paparazzi = photographer

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

thx.

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.

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.

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.

ayoyoayoyo wrote in post #9344508
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..

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #9344829
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 amen

Todd Lambert wrote in post #9344829
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...

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

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.