why do papz diect their flash at their subject?

S

snipershooter

Messages
67
Name
wasim wazir
Edit My Images
Yes
I thought that external flashes were on good when bounced off a wall but i see professional photographers especially papz direct the flash at the subject? I dont know if they do this *** of the shadow?
 
Bouncing off the sky tends to weaken the flash too much ;)

Paps don't really worry too much about ultimate image quality, getting any photo of the celeb is normally the most important thing and direct flash has the most range.
 
Because paps know nothing about photography. Or anything else, really.
 
I quite like the hard flash look...it has a kind of artistic 'rabbit caught in the headlights' look.
 
Very few of them make any money at it. There isn't much money in trying to photograph D-list knickers (or D-list no-knickers) and I'm afraid you've completely lost me with "a dream a lot on here harbour" :thinking:

Edit to add: Sorry, got it now. Dyslexia means it can take quite a while for some sentences to make sense to me!
 
Last edited:
Any press photographer is pretty much a pap.

Even a burning building photograph in the newspaper is the same standard as what a pap shoots...it is all the same kind of work apart from the 'final' subjects may differ.

A glossy magazine post of 'Johnny Celeb' at his home are usually done by a commercial portrait photographer - are these togs still press?
 
tiler65 said:
Any press photographer is pretty much a pap.

Even a burning building photograph in the newspaper is the same standard as what a pap shoots...it is all the same kind of work apart from the 'final' subjects may differ.

A glossy magazine post of 'Johnny Celeb' at his home are usually done by a commercial portrait photographer - are these togs still press?
Click to expand...


You've clearly done a lot of press work, then.
 
If you think "Even a burning building photograph in the newspaper is the same standard as what a pap shoots" it's very easy to understand why you only did 'a bit'.
 
jon ryan said:
If you think "Even a burning building photograph in the newspaper is the same standard as what a pap shoots" it's very easy to understand why you only did 'a bit'.
Click to expand...

prove it is different then. And I will show examples of why it is the same.
 
Last edited:
tiler65 said:
prove it is different then. And I will show examples of why it is the same.
Click to expand...

The hypothesis is yours. It's up to you to defend it, so off you go...

Oh, and they have to be published examples of your own work, OK?

Edit: 'Work' not 'wok'. Published examples of your own wok wouldn't really fit in this argument...
 
Last edited:
Jon....take a look a a newspaper and look at the news story photographs shot for the news....all done exactly the same way a pap shoots...turn up...look for the shot and shoot to the best exposure in your allotted time, if you have time for a quick edit then fine - if not - it goes as is with meta data ...upload image to newsdesk.....picture editor uses or not. If not, they will look around for another agency shot that fits the bill.

Sports pages are full of papped style shots too...long lens...or if close by head on flash...it isn't rocket science.
 
tiler65 said:
Jon....take a look a a newspaper and look at the news story photographs shot for the news....all done exactly the same way a pap shoots...turn up...look for the shot and shoot to the best exposure in your allotted time, if you have time for a quick edit then fine - if not - it goes as is with meta data ...upload image to newsdesk.....picture editor uses or not. If not, they will look around for another agency shot that fits the bill.

Sports pages are full of papped style shots too...long lens...or if close by head on flash...it isn't rocket science.
Click to expand...

And the examples from your portfolio? :shrug:

Your argument - "turn up...look for the shot and shoot to the best exposure in your allotted time" can be applied to, picking an example purely at random, wedding photography. Do you think wedding photographers are paps?


Actually, that description covers approximately 100% of all photography.
 
jon ryan said:
And the examples from your portfolio? :shrug:

Your argument - "turn up...look for the shot and shoot to the best exposure in your allotted time" can be applied to, picking an example purely at random, wedding photography. Do you think wedding photographers are paps?
Click to expand...

To a certain degree yes especially the 'photojournalist' wedding photographer.

I am not the one who is saying that pap shooting is bad, you seem to think that they do not know anything about photography - which is clearly wrong.
 
What I said was:

jon ryan said:
Because paps know nothing about photography. Or anything else, really.
Click to expand...

Which was just a throwaway line, not meant to be interpreted literally. I went on to say:

jon ryan said:
Very few of them make any money at it. There isn't much money in trying to photograph D-list knickers (or D-list no-knickers)
Click to expand...

Which is indeed the case.
 
tiler65 said:
A quick example form the BPPA and this was shots used by them as a 'Project'

http://www.thebppa.com/projects/election2005/polling11.htm

70% of the shots are used with flash and many head on too so there is no 'proper' way to do it for news - is the only correct way if your shot gets published?
Click to expand...

That figure of 70% is from where? And is there a 'proper' way to do anything in any aspect of photography? Can you list those areas?

Now can we see the examples of burning buildings that support your contention that:
"Even a burning building photograph in the newspaper is the same standard as what a pap shoots"

I guess you don't actually have any shots you have personally taken to demonstrate that you have experience in the field you are denigrating, but am happy to be proved wrong.
 
jon ryan said:
That figure of 70% is from where? And is there a 'proper' way to do anything in any aspect of photography? Can you list those areas?

Now can we see the examples of burning buildings that support your contention that:
"Even a burning building photograph in the newspaper is the same standard as what a pap shoots"

I guess you don't actually have any shots you have personally taken to demonstrate that you have experience in the field you are denigrating, but am happy to be proved wrong.
Click to expand...

I asked the question about the 'proper' way...read my post.

Burning building press images....some even in 'The Guardian' ...oo err .... and many other newspapers/agencies

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=l...FoWV0AX10YHIDw&ved=0CEoQsAQ&biw=1600&bih=1075
 
Back to the OP briefly, I thought the reason papz use their flash in that way is because they're either outside and have nothing to bounce it off, and/or avalable light is good so they're using the flash as fill, or they're having to work too quickly to make adjustments to the flash head.
 
Last edited:
tiler65 said:
A quick example form the BPPA and this was shots used by them as a 'Project'

http://www.thebppa.com/projects/election2005/polling11.htm

70% of the shots are used with flash and many head on too so there is no 'proper' way to do it for news - is the only correct way if your shot gets published?
Click to expand...

Not 70% of the ones I looked at:shrug:
Seriously if someone can't see the quality difference between the photo's in:

Broadsheet newspapers
'Quality' tabloids
Red tops
Local papers
Trashy pap magazines

then I'd question their ability to ever know a decent picture:shake:
 
Phil V said:
Not 70% of the ones I looked at:shrug:
Seriously if someone can't see the quality difference between the photo's in:

Broadsheet newspapers
'Quality' tabloids
Red tops
Local papers
Trashy pap magazines

then I'd question their ability to ever know a decent picture:shake:
Click to expand...

I agree.... the quality of the "press" photos in the Guardian is superb... more documentary. Not all press photography is the same. Paps shooting celebs falling out of nightclubs are not photographers... they're snappers at best.
 
Phil V said:
That's awful but hardly typical of the set.
Click to expand...

But it backs up my point, there are plenty more like that in the project that anyone could have shot. If you can find a shot that a pap photographer could not take - I am all eyes!
 
Which compares nicely to this typical pap shot.

I can't believe you actually had to be shown that.
 
tiler65 said:
http://www.thebppa.com/projects/election2005/blair13.htm

I rest my case.
Click to expand...

jon ryan said:
Which newspaper published that shot?
Click to expand...

No reply? I mean, this shot has to have been published for editorial purposes, not just illustrative ones, to qualify as a press photo - you do understand that, don't you?

tiler65 said:
How do you know a pap cannot shoot in the style you have posted? ..what it proves is that a pap has different shooting conditions and not that they do not know anything about photography - throw away comment or not!
Click to expand...

How do you know one can? As before, you are arguing in exactly the way creationalists and people who believe we are ruled by lizards do. You put up an argument and then say ' nyah nyah, you can't prove me wrong!'. Well, as my wise old pet unicorn pointed out when we were flying to Jupiter to celebrate my 200th birthday yesterday, a negative cannot be proved.

The other problem is that you are in the position of a eunuch giving advice on sex. If you are incapable of doing it yourself, how is your opinion to be trusted?

You have cherry-picked a single shot from 133 ( one from 133!) to try and illustrate your hypothesis, but have failed to produce any shots of your own to show how easy you find it to take such shots.

Perhaps you think your work isn't as good as that of a pap?
 
tiler65 said:
How do you know a pap cannot shoot in the style you have posted? ..what it proves is that a pap has different shooting conditions and not that they do not know anything about photography - throw away comment or not!
Click to expand...
You do remember what you originally said (not the same at all) - here's a reminder...
tiler65 said:
Any press photographer is pretty much a pap.

Even a burning building photograph in the newspaper is the same standard as what a pap shoots...it is all the same kind of work apart from the 'final' subjects may differ.

A glossy magazine post of 'Johnny Celeb' at his home are usually done by a commercial portrait photographer - are these togs still press?
Click to expand...

You can try to explain now how 'the same standard' turns into how do we know they can't.

They're completely different standards - and the example you gave to prove your point - proves the opposite:thinking:. But you then try to explain we're misinterpreting your point:cuckoo:

The original point was that the standard of pap photography is generally very low. You tried to say all news photography is of the same low standard - it clearly isn't - you proved it in your example:thumbs:

No one is judging Paps and saying they couldn't possibly create great photo's if they had a different brief (none of us know enough of them to make that judgement). Just that Paparazzi photography by nature isn't great photography and doesn't need to be. We have all seen enough published Pap photography to know that for a fact - how could you possibly argue the opposite:cuckoo:.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top