Paparazzi - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

04/09/2006 11:26:49 PM · #1

Are there any paparazzi amounst us? If so, how much do they make from event/red carpet photos? I'm just curious. If I saw a celeb around here, I'd be so stunned that it would never occur to me to grab my camera.

deapee

Kodak V803

04/09/2006 11:29:17 PM · #2

I think the red carpet photos are pretty much a dime a dozen. I saw a special on tv once where they followed this group around...it's a really cut-throat job. I don't think it's all that uncommon to get upwards of $30,000 for a single shot of a hard-to-photograph star doing something normal...like walking their kid from the supermarket or whatever...

You definately need to have someone on the inside to be able to follow the stars around...and know where they're going to be and when...then you have to have patience to wait for them, sometimes all day...then while you're waiting, you have to hope that no other 'rivals' show up to shoot also.

MrHllywd07

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/09/2006 11:35:42 PM · #3

I wouldnt need the money that bad to stalk celebs and their kids, and exploit their kids. I wouldnt want someone doing that to me and my daughter.

Man_Called_Horse

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

04/09/2006 11:56:12 PM · #4

Yeah, deapee is right, red carpet shots are a dime a dozen, plus you have to be invited usually to those events, or have a publisher rep..

Paparazzi are always on the prowl when my show is on location. I am usually the one that confronts them, in a friendly way, just to see what their equipment is.

They do make good money, and usually from 'human interest', or 'candid' shots.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/10/2006 12:14:05 AM · #5

Funny isn't it, people who live on publicity not wanting it. I read in the latest Rangefinder mag a PJ that took up wedding photo when he found the last straw during the Monica thing where PJ's were been used to get sympathy by marching clients through the streets rather than going via carparks that would have avoided the PJ's.

I am not agreeing with what the sleezy Paparazzi do but it's hard for me to care much about the "stars" crying wolf thing in a LOT of cases. The same pretty people that go off the deep end suck up when their latest movie or whatever is happening or they feel like they have ben out of the news recently and want back in - sheeze give me a break. A few are consistent and I sympathise with them but not the vast bulk.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/10/2006 06:40:33 AM · #6

Originally posted by American_Horse:

So, what kind of equipment do they use?

Weren't we talking about pornography and whether or not we'd photograph it a couple of weeks ago. I only remember the word sleazy being used once in that thread. Are we saying we think that being a paparazzi are sleazier than being a porn photographer?

Some of the celebs are consistant in not liking to be photographed, but look at it this way.... if the paparazzi aren't interested in you, you have no career.

MrHllywd07

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/10/2006 06:56:35 AM · #7

Sleazy is a good word. If the celebs are at a red carpet event, nothing can be done, they are going to get their picture taken. But I think photogs need to show some class by not trying to exploit lives of celebs and their kids. By law, that is never going to happen.

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

04/10/2006 09:59:13 AM · #8

Haha, I'd definitely photograph 'porn', although I'd prefer to refer to it as erotica.
I had a meeting with one of the Getty photo editors a while back, he was only really interested in taking me on if I got more pap shots, I had a bit of a think about this as I really wanted to work for them at the time, then decided that I REALLY didn't want to go down that road. I'm now signed up to a different agency making not a lot of money, but at least I'm happy with what I'm taking photos of!

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/10/2006 11:15:24 AM · #9

Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:

I only remember the word sleazy being used once in that thread. Are we saying we think that being a paparazzi are sleazier than being a porn photographer?

Sorry - I was not clear after re-reading my post and the further posts. I have no issue with most of the Paparazzi because it's a job and IMO blaming them for the antics is looking in the wrong place - try a mirror because the general public want these photos in the rags they buy and on the TV and what not.

I think a small number are IMO sleezy in the way they stalk kids of stars e.t.c. However; I have no sympathy for the "star" that flips back and forth from wanting to be in every mag to wanting to be a hermit - what do they expect. I have more sympathy for those that are consistent (and I exclude those that trot the kids out for the latest movie e.t.c.) and, say, want their kids out of the publicity completely.

No not worse, not better, I have no issue with the vast majority of either really.

Message edited by author 2006-04-10 11:15:44.

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

04/10/2006 03:52:32 PM · #10

So, what kind of equipment do they use? Do they use the same Nikons and Canons that we do, or do they spring for digital Hassleblaads? Inquiring minds want to know! I want to know!

faidoi

Pentax K10D

04/10/2006 04:02:44 PM · #11

Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:

So, what kind of equipment do they use? Do they use the same Nikons and Canons that we do, or do they spring for digital Hassleblaads? Inquiring minds want to know! I want to know!

They use the same Nikons, Canons, but also use the fastest lens. Some primes for the really far shots. There was any article in PopPhoto magazine and I believe there was a reality show on the subject.