Paparazzi Scumbags

[yogestee]

I female co-worker and I were having a chat over a beer the other night.. She knew my background is in photojournalism and the subject of paparazzi came up.. She called them scumbags (Aussie term) for taking photos of celebrities, pollies and people in the public eye in the worst possible situation..

I asked her if she read/bought women's magazines,,yes she does.. I told her the readers have developed a market,,not the paparazzi..In short,,without the readers there wouldn't be paparazzi as we know them today.. I also mentioned paparazzi and readers have a symbiotic relationship,, one can not exist without the other..

Any opinions??

[FinalCut747]

I was in Malibu, California with my 20D recently, and I was asked if I were one of them... GRRRRR

[saturnin]

yah... she is the consumer of these magazine, yet she goes on calling the "papa****s" scumbags..lol.. please.. i would have put her in her place, wich you did. Good work.

HAte or Love the **** papparazzi, they are there to do the work and give ppl what they need. If ppl werent all nosy n' ****.. there would be no need. The tabloids are still going strong means that ppl still buy that crap.... nuff said

[yogestee]

yah... she is the consumer of these magazine, yet she goes on calling the "papa****s" scumbags..lol.. please.. i would have put her in her place, wich you did. Good work.

HAte or Love the **** papparazzi, they are there to do the work and give ppl what they need. If ppl werent all nosy n' ****.. there would be no need. The tabloids are still going strong means that ppl still buy that crap.... nuff said

Not so much to what they need, as to what the want..There is a difference..

My co-worker couldn't understand the correlation between readers and paparazzi.. Her reply was, "What came first, the chicken or the egg?"

[nphsbuckeye]

You make a really good point that one can't be a fan of celebrity gossip and be completely against the paparazzi. I would suppose most people don't terribly like them, but you can't blame them when picking up the tabloids.

My opinion? I never really had a deep thought about the two, but celebrities gain too much attention from that attention for it to ever go away. It's a necessary evil.

[JWright]

I female co-worker and I were having a chat over a beer the other night.. She knew my background is in photojournalism and the subject of paparazzi came up.. She called them scumbags (Aussie term) for taking photos of celebrities, pollies and people in the public eye in the worst possible situation..

I asked her if she read/bought women's magazines,,yes she does.. I told her the readers have developed a market,,not the paparazzi..In short,,without the readers there wouldn't be paparazzi as we know them today.. I also mentioned paparazzi and readers have a symbiotic relationship,, one can not exist without the other..

Any opinions??

I think you said it very well...

[Mark_Cohran]

Many, if not most, of the excesses of society are a product of consumer demand. The paparazzi are only one example.

[yogestee]

Many, if not most, of the excesses of society are a product of consumer demand. The paparazzi are only one example.

Well said Mark,,my point exactly..

[DDCSD]

I agree with both of you.

And the answer to the chicken/egg question is that neither can survive without the other, so it is irrelevant which came first. ;)

[FlyingPhotog]

But think of all the poor Personal Assistants, Agents and Press Agents who'd be out of work if the Pap went away...

It isn't all consumer demand. How do you think the Pap find out where the celebs are at any given moment. They don't just run into them by luck... ;)

[shayneyasinski]

I have often wondered what I would do if I was out with the 70-200 and saw a celeb ....
I think no matter what I would shoot a few .

some people read books and some hang from trees and shoot celebs taking out garbage.

[Veemac]

I don't have the slightest interest in celebrities, who they're doing, what ridiculous excesses they're indulging in, "who" they're wearing, or anything else about them, so I have no use for paparazzi.

I know celebs choose their lifestyle and often thrive on the attention, but I couldn't imagine not being able to so much as step foot out of my house without being swarmed, followed and pestered by paparazzi. I don't know that I'd go as far as calling them "scumbags", but I certainly consider them intrusive and pesky and don't think of them as a "necessary evil" in any way.

[FlyingPhotog]

Every parasite needs a host. ;)

[neilwood32]

I don't have the slightest interest in celebrities, who they're doing, what ridiculous excesses they're indulging in, "who" they're wearing, or anything else about them, so I have no use for paparazzi.

I know celebs choose their lifestyle and often thrive on the attention, but I couldn't imagine not being able to so much as step foot out of my house without being swarmed, followed and pestered by paparazzi. I don't know that I'd go as far as calling them "scumbags", but I certainly consider them intrusive and pesky and don't think of them as a "necessary evil" in any way.

A lot of "celebrities" actually choose to live the quiet life and 99 times out of 100 they actually manage quite well. Of course they tend to be the stars who actually have talent.

There are a substantial amouont however who choose to use the media to attain "stardom" and need the paparazzi to keep them in the limelight due to their lack of talent. they are the ones with the PA's, press agents etc leaking things to the pap's

Paparazzi are not a necessary evil but when magazines find there is a market for the images/gossip related to them, then of course they will pay good money for images and therefore you will get guys willing to do anything for the shot.


Put it this way - if i happened to get a photo of a celeb misbehaving and someone offered me lots of money for it, i would sell the photo in a second!

[TMCCaptured]

Every parasite needs a host. ;)

hahahahahah

[wickerprints]

I don't read tabloids. Hell I barely watch TV. And I avoid mainstream movies. I live in the celebrity capital of the world and none of it matters to me. So does that mean I have a right to judge the paparrazi?

Society creates many of its own problems. But that doesn't justify the problem, either. Simply saying that they exist because people eat it up isn't really any different than saying that some people spam the Internet because some proportion of recipients--however tiny--actually thinks they can buy a bigger p****. Why should I have to pay the consequences of the bad behavior of others?

Living where I do, I have seen the paparrazi in action. It is disturbing, to say the least. They are not your typical photographer, in fact to call them photographers just because they happen to hold a camera and take photos is rather insulting to those of us who are photographers. They really are more akin to instigators and sociopaths...their behavior is incredibly rude--they are masters at saying things to manipulate celebrities to react, to get an emotional response. And when they don't get what they want, they will break laws and endanger public safety to get the shot because that's how they get paid.

Yes they exist because the market exists for what they do. But as I have pointed out, so does a market exist for criminals, con men, and drug dealers. And exactly why should I feel any obligation to defend their actions when they entail things like reckless driving and psychological manipulation, just because they happen to be holding a camera?

[neilwood32]

I don't read tabloids. Hell I barely watch TV. And I avoid mainstream movies. I live in the celebrity capital of the world and none of it matters to me. So does that mean I have a right to judge the paparrazi?

Society creates many of its own problems. But that doesn't justify the problem, either. Simply saying that they exist because people eat it up isn't really any different than saying that some people spam the Internet because some proportion of recipients--however tiny--actually thinks they can buy a bigger p****. Why should I have to pay the consequences of the bad behavior of others?

Living where I do, I have seen the paparrazi in action. It is disturbing, to say the least. They are not your typical photographer, in fact to call them photographers just because they happen to hold a camera and take photos is rather insulting to those of us who are photographers. They really are more akin to instigators and sociopaths...their behavior is incredibly rude--they are masters at saying things to manipulate celebrities to react, to get an emotional response. And when they don't get what they want, they will break laws and endanger public safety to get the shot because that's how they get paid.

Yes they exist because the market exists for what they do. But as I have pointed out, so does a market exist for criminals, con men, and drug dealers. And exactly why should I feel any obligation to defend their actions when they entail things like reckless driving and psychological manipulation, just because they happen to be holding a camera?

If they are breaking the law to obtain the images, then it becomes a criminal matter and one which the police should take up. A criminal is a criminal regardless of motive.

I dont defend them but i can understand their motives. Also remember that a lot of the stuff they do is actually motivated by publicists for the "star" dropping hints that they will be in a certain place and that there may be "good
opportunities".

Oh and i dont regard them as photographers. And if i ever get compared to one, i would have a lot to say on the matter.:mad:

[primoz]

Any opinions??
Any other opinions? No you said it all.

[jgrussell]

Yes they exist because the market exists for what they do. But as I have pointed out, so does a market exist for criminals, con men, and drug dealers. And exactly why should I feel any obligation to defend their actions when they entail things like reckless driving and psychological manipulation, just because they happen to be holding a camera?Hear hear.

[nphsbuckeye]

I don't have the slightest interest in celebrities, who they're doing, what ridiculous excesses they're indulging in, "who" they're wearing, or anything else about them, so I have no use for paparazzi.

I know celebs choose their lifestyle and often thrive on the attention, but I couldn't imagine not being able to so much as step foot out of my house without being swarmed, followed and pestered by paparazzi. I don't know that I'd go as far as calling them "scumbags", but I certainly consider them intrusive and pesky and don't think of them as a "necessary evil" in any way.
You did everything but call them narcissists.

[MDJAK]

I agree with both of you.

And the answer to the chicken/egg question is that neither can survive without the other, so it is irrelevant which came first. ;)


Absolutely incorrect. Isn't it obvious the yolk, followed by the white followed by the shell, followed by the little chickadee popping out, came first? Sheesh, I thought everyone knew that. ;) :lol:

As to the title of this thread, I take offense at such harsh language as scumbag. That is a word that makes me blush, Aussie term or not. :lol:

me

[yogestee]

As to the title of this thread, I take offense at such harsh language as scumbag. That is a word that makes me blush, Aussie term or not. :lol:



Scumbag was the word my co-worker used,, not me..

[Gibbo]

I have often wondered what I would do if I was out with the 70-200 and saw a celeb ....
I think no matter what I would shoot a few .


Yep, i think many people would.. People's morales and beliefs change when they know that the picture they are shooting could be worth $10,000

[neilwood32]

Yep, i think many people would.. People's morales and beliefs change when they know that the picture they are shooting could be worth $10,000

I am honest enough to say that i would take the photo (if the opportunity arose) and sell it for what i could get.

Saying that, I wouldnt go for that line of work no matter how much money it earned me. I am happy with my 9-5 and shooting for fun.

I wouldnt break the law (dangerous driving, harrassment etc) to get the photo as a lot of the paparazzi do.

It is supply and demand though -celebs misbehave, people want to see/hear about it in magazines therefore paparazzi exist.

[nicksan]

Everyone has the right to earn a living. I think it's HOW they go about their business is what is most disturbing to me. I don't mind them taking photos of celebrities, selling them to tabloids and mags, etc. But when they act like the Predator, hunting down one celeb after another without any regard for the law or safety of the people around them, I think they've stepped over the line.

[PackingMyBags]

I don't read tabloids. Hell I barely watch TV. And I avoid mainstream movies. I live in the celebrity capital of the world and none of it matters to me. So does that mean I have a right to judge the paparrazi?

Society creates many of its own problems. But that doesn't justify the problem, either. Simply saying that they exist because people eat it up isn't really any different than saying that some people spam the Internet because some proportion of recipients--however tiny--actually thinks they can buy a bigger p****. Why should I have to pay the consequences of the bad behavior of others?

Living where I do, I have seen the paparrazi in action. It is disturbing, to say the least. They are not your typical photographer, in fact to call them photographers just because they happen to hold a camera and take photos is rather insulting to those of us who are photographers. They really are more akin to instigators and sociopaths...their behavior is incredibly rude--they are masters at saying things to manipulate celebrities to react, to get an emotional response. And when they don't get what they want, they will break laws and endanger public safety to get the shot because that's how they get paid.

Yes they exist because the market exists for what they do. But as I have pointed out, so does a market exist for criminals, con men, and drug dealers. And exactly why should I feel any obligation to defend their actions when they entail things like reckless driving and psychological manipulation, just because they happen to be holding a camera?

Agreed. I would have more respect for the Paparazzi if they had some sort of professionalism to their work ethic, gut they dont. Instead they are more like a flee circus fighting to get on the host. Yelling, crowding, stalking, fighting, etc. is no way to run a business IMO.

[neilwood32]

Agreed. I would have more respect for the Paparazzi if they had some sort of professionalism to their work ethic, gut they dont. Instead they are more like a flee circus fighting to get on the host. Yelling, crowding, stalking, fighting, etc. is no way to run a business IMO.

I guess it comes down to the amount of money that they can make with the "right" image. Hence why they jostle for position, yell etc.

When you can make tens (even hundreds) of thousands with one image, it is understandable that some get agressive to get the shot come what may.

If you believe some of the figures here http://www.slate.com/id/2120234/ then you see why they do it.

[Rimwalker]

I've been told there is a distinction between "old school" paps, who hide in the car with a long lens, and "new school" who shoot on auto and tape all their switches so settings don't get messed up when they're ganging up and jostling around a celeb.

Maybe the "old school" doesn't exist anymore, in which case, it would be fair to say none of them are real photographers.

[AxxisPhoto]

Very well said. But I think scumbag is a universal term!;)

[nphsbuckeye]

I've been told there is a distinction between "old school" paps, who hide in the car with a long lens, and "new school" who shoot on auto and tape all their switches so settings don't get messed up when they're ganging up and jostling around a celeb.

Maybe the "old school" doesn't exist anymore, in which case, it would be fair to say none of them are real photographers.
They're real photographers, just not PJs.

[birdfromboat]

I recently witnessed an aging celeb stage a paparazzi attack. She brought along her own still photographer to a video shoot and when the cameras rolled, he stood there and popped off flash after flash without much interest in focusing or composition. I am sure that on film it looked like she was getting lots of papparazzi attention while being interviewed, but in reality, there were only three or four other people with cameras there, myself included, and I personally was more interested in watching the whole process than taking any more than a few shots, none with flash by the way.
It kind of changed my whole view of what a paparazzi really does for a living.

Does anyone remember the shots of Bill and Hilary Clinton hugging in the surf shortly after his indiscretions? They were supposedly taken by a paparazzi while the clintons were on vacation. I can't imagine anyone getting close enough to get that shot without secret service being all over them, can you?

Paparazzi serve the celebs, the celebs serve the paparazzi, and we (in general) eat it all up. Who is to say any one part of the whole is worse than any other part?

[Todd Lambert]

Yeah, the whole thing is a scam. It's all fabricated and a very intricate business that generates a LOT of money.

Personally, I'd like to try it... I think it would be kind of fun for awhile. I wouldn't want to make it my living forever, but i think it'd be a blast to do. It would be kind of like hunting, or being a private dick.

[20droger]

Yeah, the whole thing is a scam. It's all fabricated....
Tell it to Princess Diana.

[mbellot]

Tell it to Princess Diana.

If/when I bump in to her I'll be sure to mention it. ;)

I have very little sympathy for "professional" celebrities, politicians, etc (those who seek the public spotlight) when they start whining about the intrusive media.

You take the bad with the good when you make your choices in life, its a package deal.

[Rainyday]

Tell it to Princess Diana.

Nobody made Diana start dating a controversial son of a famous millionaire. Nobody made her pose on the end of the diving board. Nobody made her snuggle next to Dodi Fayed in a way that made it easier for the photographers. Nobody made her to eat dinner in a public hotel instead of quietly ordering room service. And sadly, nobody could tell her she needed private security, including a safe and sober driver. Several people such as Ken Wharfe tried, but she wouldn't listen. It was a horrible loss for her family and the British public, but had she been a bit more responsible, it all could have been avoided.

[primoz]

Tell it to Princess Diana.
I was just waiting for this crap to come out. Paparazzi killed her, right? They made her driver drink so much he was way over limit, they forced him to drive 200km/h through Paris where speed limit is 4 or 5 times lower etc. Yes those paparazzi scumbags.:rolleyes:

[joshkho]

that's a good point.
well said.

[hooookup]

Im curious as to what you guys consider paparazzi.. Do you guys and gals consider those photographers that cover red carpet events like the Emmys, Oscars, Golden Globes, VMA's and movie premieres paparazzi?
In Hollywood there are 2 different types of entertainment photographers. You have those that cover the above mentioned events and those that chase celebrities all over town. The later we refer to as stalkarazzi.
Most of us who cover the red carpet premieres and big awards shows are accomplished photojournalists who happen to cover celebrities and entertainment for legitimate news organizations and media outlets. Not all celebrity photographers are bad. One of my co workers spent 18 years shooting for NFL Photos before being re assigned to the Hollywood beat. Food for thought..

[alt4852]

Tell it to Princess Diana.

i wasn't aware that cameras could raise someone's BAC.

[yogestee]

Im curious as to what you guys consider paparazzi.. Do you guys and gals consider those photographers that cover red carpet events like the Emmys, Oscars, Golden Globes, VMA's and movie premieres paparazzi?
In Hollywood there are 2 different types of entertainment photographers. You have those that cover the above mentioned events and those that chase celebrities all over town. The later we refer to as stalkarazzi.
Most of us who cover the red carpet premieres and big awards shows are accomplished photojournalists who happen to cover celebrities and entertainment for legitimate news organizations and media outlets. Not all celebrity photographers are bad. One of my co workers spent 18 years shooting for NFL Photos before being re assigned to the Hollywood beat. Food for thought..

When I worked for a newspaper we would occasionally cover celebrities visiting our city.. Things like meet and greet events where for example a celebrity would walk through the malls meeting their fans.. This is legitimate media photography..

By paparazzi I mean the guys (and girls) who hide in the bushes waiting for celebrities to behave badly or put themselves in a compromising situation..

[Rimwalker]

Im curious as to what you guys consider paparazzi.. Do you guys and gals consider those photographers that cover red carpet events like the Emmys, Oscars, Golden Globes, VMA's and movie premieres paparazzi?
In Hollywood there are 2 different types of entertainment photographers. You have those that cover the above mentioned events and those that chase celebrities all over town. The later we refer to as stalkarazzi.
Most of us who cover the red carpet premieres and big awards shows are accomplished photojournalists who happen to cover celebrities and entertainment for legitimate news organizations and media outlets. Not all celebrity photographers are bad. One of my co workers spent 18 years shooting for NFL Photos before being re assigned to the Hollywood beat. Food for thought..

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd always thought of red carpet photographers as red carpet photographers, not paparazzi. Somewhere inside the broader catagory of an event photographer, since we're talking about organized events.

[hooookup]

Its refreshing to see that some people actually can differentiate between the 2. I hate being called a paparazzi. I do not chase celebs, wait for them out side of their homes, nor do I follow them around the city snapping pictures of them doing their daily shopping or other mundane activities. There's one pap agancy in LA that actively recruits from gangs in south central. They give them a camera and teach them how to use it in P mode.

[xn2b8r]

There's one pap agancy in LA that actively recruits from gangs in south central. They give them a camera and teach them how to use it in P mode.

They should teach them to use IS, too -- it's hard to get a sharp image when you're shooting from one of those low-riders with the jumpy hydraulic suspensions.

[mbellot]

By paparazzi I mean the guys (and girls) who hide in the bushes waiting for celebrities to behave badly or put themselves in a compromising situation..


But to be clear (and totally fair) it is in fact the celebrities who are putting themselves in said compromising situations.

Act stupid (famous or not) and get caught on camera you have nobody to blame but yourself.

[GerBee]

I actually don't know how the paparazzi actually make money. Sure a few gets shots that Darryn Lyons would syndicate for big, big bucks and the photographer would get his 40% ~ could still be worth a few thousand dollars.

Paparazzi sell their photos to the highest bidder. Depending on the quality, subject and situation, photos can go for anywhere between a few hundred dollars to several thousand dollars. The celebrity-photograph business is highly competitive and risky to both life and limb. Very few photographers make their fortune as paparazzi: Often, it costs more to get the shot than they'll make selling the photo.

Enter stage left, the most successful paparazzi, Darryn Lyons who understood this concept and made his agency. Be part of it or starve is the reality.

Oh, and of course, reader buy the papers and magazines to see these images.