The Nigella Lawson Picture!

Rolex

Rolex

Messages
366
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Not sure if this is the right place for this question BUT i will go ahead anyway,
i'm sure everyone is familiar with the press photo of Nigella Lawson (the one with her (ex) husbands hand on her throat, i'm just curious to know what sort of MONEY that photographer who snapped said photo would have been payed for such an image???
before anyone asks' .. no i dont follow stars around with my camera and nor do i intend to Lol

as i said just a curious question as to what the pap command for such high profile shots?
 
The people making the money from that shot will be the agency he shoots for, he'll have done OK, but the agency will be having a kerching time.
 
I won't go into details but a couple of years ago I took some images of a celebrity whilst on holiday. The hotel rep knew the local press who were interested, from there they were sold to a large picture agency, for all rights. I had enough to pay for the holiday and was very happy, arrived home and the images were in the national papers, then syndicated world wide and occasionally still turn up.
That agency made a lot of money I guess, but I was very happy, both with the cash and knowing my images were 'worthy'
 
Was this a holiday somewhere sandy and sunny, or Bognor Regis.... the costs can vary ;-)
 
Isn't there a thread about a certain football photograph in the Talk Sports section? - that might give an idea of how things can go when you're the one that gets the shot everyone wants.
 
I suspect you're referring to this thread :banana:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/paydirt.361645/

It depends on the distribution agreement that the photographer has with the agency. In the case of the Nigella pic I'd guess that the photographer is getting a cut for each image use, rather than having sold the rights for a one-off sum. If he did sell for a one-off I'd guess it would have been a v.large sum. For my John Terry pic I get paid per use.

I've had instances in the past where I have been offered a similar price per use deal for various pictures. South West News Services (SWNS) for example. For something like that Nigella shot there's no way I'd just sell for a single price were I lucky enough to take it.
 
Just out of interest in the very unlikely event I ever take a shot like that where you your first contact be?
 
Thanks its unlikely but you never know :)
 
LCPete said:
Just out of interest in the very unlikely event I ever take a shot like that where you your first contact be?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go straight to a newspaper. Instead I'd go to an agency that can get worldwide distribution for me. SWNS or if its a celeb then someone like Splash. I might be tempted to go to Getty for a good deal as they do have a massive distribution machine.
 
Tobers said:
I wouldn't go straight to a newspaper. Instead I'd go to an agency that can get worldwide for me. SWNS or if its a celeb then someone like Splash. I might be tempted to go to Getty for a good deal as they do have a massive distribution machine.
Click to expand...

Most big papers will have an worldwide distribution,and you can get a good deal thought them :)
 
Tobers said:
I wouldn't go straight to a newspaper. Instead I'd go to an agency that can get worldwide distribution for me. SWNS or if its a celeb then someone like Splash. I might be tempted to go to Getty for a good deal as they do have a massive distribution machine.
Click to expand...

Thanks will remember that
Its very unlikely but wondered what to do if I saw something while I was out and about:)
 
There's nothing to like about that image, in any way, let alone artistically ... as, well, there's no skill involved unless peeping tom counts as a skill?

I'd rather never be dissociated with such an image, than get a small payout for it.
 
Fortunately, not everyone who takes photographs wants to impose on the privacy of others uninvited, be they 'celebrity' or not, and then make money out of it. Shame on those who do.
 
RedRobin said:
Fortunately, not everyone who takes photographs wants to impose on the privacy of others uninvited, be they 'celebrity' or not, and then make money out of it. Shame on those who do.
Click to expand...

Yes and No,'celebrity' do court the press when it suit them.

Dance with the Devil,you don't always get to pick the tune.

:(
 
Last edited:
Who?
 
Rolex said:
Not sure if this is the right place for this question BUT i will go ahead anyway,
i'm sure everyone is familiar with the press photo of Nigella Lawson (the one with her (ex) husbands hand on her throat, i'm just curious to know what sort of MONEY that photographer who snapped said photo would have been payed for such an image???
before anyone asks' .. no i dont follow stars around with my camera and nor do i intend to Lol

as i said just a curious question as to what the pap command for such high profile shots?
Click to expand...
£16000 for the first shots that appeared in The People newspaper.
 
18k was mentioned for the first use of the photos by the Daily Mirror on TV last night. He was shooting from the car and took over 450 shots. That should keep him in Coffee's while awaiting another abusive husband to come along :)

Oops I'm wrong again. Just read the post above hahah
 
£16,000 was paid for the shot.
 
£16k, it's on a program on the BBC I watched.
 
PistolPeteUK said:
Was this a holiday somewhere sandy and sunny, or Bognor Regis.... the costs can vary ;-)
Click to expand...

You're right to ask. Although Bognor Regis is the sunniest place in the United Kingdom it is certainly not the most expensive holiday destination but is great value for money and is very close to some of the best shore, estuary and harbour bird habitats in the world.
 
the picture has told a story! ... ended her marriage' cost her (ex) husband a fortune sold many news papers
all because a "photographer" was in the right place at the right time (depending what side of the fence you are on)
 
Rolex said:
the picture has told a story! ... ended her marriage' cost her (ex) husband a fortune sold many news papers
all because a "photographer" was in the right place at the right time (depending what side of the fence you are on)
Click to expand...

Publishing this photograph may have acted as a catalyst but I doubt if it "ended her marriage", because it appears that there were already some serious issues in the relationship. The divorce settlement hasn't been made public - thankfully - and the couple had a pre-nuptial agreement, so the details are speculative.
 
The programme said that seeing a celebrity couple having dinner was not newsworthy, but it was the actions that Charles S used that led him (the pap) to believe he was onto something.
He knew a newspaper was 're branding' and this was a 'scoop' for them.... the new editor had to go and get permission to pay that sort of money.

The pap remained anonymous in the programme.
 
I just wonder about this Nigella stuff. With everything that's coming out about stories about their relationship being "placed" in the papers before the trial of the sisters, I can't help pondering whether the photographer just happened to be there, or was tipped off.
 
Tobers said:
I just wonder about this Nigella stuff. With everything that's coming out about stories about their relationship being "placed" in the papers before the trial of the sisters, I can't help pondering whether the photographer just happened to be there, or was tipped off.
Click to expand...

Yes sometimes they do work from tip off,other times its a matter of just staking places you know where they will be :)
 
RedRobin said:
Fortunately, not everyone who takes photographs wants to impose on the privacy of others uninvited, be they 'celebrity' or not, and then make money out of it. Shame on those who do.
Click to expand...


haha no sympathy here whatsoever for celebrities wanting privacy... plenty of jobs going on the bins or sweeping roads if they dont like the limelight :)
 
/
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
haha no sympathy here whatsoever for celebrities wanting privacy... plenty of jobs going on the bins or sweeping roads if they dont like the limelight :)
Click to expand...

....What on earth have bin jobs etc got to do with it?

If you knew anyone very famous and who is in the public eye, or had friends who were, you would understand that they are ordinary human beings like you and I and entitled to the same rights of privacy. Of course it comes with the territory but you would understand how unpleasant it can be to have unwanted attention from paparazzi 'photographers'.

However, I do understand that SOME so-called 'celebs' milk it consciously to their advantage.
 
Last edited:
RedRobin said:
....What on earth have bin jobs etc got to do with it?

If you knew anyone very famous and who is in the public eye, or had friends who were, you would understand that they are ordinary human beings like you and I and entitled to the same rights of privacy. Of course it comes with the territory but you would understand how unpleasant it can be to have unwanted attention from paparazzi 'photographers'.

However, I do understand that SOME so-called 'celebs' milk it consciously to their advantage.
Click to expand...

:jawdrop: o_O
 
RedRobin said:
....What on earth have bin jobs etc got to do with it?

If you knew anyone very famous and who is in the public eye, or had friends who were, you would understand that they are ordinary human beings like you and I and entitled to the same rights of privacy. Of course it comes with the territory but you would understand how unpleasant it can be to have unwanted attention from paparazzi 'photographers'.

However, I do understand that SOME so-called 'celebs' milk it consciously to their advantage.
Click to expand...


I know several, do you? If you did then you would know that in a large number of cases, the public persona can be diametrically opposed to the real life character.

However, that doesn't escape the fact that an (ex)senior politician's daughter, and paragon of domestic efficiency, was seen being beaten up in public by her incredibly (politically) influential husband who was subsequently arrested and cautioned for common assault as a direct result of a news photograph. Ignore the facts that have later emerged from R v Grillo & Grillo, that photograph was a pure news shot and well worthy of being taken.
 
There's a market for the images, celebrity mags, newspapers, constant 24 hours new channels, all pandering to your (in the widest term) requests.

A great photo can truly change the world. Photographs have the power to become icons, and to stay in people’s minds for their entire lifetime. Pictures are quickly understood, powerful, and can take us places that we’d otherwise never know existed. - Joel Sartore.
 
DemiLion said:
I know several, do you? If you did then you would know that in a large number of cases, the public persona can be diametrically opposed to the real life character.
Click to expand...

....Yes, I do. It's because I do (some friends and not people I have only met once or twice) which led me to post what I did - I can see and appreciate another point of view.

I also know, as I'm sure that you also do, that human beings are fairly complex and although, as you say, public and private persona can be very different and even appear to be opposite, it still doesn't justify the behaviour of SOME of the paparazzi - IN MY OPINION.

However, I concede your point about how the Saatchi grappling Nigella's throat photo has been important. You just need to realise that my response in Reply #36 was in direct response to Reply #34 - That's why I quoted it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top