It sounds like what is missing is a little cultural sensitivity. What is considered appropriate in some cultures, can be rude in others. IMO, a good travel photographer should be aware of these things, or find another line of work.
Originally Posted by firecracker
Originally Posted by copake_ham
The true whores are the people who create a demand for this type of story. Why should anyone care what Paris Hilton does?
I think everyone who is blaming the paparazzi for the publics' possibly well-founded mistrust of photographers is actually a symptom of the underlying issue.
By photographing someone, especially without their consent, you are "capturing" their image, and therefore possessing a piece of them. I know the question going through my mind would be, "Why do they want my image/What does this person want from me? (admittedly, I AM hot, so it is sort of understandable;-P )"
But in all seriousness, from that moment, they have lost control of a piece of themselves, and I think THAT is the fundamental basis of the mistrust of photographers. The stories of indigenous people fearing that the photographer has stolen their soul is not that far from the point here. That mistrust has just been amplified and transferred to all photographers by the ease of making/capturing pictures.
I was on a website yesterday of an artist who photographs people through car and bus windows as they are stuck in NYC traffic (I can not remember the site, but when I find it again I will post a link to it). But think if it were you being photographed while you were trapped in traffic in a car or bus, and try to convince yourself that it is not about power.
". . . photographing as a two-way act of respect. Respect for the medium and letting it do what it does best- describe. And respect for the subject in describing it as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both."-- Garry Winogrand
"Art is just a Series of Natural Gestures
."-- John Marin
My Platinum Printing Blog
Originally Posted by Richard Boutwell
I don't have to try very hard. Do you?
Originally Posted by HerrBremerhaven
With paranoia in general building up, you just might be a terrorist, pedophile or pervert. I'd never thought of the paparazzi as fuel for the fire though, interesting.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Which strikes me as odd. Surely the person skulking around with a small, discreet camera is more suspicious than the one carrying a damn great SLR kit!
Originally Posted by HerrBremerhaven
Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.
Yeah, Andy K, I don't understand that perception either. I try to be as conspicuous as possible when I am running solo out in public (usually either practice or portfolio images). It works different when it is an arranged shoot in public, with assistants, stylists, models, et al . . . perhaps because the entourage validates the anticipated usage. Maybe even stranger is that when working with a crew, you sometimes have trouble getting the general public out of the way, or out of the images.
A G Studio
Well, to some extent it is a "chicken v. egg" kind of thing. But about a year ago, Ted Turner 'fessed up that he felt the biggest mistake CNN had done was to start treating celeb PR as "news". It was a slippery slope that led to the "serious media" finding it easier and easier to justify "reporting" the garbage that used to be the province of the supermarket tabloids.
Originally Posted by patrickjames
The real "media adultery" occurred a few years ago when one of the networks revealed that it had paid for what was ostensibly a "newsworthy" interview. Never before (at least not admittedly) had a so-called "responsible" news outlet paid a person of interest for an interview.
And now, it's all just business as usual. The fact is that the NY Times reported on how NBC outbid ABC for an interview with Hilton in its business section. Paying for interviews is now such an accepted practice that the media will pay money to an ex-con (who is a kind of bizarre "role model" to many young people). Hilton will not only take the dough, but then use the media outlet to "rehabilitate" her "image" with her "public".
Meanwhile, there's a war in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. People continue to die in the Darfur genocide etc. But that kind of "news" even if it is "free" is just too depressing for the media to report.
Last edited by copake_ham; 06-23-2007 at 07:07 PM. Click to view previous post history.
People is the answer.
Cameras are owned by people and well, there's a whole lot of a$$holes out there who own cameras.