- Messages
- 8,759
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
and please use their services
TV Tonight BBC 3 22:30 - Paparazzi: Next Generation
- Thread starter fraggle101
- Start date
- Messages
- 36
- Name
- Chris Gill
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Refer to previous post from KayJay
Liverpool is a great place to live and like lots of major cities will have its problem areas, however if you want to "criticise" Liverpool just come and pay it a visit and see how Liverpool is in 2009.
Look at the recent thread on the TP visit to Liverpool in December 2008 and how they felt about the City, OMG I do get annoyed about people tagging Liverpool as Crime Central.
Rant over :bang:
PS: The program was quite entertaining although quite sad for both tog and celeb who both need each other
Chris Gill
A Proud Scouser
Refer to previous post from KayJay
Liverpool is a great place to live and like lots of major cities will have its problem areas, however if you want to "criticise" Liverpool just come and pay it a visit and see how Liverpool is in 2009.
Look at the recent thread on the TP visit to Liverpool in December 2008 and how they felt about the City, OMG I do get annoyed about people tagging Liverpool as Crime Central.
Rant over :bang:
PS: The program was quite entertaining although quite sad for both tog and celeb who both need each other
Chris Gill
A Proud Scouser
It was a joke. Jebus.
- Messages
- 2,498
- Name
- Nathan Hulse
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Morals can be a tricky thing here. How far do you go. This reminded me of a question raised on a training course. what are your views on this.
You are a psychotherapist, under the code of ethics, what a client tells you is between you and them. They tell you they want to kill themselves, how and when. What do you do?
So the morals of a pap seem less important compared to that real dilemma when someones life is at risk. If the therapist gets the client put under section, are they then scum, probably not. So perhaps everything needs to be looked at in it's own context, sometimes you don't always have all the information required to pass judgement on others. e.g. You see someone waving at you from the sea while you're sitting on the beach, are they waving at you, or in trouble.
Too many people are passing judgement without all the facts and knowledge that is required. I know people that get tips, from the celebs themselves. I've also seen a driver with a celeb in the car pulled up for reckless driving, he wasn't being followed at all. Just being jack the lad.
You are a psychotherapist, under the code of ethics, what a client tells you is between you and them. They tell you they want to kill themselves, how and when. What do you do?
So the morals of a pap seem less important compared to that real dilemma when someones life is at risk. If the therapist gets the client put under section, are they then scum, probably not. So perhaps everything needs to be looked at in it's own context, sometimes you don't always have all the information required to pass judgement on others. e.g. You see someone waving at you from the sea while you're sitting on the beach, are they waving at you, or in trouble.
Too many people are passing judgement without all the facts and knowledge that is required. I know people that get tips, from the celebs themselves. I've also seen a driver with a celeb in the car pulled up for reckless driving, he wasn't being followed at all. Just being jack the lad.
Yes and the ones I do don't have anything on celeb culture. I don't buy celeb mags or watch shows with celebs in or really listen to the radio or watch the news. I'll watch the local news and listen to the local arts shows but celeb culture is a joke and I won't take part.
There have been some big events round here in recent years. Samuel L Jackson spotted in places during the Open. Lots of big celebs during MTV Awards. Even minor openings of stores with big titted celebs famous only for having tits. I could go along and take photos to simply supply the demand. I don't. So fricking what if there's a demand. I can make the choice not to feed it and if every other pap did too then the system would collapse. They don't though because its money to be made by essentially stalking people.
They tell you at the start that if you're planning on hurting someone or yourself they have to intervene. Thats not a moral issue its a probably some legal thing that they have to follow.
- Messages
- 2,498
- Name
- Nathan Hulse
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think the person in this photo of yours is a celeb. Joss Stone if I'm not mistaken is also a celeb, and one that sells to papers and mags (you have pictures of her on your site). I've also seen some more celeb singers that you have taken pictures of. So I think you should re-think your comments pete.
Oh **** I'm so busted. Well I'm off to top myself.
- Messages
- 2,498
- Name
- Nathan Hulse
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You'd be struck off the register. Just look towards the back of psychologist magazine, you can see practitioners that have been struck off for doing such a thing. That is assuming they are registered with the professional body.
- Messages
- 2,498
- Name
- Nathan Hulse
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well, I'll let you off. There's a back handed compliment there pete, I remember your pictures from quite a while back.
Jimmy_Lemon
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 12,090
- Name
- Tom
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think the pretty big difference there is that those are (clearly) on a stage at an event Pete was covering (at a guess). They aren't 'papped' in public.
Its what they told me when I talked to them.
I remember them too. I remember them being at one of those there musical events with musicians and singers. I remember doing gig photography. I'm pretty damn sure its different to standing outside a hotel, chasing a car down the road and stalking people. Just a little. I think theres a reason why people call it paparazzi and why what I do is called gig photography. Its because they're not the same
I photographed people at a gig. I didn't sell them on. I photograph musicians because they put on a good show not because I know I'll make £250 from it. Honestly, you might as well dig through my archives and find the photos I've taken of Prince Charles and Princess Ann. Oh noes! Famous people! Run away, run away.
- Messages
- 2,498
- Name
- Nathan Hulse
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How did you get the in the gig and be allowed to shoot with a professional camera (Cos we all know about the security nobs that think they know best). Press Pass by any chance? If you had a press pass, the intention to sell on was clearly implied by getting or applying for the pass.
- Messages
- 1,757
- Name
- Alastair
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How about street photography? Taking photos of random unknowns. While you're not necessarily chasing them down the road, by sticking a camera in their face, you're invading their privacy all the same. It's perhaps not quite the same ball park as pap photography, it's still invasive. :shrug:
At the end of the day, these celebs are in the public eye, they expect their privacy to go out of the window. Everyone has a right to make their own moral judgements about the ethics of pap photography and the whole celebrity culture. Me? I couldn't care less because I don't read those kind of papers/magazine, don't watch TV and I'm not a celebrity so it makes no odds to me.
At the end of the day, these celebs are in the public eye, they expect their privacy to go out of the window. Everyone has a right to make their own moral judgements about the ethics of pap photography and the whole celebrity culture. Me? I couldn't care less because I don't read those kind of papers/magazine, don't watch TV and I'm not a celebrity so it makes no odds to me.
- Messages
- 1,757
- Name
- Alastair
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How is street photography invasive?
You're stuffing a camera in their face. That's invasive. Having seen plenty of street photos on the various threads on this forum, most of the looks on people in those photos tend to be of the "what the **** is this guy sticking a camera in my face for?" variety, from what I can see.
Obviously if you're on the other side of the street with a great big telephoto lens and the person isn't aware of you taking their photo then it's a little less so but all the same, the difference isn't THAT far removed from what paps are doing.
- Messages
- 36
- Name
- Chris Gill
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I know it was a joke but Liverpool gets it fair share of hub cap bashing etc.. consider me just policeing the situation
FYI: Manchester has more cars stolen every day than Liverpool... Police Statistic
Chris
Marc
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 34,320
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've never stuck a camera in anybody's face. The art of street photography is to get shots without the subject even knowing you're there. Sometimes you do get spotted but the camera is definitely not in their face.
- Messages
- 1,757
- Name
- Alastair
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The guy shooting Goldie Hawn in that program was using a telephoto lens, she wasn't aware her photo was being taken until later when he was parked outside her hotel.
Paris Hilton couldn't get enough of the cameras.
Russell Brand seemed pretty content having his photo taken and did a little speech.
Where's the problem?
- Messages
- 586
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think this has gone a little off topic...
Bloody hell cant we all just get along
Bloody hell cant we all just get along
Photo of a famous person doing frack all. Where's the photo?
- Messages
- 1,757
- Name
- Alastair
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's no less of a photo than a random unknown sat in a cafe having a cup of tea or walking across the road.
Unkown walking down the street with a bottle of water, bad shot. Famous person, bad shot but it sells. Celeb culture sucks.
- Messages
- 1,757
- Name
- Alastair
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't disagree at all. People love it though. Can't get my head round it.
- Messages
- 2,498
- Name
- Nathan Hulse
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Pete that would be correct for a NHS therapist as the patient would be there probably being seen by a team and maybe referred there by a GP.
However, I also stand corrected. As the previous version of the BPS (British Psychological Society) code of conduct, didn't include restrictions, it was amended by the BPS in March 2006 (I studied it in 2005) to reflect danger to themselves and others. The mental health act was also changed. So no more moral dilemma.
I understand that a practicing psychoanalyst would still be presented with this problem, as they act outside the NHS as are many private practicing therapists.
However, I also stand corrected. As the previous version of the BPS (British Psychological Society) code of conduct, didn't include restrictions, it was amended by the BPS in March 2006 (I studied it in 2005) to reflect danger to themselves and others. The mental health act was also changed. So no more moral dilemma.
I understand that a practicing psychoanalyst would still be presented with this problem, as they act outside the NHS as are many private practicing therapists.
To get slightly back on topic. There is, as I'm sure you're aware, a little difference between being a psychotherapist having a patient saying they're going to kill themselves and a gang chasing someone down the street at night with a flash going off blinding them at every step simply to make a quick buck. One is trying to help someone and the other is trying to profit from shockingly bad photography and stalking.
- Messages
- 6,918
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It is refreshing to see some paparazzi photographers coming on to tell the rest of us how they see their job.
Some may have taken offence at being called scum by myself (who cares what I think anyway?:shrug. I'm sorry if any of you have been offended by my comment, but that is my opinion by what I have seen in the past (yes in the media which can distort things, but not that much), not just this TV programme, which didn't do anything to change my mind. :shrug: It may have been a generalisation on my part, and I'm sure that as in any occupation, there are good and bad. Maybe I should have paparazzi can be scum, or are generally scum. :shrug: Maybe I shouldn't have said anything.
I find it odd that some people are trying to equate paparazzi photography with the average photographer (myself included) having taken a pic of a somebody famous at some point. I took pictures of some Liverpool players parading around the city with a trophy, and someone else has taken a picture of a celeb at a gig (doing their job btw). Is this the same as stalking Jude Law (as in the TV programme) when he is trying to play in the park with his child? Not in my eyes it is not. :nono:
But Jude Law is a celeb who uses the media to sell his films, so he should expect to get his picture taken whenever shouldn't he? Well not for me he shouldn't. Others may think differently, the paparazzi certainly do, as it is one of their justifications for what they do.
I agree that if somebody famous has gone to a well known restaurant or club, then they can expect to get their picture taken, but playing in the park with their children? Yes, it may be a public place, but they are not actually courting publicity, just having some private time in a park.
As for taking calculated risks while chasing 'celebs' in a car, I didn't know they were all such great drivers, with the ability to calculate risks while worrying about where the 'celeb' is going, whether their equipment will work and more importantly other cars and pedestrians on the road and pavement in their way.
Some drivers of 'celebs' may indeed drive recklessly with or without the consent of their employer, but that may because of an expectation or reality of being chased. If paparazzi didn't chase, then there wouldn't be a need for anyone to possibly drive in a dangerous manor, 'celebs' (drivers) or paparazzi.
Where some people are concerned, the risks they take are in proportion to how much they think they are going to earn.
For the most part, I'm finding this a very interesting thread.
Some may have taken offence at being called scum by myself (who cares what I think anyway?:shrug
. I'm sorry if any of you have been offended by my comment, but that is my opinion by what I have seen in the past (yes in the media which can distort things, but not that much), not just this TV programme, which didn't do anything to change my mind. :shrug: It may have been a generalisation on my part, and I'm sure that as in any occupation, there are good and bad. Maybe I should have paparazzi can be scum, or are generally scum. :shrug: Maybe I shouldn't have said anything. I find it odd that some people are trying to equate paparazzi photography with the average photographer (myself included) having taken a pic of a somebody famous at some point. I took pictures of some Liverpool players parading around the city with a trophy, and someone else has taken a picture of a celeb at a gig (doing their job btw). Is this the same as stalking Jude Law (as in the TV programme) when he is trying to play in the park with his child? Not in my eyes it is not. :nono:
But Jude Law is a celeb who uses the media to sell his films, so he should expect to get his picture taken whenever shouldn't he? Well not for me he shouldn't. Others may think differently, the paparazzi certainly do, as it is one of their justifications for what they do.
I agree that if somebody famous has gone to a well known restaurant or club, then they can expect to get their picture taken, but playing in the park with their children? Yes, it may be a public place, but they are not actually courting publicity, just having some private time in a park.
As for taking calculated risks while chasing 'celebs' in a car,
I didn't know they were all such great drivers, with the ability to calculate risks while worrying about where the 'celeb' is going, whether their equipment will work and more importantly other cars and pedestrians on the road and pavement in their way.Some drivers of 'celebs' may indeed drive recklessly with or without the consent of their employer, but that may because of an expectation or reality of being chased. If paparazzi didn't chase, then there wouldn't be a need for anyone to possibly drive in a dangerous manor, 'celebs' (drivers) or paparazzi.
Where some people are concerned, the risks they take are in proportion to how much they think they are going to earn.
For the most part, I'm finding this a very interesting thread.
- Messages
- 3,667
- Name
- Jo Fisher
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm finding this thread a very interesting read The programme was also interesting ...
Whilst I understand those against the whole celeb/pap situation, I also understand those for (the paps and the celebs themselves particularly).
Those who are against, are usually those who have no desire to buy magazines and newspapers to read up on who's doing what and where. That's fine, I wouldn't buy Train Spotters Weekly (if there is such a publication?) for the same reason. I can bet there are pictures in those kind of mags that would be morally questionable as well though. Perhaps a photographer put his life and those of the driver and passengers on the train, at risk for a unique shots that sells the magazine well.
Those who have no problem with the paps and celebs, are those that are interested in famous people, and like to know about them and their lives. The same way a trainspotter awaits the next issue of Train Spotters Weekly with baited breathe ... because it's their interest, even their passion.
What does it matter if someone chooses to have a challenging job such as being a pap? I can imagine it can be a thrilling job to have as opposed to perhaps a data entry clerk :shrug: I can also imagine the buzz they must get when they get a shot that could potentially be worth thousands! I can understand with that in mind, why some would make snap decisions to grab the money shot, if faced with a situation that could earn them thousands just by clicking a button. Perhaps the pap hasn't sold anything for weeks, even months. They are at risk of losing their home etc etc. I can see how tempting it could be, and I couldn't honestly say what I would do in that situation, because I have never been in that situation.
Different folks, different strokes and all that Also, unless you have at one time had a job that can be morally questionable, I don't think you can really understand the decisions of those who have. IMO of course.
To the paps that joined ...
welcome aboard. Please don't disappear into the night once this thread fades away. It's a great place to be. I'd also love to see some of your other work
The programme was also interesting ...Whilst I understand those against the whole celeb/pap situation, I also understand those for (the paps and the celebs themselves particularly).
Those who are against, are usually those who have no desire to buy magazines and newspapers to read up on who's doing what and where. That's fine, I wouldn't buy Train Spotters Weekly (if there is such a publication?
) for the same reason. I can bet there are pictures in those kind of mags that would be morally questionable as well though. Perhaps a photographer put his life and those of the driver and passengers on the train, at risk for a unique shots that sells the magazine well.Those who have no problem with the paps and celebs, are those that are interested in famous people, and like to know about them and their lives. The same way a trainspotter awaits the next issue of Train Spotters Weekly with baited breathe ... because it's their interest, even their passion.
What does it matter if someone chooses to have a challenging job such as being a pap? I can imagine it can be a thrilling job to have as opposed to perhaps a data entry clerk :shrug: I can also imagine the buzz they must get when they get a shot that could potentially be worth thousands! I can understand with that in mind, why some would make snap decisions to grab the money shot, if faced with a situation that could earn them thousands just by clicking a button. Perhaps the pap hasn't sold anything for weeks, even months. They are at risk of losing their home etc etc. I can see how tempting it could be, and I couldn't honestly say what I would do in that situation, because I have never been in that situation.
Different folks, different strokes and all that
Also, unless you have at one time had a job that can be morally questionable, I don't think you can really understand the decisions of those who have. IMO of course.To the paps that joined ...
welcome aboard. Please don't disappear into the night once this thread fades away. It's a great place to be. I'd also love to see some of your other work 
- Messages
- 451
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think paps and celebs deserve and need each other. They both want to populate the increasingly shallow society that many youngsters crave and if they can make money out of it, good luck to them.
Most of the so called celebs are so talentless that without the paps keeping them in the limelight they would rapidly fade away into obscurity.
Most of the so called celebs are so talentless that without the paps keeping them in the limelight they would rapidly fade away into obscurity.
People are that bored with their lives that seeing Kate Hudson walking around is interesting?
It matters to me because of what they do. If you remove the celeb status of a person is it acceptable for them to act the way they do? Of course not. Its called stalking. For some reason just because its a celeb its ok. Look at the way they hounded Amy Winehouse going to McDonalds. The way they race around town rather dangerously in their cars. I'm sure its a rush and a challenge but then so is robbing a bank
And there it is. We watch the show because we're all photographers and they're "photographers" but imagine if they posted their work here. "Terrible flash, bad poses, should increase the ISO to bring out the background a bit, angles off, but good use of upskirt." Its not really good photography. Its just exclusives of famous people milling around. The attraction is the money. Just not worth it imho. Everything they do is just for a bit of money. Bit rubbish really.
gazedd
Ding Dong
- Messages
- 2,068
- Name
- Gary Eddleston
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Dont you work for money also Pete?
If you could earn more money taking a few crappier pictures that dont require your time to process them, would you? of course you will, It doesn't matter that they are crap because your making cash.
If you wanted to keep your name attachted to "Good photography" then you would run a blog or website along side it also...
If you could earn more money taking a few crappier pictures that dont require your time to process them, would you? of course you will, It doesn't matter that they are crap because your making cash.
If you wanted to keep your name attachted to "Good photography" then you would run a blog or website along side it also...