Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,557   Posts: 1,545,209   Online: 935
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Sometimes I'm NOT so sure about where to draw the clear line:

    http://www.worldpressphoto.org/index...&bandwidth=low

    Is this acvicty (from the link to Wold Press Photo) mere photojournalism or a paparazzi-sh kind of a camera practice? Why we need competions like this one to tell compelling important stories? What's the real difference in each prize? And what does that mean to the photographers and the audience?

  2. #12
    juan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    St. Simons Island, Georgia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,641
    Images
    4
    I think some of it is fear of unfamiliar technology - I get comments when using my film cameras, but someone beside me with a cell phone camera draws no attention at all.
    juan

  3. #13
    David H. Bebbington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    East Kent, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,364
    Images
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by firecracker View Post
    Sometimes I'm NOT so sure about where to draw the clear line:
    For me, the line starts crystal clear - photojournalists cover events which are actually happening and which are of legitimate interest to the public at large. This may include A-list film stars at film premieres or other occasions where celebrities are clearly attending to work, i.e. attract publicity for a commercial or charitable exercise. Paps, on the other hand, photograph only celebrities, principally inhabiting a nether world in which the paps deliberately intrude into the private lives of the celebrities, routinely paying large bribes to servants, hotel staff, security personnel and (I am sure) police as well, and routinely being rude and physically obstructive to the celebrities in the hope of getting a "brawling" picture (for which the gutter press pays more than merely for a shot of a celebrity staggering out of a nightclub blind drunk at 3 am). Considering this situation, I would contend that, while not all photojournalists are paparazzi, all paparazzi are scum. The general public has no idea how the media work, for the public to think that all photojournalists are paparazzi is of course erroneous but at the same time not impossible to understand.

    Where the crystal clarity starts to disappear, as Suzanne has remarked, is that the "legitimate celebrity" type of story tends to be covered by bona fide photojournalists and paparazzi working side by side, and that the bona fide photojournalists know that the paparazzi are likely to be more aggressive in their approach and may well scoop them - in these days where there are few if any staff photographers on newspapers, getting a publishable shot is vital if starvation is to be avoided. This leads to bizarre situations - I believe Salgado financed much of his "Workers" project from the earnings from his pic of Ronald Reagon being shots by (David? Hinckley. I still feel, however, that the hallmarks of a pap picture are 1) no legitimate public interest and 2) provocative, possibly violent approach to subjects.

    Regards,

    David
    Last edited by jd callow; 06-21-2007 at 06:39 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: fixed the formatting

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    225
    the internet and cell phone cameras.... and scaremongering politicians...and rupert.

    wayne

  5. #15
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    I agree that the "paps" are among the worst but the entire media is the greater problem. Ironically, on CNN's website there is a story about how the neighbors of Paris Hilton "fear" her return after being released from jail next week. This is because of the media circus that will then result in front of their homes.

    Nice of CNN to be so concerned for the neighbors. But, how much you want to bet that CNN will be among the chief "clowns" appearing at that circus? :rolleyes:

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeyes View Post
    It seems to me that the general public have become suspicious about photographers and their activities. Why has this happened? Is it the fault of the media or ignorance about our hobby/profession?
    We live in an age where just about everyone is a "photographer". In Los Angeles, where stars are plentiful average folks whip out their cell phones and small d-cams as brazenly as any paparazzi would. True, cell phones and small d-cams don't have 1000 mm lenses attached but it's the same general mindset. People want to capture pictures of interesting people, places, and things to show to their friends or sell to interested parties. It's just human nature apparently. High profile people need to get over it and be glad that people are interested in them-
    today.

    In the meantime, we analog photographers can do our part for public relations by not leaving empty film boxes, canisters, Polaroid material, or any other unpleasant reminders of our visits.
    "A certain amount of contempt for the material employed to express an idea is indispensable to the purest realization of this idea." Man Ray

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    291
    Images
    10
    I agree that paps can be very intrusive,I saw a documentry on tv a while back where a photographer actually rolled onto his back on the pavement and stuck his lens right up a young ladies skirt for a gee string shot. Maybe it was done for the tv cameras or the guy had the models consent. All I can say is, if a bloke did that to my wife he would be spitting teeth. Pointing a camera up someones crotch in a public place should be a criminal offence.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by bogeyes View Post
    I agree that paps can be very intrusive,I saw a documentry on tv a while back where a photographer actually rolled onto his back on the pavement and stuck his lens right up a young ladies skirt for a gee string shot. Maybe it was done for the tv cameras or the guy had the models consent. All I can say is, if a bloke did that to my wife he would be spitting teeth. Pointing a camera up someones crotch in a public place should be a criminal offence.
    He'd still be able to spit?

    Cheers,

    R.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    The Cape
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,926
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    He'd still be able to spit?

    Cheers,

    R.
    No, he means the guy would be coughing up blood and teeth that were forced down his windpipe.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew B. View Post
    No, he means the guy would be coughing up blood and teeth that were forced down his windpipe.
    That's pretty much what I took it to mean. I repeat the question.

    Cheers,

    R.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin