non celebs aren't identified.
Click to expand...

Only technically - I mean if I took a picture of you snogging some cutie and published it you might not be identified by name , but your wife, family, freinds, and work colleagues, (ie those people who it would be damaging to have see the picture) would still recognise you.

now okay there's an argument that you shouldnt be snogging people other than your wife in public (or at all) , but equally there's an argument that it was just a kiss and you werent expecting someone to photograph you doing it and publish the shots on the front of a magazine thats on display in whsmiths

(NB: before we go totally off at a tangent thats a hypothetical, i'm not suggesting you , or I, regularly go round cheating on our life partners)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top