Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
Thread started 25 Jan 2015 (Sunday) 18:43
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Paparazzi ride along?

 
elitejp
Goldmember
1,762 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 203
Joined Mar 2008
     
Feb 01, 2015 08:40 |  #31

wow! im surprised at all the negative comments. Just a few months ago there was a court verdict that allowed a guy to take upskirt shots because he could in the thread upskirt photos dont violate a woman's privacy and then another guy who was taking pics of little children in swimsuits with the intent of sexual use. I was shocked at the amount of support that these two people received by photogs on this forum. The main argument being that if your in a public place then you lose your privacy and photogs have the right to take pictures of you. But paparazzi are somehow different and shouldnt have the right?!
Dont worry im not making a plea for paparazzi rights, i just thought these responses were quite interesting to say the least.


6D; canon 85mm 1.8, Tamron 24-70mm VC, Canon 135L Canon 70-200L is ii

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mrfixitx
Senior Member
Avatar
607 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 265
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Omaha NE
     
Feb 01, 2015 08:54 as a reply to  @ elitejp's post |  #32

I think most people would agree in the case about a guy taking pictures of children in swimsuits was creepy and not something to socially acceptable similar to how a lot of posters feel about paparazzi.

The reason the court case got a lot of attention and positive coverage was because the law was overly broad. In theory if a photographer took a picture of someone they found attractive it would be a crime because it's intent may be to arouse or gratify sexual desire. The issue there is that the law is basically trying to regulate personal thoughts and freedom of expression. If another photographer took the same picture as an example of fashion trends or to show how someone was jaywalking or to show how busy the area was it would not be a crime. So it ends up being up to the police/victim/local DA etc... to judge what the photographer was thinking when they took the photo.

That is a great example of an overly broad law that was correctly struck down and rightly should be praised. It has nothing to do with anyone support the specific individual involved in the case so much as photographers in Texas don't have to worry about someone throwing them in jail for an innocent shot that some paranoid individual thinks was taken to be a perv.


Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships! - Ansel Adams (external link)
http://www.brandons-photography.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elitejp
Goldmember
1,762 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 203
Joined Mar 2008
     
Feb 01, 2015 09:06 |  #33

i understood the law but many people did argue that if your in public then you have the right to be photographed and it doesnt matter what was being photographed.

So unfortunately that includes predatory type photography whether that includes little kids, upskirt pictures or stars. I don't agree with any of it but some people certainly did.


6D; canon 85mm 1.8, Tamron 24-70mm VC, Canon 135L Canon 70-200L is ii

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PineBomb
I have many notable flaws
Avatar
2,470 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Likes: 1190
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Austin, Texas
     
Feb 01, 2015 09:15 |  #34

elitejp wrote in post #17409908 (external link)
wow! im surprised at all the negative comments. Just a few months ago there was a court verdict that allowed a guy to take upskirt shots because he could in the thread upskirt photos dont violate a woman's privacy and then another guy who was taking pics of little children in swimsuits with the intent of sexual use. I was shocked at the amount of support that these two people received by photogs on this forum. The main argument being that if your in a public place then you lose your privacy and photogs have the right to take pictures of you. But paparazzi are somehow different and shouldnt have the right?!
Dont worry im not making a plea for paparazzi rights, i just thought these responses were quite interesting to say the least.

This blurs the lines between prudence and 1st and 4th amendment rights. If it's out in public view, then the government should keep it's nose out of it, and I believe that is the crux of the support coming from the photography community.

I don't want to criticize anyone's hustle. If the OP can make a living doing this type of work, then fine. But, as shown by the comments herein, it's not very popular in these parts. My first comment in this thread may have been a little off-hand, but I was struck by the thought of an apprenticeship in this area. It really seems preposterous. I think someone previously mentioned something about approaching an established photographer in the area for advice, and that's probably the best course.

I understand that the OP is a little unhappy with the overall response here, but he did open with an unpopular topic and was quick with the coarse retorts when faced with adverse comments--a doomed combination.


-Matt
Website (external link) | flickr (external link) | instagram (external link) | street portrait project on instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dkizzle
Goldmember
1,184 posts
Likes: 35
Joined Mar 2012
     
Feb 01, 2015 09:26 |  #35

Vadim,

You seem to know the places celebrities can be spotted. Pick one of the obscure places where they would be less paps an begin your career as a stalker photographer. Since you have access to private area of the airport you can use that as your starting point of your career. Take some pics of celebrities getting on / off private jets and sell them to TMZ.

I have to disagree with you and agree with others about paps photography requiring no skills. There is no composition, no creativity, no technique. All you do is take lots of snapshots of celebrities walking for a few seconds.


I want to guest blog on your Landscape / Travel photography blog, PM for details

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
J ­ Michael
Senior Member
970 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 51
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Atlanta
     
Feb 01, 2015 10:48 |  #36

PineBomb wrote in post #17409949 (external link)
My first comment in this thread may have been a little off-hand, but I was struck by the thought of an apprenticeship in this area. It really seems preposterous.

Yes it seem counterintuitive but there might be someone who, in order to make sure he gets coverage, needs bodies at several locations. For instance Joe Famous will be leaving the hotel this AM, but which exit? Maybe he'll scoot out the back door to escape the adoring fans, and maybe not. That someone might be inclined to hire an assistant.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,903 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4015
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post edited over 4 years ago by Tom Reichner. (2 edits in all)
     
Feb 01, 2015 10:54 |  #37

I don't have any problem with paparazzi photography, and even have some level of respect for the persistence required, as well as the legwork that goes into knowing where to be in order to intercept the celebs. It seems like a very tough occupation to me.

.

But...... this sounds like a really weird way to go about contacting an agency:

vadim22 wrote in post #17402072 (external link)
There are people out there with small paparazzi agencies who are looking for more photographers. I was hoping to get in touch with one through this forum.

.

And this sounds like a normal, reasonable way to go about getting in contact with an agency:

vadim22 wrote in post #17402072 (external link)
My next step will be contacting some of those agencies directly.

.

.

vadim22 wrote in post #17402072 (external link)
Finding celebrities is not an issue. I live in the same neighborhood as they do, I eat at the same restaurants they eat, I shop at the same stores they shop... I have several close friends who own or work for limousine companies who drive "A" list celebrities almost on a daily bases. I have a private pilot's license and rent my plane where celebrities park their jets. By the way very few celebrities actually own planes. Most just charter or get flown around by movie studio's plane while working for that studio.

It certainly sounds like you are really in a great position to do paparazzi work. I think that very few people are in a position to be successful as a pap shooter, but you appear to be the exception.

vadim22 wrote in post #17402072 (external link)
Usually more than one person taking photos of celebrity at any one time. Whoever gets those photos sold first, makes most money

Right....so, if you were a paparazzi photographer, you have to beat out the competition in order to make your living. So why would anyone "in the know" offer helpful advice on a public forum? They'd be cutting their own throat to do so. It is in their best interest for there to be no more people entering their field. Why would they help a competitor who may take their sales away?

vadim22 wrote in post #17402072 (external link)
what I'm trying to learn is where you upload your photos once you got them? Do you edit them at all? Do you slap a watermark on them, or reduce size? Do you go through agent or do you deal directly with magazines? I need someone to help me put this whole thing together.

I understand that you need answers to all of these questions, but this forum is not a place where one could reasonably expect to find answers.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Road ­ Dog
Goldmember
1,294 posts
Gallery: 163 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1010
Joined Jul 2014
Location: St. Augustine, Florida
     
Feb 01, 2015 11:24 |  #38

vfotog wrote in post #17402126 (external link)
wow, you've got the rude part down already.

As do those who are so vocally opposed to someone wanting to be a paparazzi, and those who would call a wanna' be paparazzi a "jerk".

The hypocrisy is quite evident.

Personally, I have a problem with those who "chase down" celebrities. I think shooting through windows or using drones is reprehensible, not from a photography standpoint, but from a common decency standpoint.

But I also don't believe that those celebs who are out and about do so with the expectation of privacy. In fact, I would suggest that it's exactly the opposite. I went to high school with someone who was, at one time, very much in the public eye. She was on one of the most popular television shows at the time, and knew the risks of being "famous". She once told me that she didn't understand why some "stars" go out with no make up, or dressed like they were homeless, simply because they all know that there's likely to be someone standing somewhere on Wilshire Blvd. with a camera.

Frankly, a photo of some celebrity walking down Rodeo Dr. in Beverly Hills is A) hardly newsworthy and B) probably a technical disaster. Honestly, most of the celebrity photos I see in the tabloids (not that I read therm much) are just bad photographs. But the tabloids don't care about quality, they care about content.

But, if someone wants to explore earning money that way, more power to them. I don't agree with the idea of having to climb trees to get a picture of someone sitting poolside, but I also don't think that taking someone's photo as they walk down the street is some horrible assault, either.


Just shut up and smile...
My Current Line-Up

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Road ­ Dog
Goldmember
1,294 posts
Gallery: 163 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1010
Joined Jul 2014
Location: St. Augustine, Florida
     
Feb 01, 2015 11:28 |  #39

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17410068 (external link)
Right....so, if you were a paparazzi photographer, you have to beat out the competition in order to make your living.

I think that can be applied to just about everything...


Just shut up and smile...
My Current Line-Up

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dkizzle
Goldmember
1,184 posts
Likes: 35
Joined Mar 2012
     
Feb 01, 2015 12:29 |  #40

Road Dog wrote in post #17410115 (external link)
Frankly, a photo of some celebrity walking down Rodeo Dr. in Beverly Hills is A) hardly newsworthy and B) probably a technical disaster. Honestly, most of the celebrity photos I see in the tabloids (not that I read therm much) are just bad photographs. But the tabloids don't care about quality, they care about content.


They are not photographs, they are snapshots of celebs walking. Once in a blue someone might get Lilo or Paris Hilton drunk and not wearing any panties :)


I want to guest blog on your Landscape / Travel photography blog, PM for details

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DoughnutPhoto
Senior Member
513 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 21
Joined Aug 2014
Location: the Netherlands
     
Feb 02, 2015 04:52 as a reply to  @ elitejp's post |  #41

Well, surely they have the right to take pictures of who-ever they want to (or else they would've been jailed). The public opinion is however different. Should you exercise your right to take pictures of anyone, including celebs, upskirt pictures or pictures of anyone else's children? Sometimes it's just plain rude or defies common sense.

Just because you've got the right to take pictures, doesn't mean it won't be frowned upon. And I suppose we're all frowning upon paps here ;)


Canon 5d, 60d, 17-40mm L, 30mm Art, 50mm, 85mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,408 views & 16 likes for this thread
Paparazzi ride along?
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is svakomnet
1024 guests, 251 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.