paparazzi = photographer

[ayoyoayoyo]

i would like some opinion on how much skill do you need to be a paparazzi as opposed to an amateur photographer.

thx.

[Jdumas]

you probably do not need much skill at all, just alot of coffee and tinted windows so you can hang out outside the club until the "famous" come stagering out of the club.

[zacm7]

none, grab a nice camera and a nice lens and stock your prey...paparazzi photos have no artistic flare to any of their photos they just take a picture to send to someone all they need is the image to be clear, anyone with a nice camera and contacts can be one.

[gorgon2k]

Technically speaking, a what separates an Amateur and a Professional is whether or not they're getting paid. Now for that Paparazzi to get paid, they need a good picture. Generally they want something with decent exposure and composition if possible, but that's not always the case. They also need something interesting. Basically what they're images lack in quality, they make up in stalking, waiting, watching, etc. I'm sure some are good photographers, but I wouldn't think many could do what some of the tops do.

[Sven-EOS]

i would like some opinion on how much skill do you need to be a paparazzi as opposed to an amateur photographer.

thx.
If greed and having a total lack of morals are considered skills..

[ayoyoayoyo]

so they just stick a random zoom lens on their dslr and just point and shoot?

what they do is similar to what photojounalists do. they run around chasing a fleeting opportune moment to photograph. im sure alot of people would consider photojournalist more artistic than paparazzi. they do about the same thing.

and while im sure the audience wont care or appreciate the small things as opposed to the blurry shot of some celeb's private part, in the end you subconciously judge a photo on its aesthetic value and that would play a part in paparazzi photo as well.

or im completely wrong?

[MJPhotos24]

Personally, and I've said it before, there's more to being a professional than making money. I know some very unprofessional people that make money.

so they just stick a random zoom lens on their dslr and just point and shoot?

For much they are a spray and pray mentality of just getting a shot rather than one that is artistic or even all that interesting photographically speaking.

what they do is similar to what photojounalists do. they run around chasing a fleeting opportune moment to photograph. im sure alot of people would consider photojournalist more artistic than paparazzi. they do about the same thing.

HELLO NO! Not even close! Paparazzi are paying people (bus boys, doorman, etc) for information - they are trying to capture the celebrity in a bad moment as scandal sells. A shot of Britney Spears walking out of a club is a dime a dozen, a shot of her going nuts and shaving her head randomly worth a LOT more in the tabloids. PJ's are recording what's happening news related trying to not affect the outcome or what is happening - paparazzi are well known for trying to create problems rather than just shoot. There is a HUGE difference!

NOTE - this is not all paparazzi but if you watch the videos of the successful ones they are a bit sleazy and it's more than just point and shoot when you see someone. They are literally stalking people at times and bordering on illegal in how they obtain the images as well in some cases.

and while im sure the audience wont care or appreciate the small things as opposed to the blurry shot of some celeb's private part, in the end you subconciously judge a photo on its aesthetic value and that would play a part in paparazzi photo as well.

or im completely wrong?

You're completely wrong...the editors and people who buy the tabloids could care less about the artist value or if a photo is all that great. As long as it's clear of who it is and shows something you don't get to see on their regular appearances (weight gain, loss, tattoos on body parts, missing clothes, bruises, basically controversy) is all they care about. Photo quality has almost nothing to do with it - though obviously it has to be at least usable in to show who it is, has to be able to make a full page scandal article.

[Jdumas]

I think you are giving them more credit than they deserve. Do photojournalist point a 800mm lens from across town into a wedding they were not invited to just for the sake of selling private moments of someones life?

and yes most paps are photographers and by nature photographers usually try to make pictures interesting.

[Todd Lambert]

I'd think that the most skill is involved in the non-photographic side of the business. Getting contacts that tip you about the arrivals of your targets, agents and handlers who notify you of targets schedules, etc..

That is probably not a very easy thing to acquire and takes years to cultivate.

[Todd Lambert]

And anyone who thinks that the celebrities are the innocent, unprotected victims in this, you need to wakeup and smell the coffee.

They pay their agents, to work with the paparazzi to let them know where and when they will be someplace, for a photo op. They WANT the publicity. It's the way the business works nowadays and is a fact of life.

Only way that it is going to change is if people stop buying the tabloid magazines and stop watching the E channel and Entertainment Tonight, etc...

[nphsbuckeye]

PJs aren't going around paying people for info. Most of the time they are assigned to cover a story. However, there are feature photos, but PJs certainly aren't stalking people. It is very tough to become a full time PJ these days with many people holding an MFA or MA in PJ. Most paparazzi seem to just hold a camera and attitude.

[gorgon2k]

And anyone who thinks that the celebrities are the innocent, unprotected victims in this, you need to wakeup and smell the coffee.

They pay their agents, to work with the paparazzi to let them know where and when they will be someplace, for a photo op. They WANT the publicity. It's the way the business works nowadays and is a fact of life.

Only way that it is going to change is if people stop buying the tabloid magazines and stop watching the E channel and Entertainment Tonight, etc...


+1 bw! amen

[FlyingPhotog]

And anyone who thinks that the celebrities are the innocent, unprotected victims in this, you need to wakeup and smell the coffee.

They pay their agents, to work with the paparazzi to let them know where and when they will be someplace, for a photo op. They WANT the publicity. It's the way the business works nowadays and is a fact of life.

Only way that it is going to change is if people stop buying the tabloid magazines and stop watching the E channel and Entertainment Tonight, etc...

You betcha they do...

[20droger]

Paparazzi have their place in society, but I certainly wouldn't want one in my home.

[neil_r]

Putting the moral issue aside, there is some considerable skill there, getting printable results with often only a split second to frame and shoot before the left hook connects with their jaw is not easy.

[advaitin]

Or the ability to always get a crotch shot--those boys do a lot of squatting.

[JeffreyG]

The paparazzi have skills assocaited with what they do, but they are probably pretty limited as to their photography skills. For them it is all about catching the right moment. I expect from what I have seen that they tend to shoot everything in an all automated mode with flash, and their composition is limited to getting the subject in the frame.

Photojouralism is broader, ranging from some modestly talented people at local papers just recording what happened through the best of the best who can tell stories and make you think through just their photos.

I have no real problem with the paparazzi. It's like blaming rats for eating garbage.

[sb1975]

This video makes me want to cry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyVBrhnckiU#t=36s the guy is holding 5k+ of equipment and has no idea what it is.

[Todd Lambert]

This video makes me want to cry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyVBrhnckiU#t=36s the guy is holding 5k+ of equipment and has no idea what it is.

"It's pretty sleek... it's rapid fire." "It's like a machine gun"

[Karl Johnston]

Only way that it is going to change is if people stop buying the tabloid magazines and stop watching the E channel and Entertainment Tonight, etc...
I always thought that show was so funny. They sound so dramatic about the silly of things.

Like the guy from "destroyed in seconds" on discovery channel and spike tv.

Only instead of talking about stuff being destroyed it's "Justin Timberlake lost 2 lbs today..About his fight with anoerxia in 2 minutes after a word from our Sponsors"

[yogestee]

Paparazzi have a place in print media just as much as readers do..

I have had this discussion with many people over the years.. To many, paparazzi are scum but the readers of trashy magazines have developed a market for trashy photographs..

No readers, no paparazzi..

[monk3y]

it's amazing how fast those flashes flash on celebrities faces... i was watching streets of hollywood last night and i cant help but ask..

is potn paparazzi free? or do we have members here who are/were/have been paparazzi?

[bacchanal]

it's amazing how fast those flashes flash on celebrities faces... i was watching streets of hollywood last night and i cant help but ask..

is potn paparazzi free? or do we have members here who are/were/have been paparazzi?

I'm wearing a t-shirt at this very moment that says Papa Paparazzi.

[doubleo6point9]

Here's an interesting link with some info about the work of the paparazzi. It's a mix of gear talk, business talk and all that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s7BLPsuufI&feature=channel

[monk3y]

I'm wearing a t-shirt at this very moment that says Papa Paparazzi.
:lol::lol::lol:

[ssim]

There is no doubt some paparazzi that don't know how to properly use their gear, you can find anything on the internet that will support whatever position you happen to be taking. Just as I am sure that there are many people that bill themselves as wedding photographers that don't know how to use their gear. How many posts have we seen on here with the theme of "help I'm shooting my first "whatever" tomorrow and I need help.

As in any industry there are going to be some sleazy ones but there is also some out there that are making 6 figures and are quite accomplished photographers. The nature of their work doesn't lend itself to getting nicely posed shots with time to set up lights. I think the more appropriate question is, given the shooting conditions that they faced are the results as good as they could be. For the more experienced ones I would hazard to say yes and this would speak to their expertise level.

I may not agree with what they do, just as much as I may not agree with someone who shoots porn but I will always give them credit for providing something that in the end the customer wants.

[crcal]

I'm wearing a t-shirt at this very moment that says Papa Paparazzi.

ok, lady gaga.

[hooookup]

PJs aren't going around paying people for info. Most of the time they are assigned to cover a story. However, there are feature photos, but PJs certainly aren't stalking people. It is very tough to become a full time PJ these days with many people holding an MFA or MA in PJ. Most paparazzi seem to just hold a camera and attitude.

First off, I hate paps more than anything. Having worked in Hollywood for the past 5 years as an entertainment photojournalist (big difference between us and paps) I have developed a serious dislike for most paps, not all are bad though. With that out of the way i'd like to address nphsbuckeye's post.

"PJs aren't going around paying people for info."
I beg to differ. Things may be different in your neck of the woods but out here in California all of the big papers and news gathering services pay for information. Whether it's breaking news or story opportunities there are companies who's mission statement is to bring stories to the attention of the media. For example, in Los Angeles/Orange County/San Diego there is City News Service. CNS is a news gathering company that feeds breaking news and story opportunities to the LA Times, LA Daily News, OC Weekly, Getty, Reuters, AP, etc... There's also another service in Los Angeles that feeds entertainment news to the entertainment outlets, wires, papers and paps. I'm purposely leaving their name out of this for business reasons. Not only do they service Los Angeles, they also service New York, Miami, Las Vegas and London.

At the end of the day working photojournalists might not be paying for information out of their own pockets but their higher ups probably are.

In an earlier post, someone posted a link to Damon Webster's youtube video of Henry Flores. In regards to Henry, he's one of the very few paps in Los Angeles that I respect. Not only is he an accomplished photographer, he's one of the more "ethical", and I use that term loosely here, paps in LA. Most of his work is pre arranged with the celeb and the celebs publicist, meaning the celeb is on the deal and gets a cut of picture sales, he also uses discretion and uses longer lenses to get the job done.

[channel_49]

If they stopped being a "street shooter" and did studio or something, they're still better than most of the photogs here who hate on them.

[400dabuser]

Meh, unless you ready to deal with a lot of misinformation, believe me, there are loads going around...then nothing is really needed to get into the paparazzi, except the fact you have to get clean sharp pictures, which I am sure you do, otherwise, all your photos will be rejected

[JWright]

This video makes me want to cry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyVBrhnckiU#t=36s the guy is holding 5k+ of equipment and has no idea what it is.

I love how they've crapped up the lens with the OD duct tape. He didn't even have the sense to use gaffer's tape. That military duct tape leaves horrible residue behind.

I once shot an aviation press conference that happened to have Harrison Ford at it. There were a number of what I would consider "paparazzi" at the event and several had their lenses all taped up like that. I asked one of them why and he said it was because he shot in some of the sleazy parts of town. as if the tape was going to make the lens any less conspicuous. Big lens, big camera=attraction to thief...

[sb1975]

I love how they've crapped up the lens with the OD duct tape. He didn't even have the sense to use gaffer's tape. That military duct tape leaves horrible residue behind.

I once shot an aviation press conference that happened to have Harrison Ford at it. There were a number of what I would consider "paparazzi" at the event and several had their lenses all taped up like that. I asked one of them why and he said it was because he shot in some of the sleazy parts of town. as if the tape was going to make the lens any less conspicuous. Big lens, big camera=attraction to thief...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Dbskr0xZA -- Great video for anyone looking to get some tips from a pap :( and it explains the reason for the tape

[Dmao]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Dbskr0xZA -- Great video for anyone looking to get some tips from a pap :( and it explains the reason for the tape

Wow...they have no clue what the hell they are doing or talking about. 'Use tape to lock it down on 18mm', blah blah blah saying random crap. I was bored and took a look at a few other videos from that channel...these guys are fitting into the negative stereotypes about paparazzi....wasted a few minutes of my time, lol

[Rainyday]

What I don't understand is how these paps can make a living at it. For every photo they sell, they wait for hours and hours and hours...And very few photos sell for any real money.

[hooookup]

I love how they've crapped up the lens with the OD duct tape. He didn't even have the sense to use gaffer's tape. That military duct tape leaves horrible residue behind.

It's camo gaffers tape made by identi-tape. Not just paps are using it. Working pj's use it to protect their gear which gets used and abused daily.

[hooookup]

What I don't understand is how these paps can make a living at it. For every photo they sell, they wait for hours and hours and hours...And very few photos sell for any real money.

They make way more money than those of us that are legit credentialed photojournalists.

[waterj2]

Just as a tiny nitpick, the word "paparazzi" is the plural. If you're only talking about one of them, he or she is a paparazzo.

[Sven-EOS]

Don't these guys need a model-release form when they sell a picture?

[deadpass]

Don't these guys need a model-release form when they sell a picture?

negative.

[Rainyday]

Just as a tiny nitpick, the word "paparazzi" is the plural. If you're only talking about one of them, he or she is a paparazzo.

That annoys me too. And I'm pretty sure a female is a paparazza. Must get the terminology of the species correct.:D

[Rainyday]

Don't these guys need a model-release form when they sell a picture?

No, because their subjects are in a public place, such as a beach, shopping center or park. And remember: many of these pix are the result of tip offs from the subjects agents.

Remember the photo of Monica Lewinsky that was shot through a window? She was drinking a martini at an expensive restaurant. I wonder if that was an invasion of privacy. But maybe you could argue it was of legitimate public interest. After all, she'd been involved with a major public figure.

[20droger]

I'm just patiently waiting for a news story about a paparazzo showing up at a hospital with his EOS 1D and 800mm lens shoved up his....

Talk about an impromptu colonoscopy!!

[Todd Lambert]

Would you be interested in a slightly used 800mm lens? There's some typical wear marks (brown crust should come off)around the edges, but LNIB condition. Had filter on it since day one, will include filter.

[neilwood32]

What I don't understand is how these paps can make a living at it. For every photo they sell, they wait for hours and hours and hours...And very few photos sell for any real money.

When you consider that photos can sell for £100 to £20,000 or more then it quickly becomes a worthwhile job for someone!

Don't these guys need a model-release form when they sell a picture?

Nope, most of their work is done in the street (public place with no expectation of privacy) and for editorial purposes.

[Jonathan Taylor]

I haven't gotten a chance to read through this whole thread, but I did briefly watch the vid that's been floating around. Yes, that guy doesn't really know what he's doing, but he's getting paid for it and that's all he cares about.

However, THIS gentleman seems to make an honest living using an actual talent and knowledge of journalism and incorporating it into his career as a pap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzAg50233fI

[JWright]

It's camo gaffers tape made by identi-tape. Not just paps are using it. Working pj's use it to protect their gear which gets used and abused daily.

I've got bits of gaffer's tape on my 70-200 and 100-400, but it's there to keep the AF and IS switches from being moved accidentally when I'm working. No way I'd cover my whole lens with something like that...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Dbskr0xZA -- Great video for anyone looking to get some tips from a pap :( and it explains the reason for the tape

To "lock down" the lens? ??? Give me a break...

Don't these guys need a model-release form when they sell a picture?

Nope... As long as they are selling the photos to the tabloids, it's considered editorial use. Now, if they were to take the same photo and sell it to an ad agency who used it to sell a product, then they'd need a release.

Remember the flap over the use of an image of President Obama that was used in a jacket advertisement? Legally, the White House could sue the clothing company, their ad agency and the photographer who took the picture because the President didn't sign a release.