Candid by Hard Rock Pool (NWS)

I've been watching this thread for a while and would like to throw in my $.02.

This kind of photography has never really been my cup of tea, but I know that many people love it. There are right and wrong ways to go about everything, and if you're respectful and open about it, more power to you. Nice candid shot of a fairly attractive girl.

I have to disagree with Calzinger on his respect for the paparazzi, however. Yes, they show an incredible amount of zeal in getting their shots, but the real moneymaking shots are those that show people at their most embarrasing moments, when they least want to be photographed. The more unflattering or lurid the picture might be, the higher price it commands. I don't buy the justification I've heard that when someone is a "celebrity" they forfeit their privacy. Paparazzi hound people in their daily lives, "sit outside a house all night" and use supertele lenses to get that "million dollar cover shot" of Jennifer Aniston or Jackie Kennedy sunbathing topless or walking their dogs looking like death warmed over. I don't see anything to admire in that. I don't think Princess Di did, either. How "ruthless" do you have to be to stand there and take pictures over a dying woman in a wrecked car? At what point do you cross over from "professional" to "piece of crap?"

Took the ol' "Why don't you take a picture, it lasts longer" a bit too literal, eh? My arm would be bruised and the camera snatched away if I were snapping bikini-clad chicks - especially with my wife's camera

Throw in the ocassional beer gut if it makes you feel better - problem solved!

I'd say that you'd have to be pretty damned ruthless to take a picture of a dying woman in a wrecked car. How many people can completely put their personal feelings and morals aside to make a living? At what point does taking pictures of a football player become personal?

Sure, the end result of the media may not be morally right, but where would some of the most popular magazines be without the paparazzi? And when was the intention of the media ever proper?

While I don't think it's right that they catch celebrities doing little stupid things while we all do it, the fact that they decide to make a living off of dismissing their morals and principles is beyond my understanding and I'm sure beyond most.

No respect for paparazzi here at all! I see the original shots as harmless but when people tell of respect for someone who carries a camera more as a device for intrusion into an area of ones life where they have no business being, that to me is not photography... It's not an art, it's not creative and if they were to all disappear off the face of the earth we would be no worse off and the only ones to miss them would be the money greedy people paying for the shots. Even the normal people that like to look at these shots would probably never miss them if they were to disappear.

Some of them would be out of business, and that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Paparazzi are simply supplying a product to meet a demand, and morality is not a part of their business model. The paparazzi really don't bother me as much as the pathetic individuals who buy the magazines. Why someone will spend their money just to see grainy, low-res, unflattering pictures of celebrities is something I just don't understand.

Which is easily how much of the country? Now are you going to tell me that most people in our country would be happier without such magazines?

The people who buy such rags as The National Enquirer and People are a relatively small percentage of the populace, but still a huge market. I have no doubt that the circulation of People beats National Geographic by a wide margin.

This is all just conjecture. Hey, it's a free country. I'm all for letting the idiots pi$$ away their cash however they want.

As am I. Now if only I had the cash to waste...

Yeah I don't respect paparazzi who invade privacy at all. I think it's wrong and dumb, and that people who spend money buying magazines filled with embarassing private-moment shots should spend it on getting me lenses.

I also I think it's very different from shooting candids of people publicly going about their business. Legally, and I would say ethically, your standards of privacy change when you leave your property and go... let's say, for a swim at the Hard Rock pool.

Only when Mr. MDJAK is around.
When you're around, there aren't any problems.

Yep...they would. They could buy an extra Snickers Bar and a bag of potato chips with that money!

Why, when you have my meager arsenal at your disposal?

mark

MDJAK wrote:
Why, when you have my meager arsenal at your disposal?

mark

which he still refuses to use..
Jeez, this guy has some real explaining to do.

First of all, congrats on your 900th post. 899 useless posts, but one ain't bad.

He did explain his not wanting to use one of the best zooms available today. He's got girlie wrists and can't hold it.

mark

i love getting candid, of say a girl, and a guy will do that stop motion but the girl will then turn and pose..lol