Reading mode: Light Dark

Need good Paparazzi lens

Go to last post
I never assumed paparazzi photography and fashion photography are the same. The reason I mentioned it was because I had the impression your disgust with paparazzi was based on moral, not legal issues.

But let's be honest for a second. Sure, celebs don't like paparazzi flashing at their windshields, but how many do you see complaining about getting obscene amounts of money for commercials, TV appearances, etc. All that is generated by public interest, which is sustained also (or mostly) by tabloids. It may suck for them, but it comes with the territory.

And one last thing. My wife is pretty interested in this celebrity phenomenon (investigates it in her past time :p) and she noticed that just before a big movie launch (or similar) the celebrity is involved in some kind of paparazzi happening. Her conclusion (based on the fact that the event is not embarrassing, but "intriguing") is that everything is arranged.

About fashion photographers, yes what they do is legal, but is it really your opinion that what they are involved in doesn't have a hurtful effect on society?

Best regards,
Alex
therickman said:
candleJack said:
You make a good point and I have to agree with all but the last part.
I am however curious if you feel the same why about fashion (and
similar) photographers.
Click to expand...
Fashion photographers get paid to shoot models who knowingly and
contractually allow their images to be taken for the purposes of self
promotion, selling a product, magazine, service or film. Most
paparazzi get paid to spy, stalk, and harass celebrities in order to
capture an embarrassing or otherwise akward situation to splatter on
tabloid covers for the lifeless leeches in our society to gossip
about. If not for the cameras in their hands, these people would be
arrested for harassment, and probably should be. After all, they
killed Princess Diana, and cause many young actresses to crash their
cars to escape the flashing lights outside their windshields.

I'm waiting for the day when one celeb will grow the balls to start
stalking and harassing some paparazzo, pointing the camera back in
their face and peeking over their fence while they're sunbathing.
After all, just because they're movie actors doesn't mean their right
to privacy is any less than say a CEO, garbage man or car salesman.
therickman said:
I assume you know what I mean, but if you don't I'd like to quote a
bud light "real men of genius" commercial: "thanks to you (centerfold
retoucher, if I remember correctly) we can enjoy beauty just the way
we like it: completely fake!"
Click to expand...
This is all within the boundaries of the contract between the
photographer and the client. If the client wants 'airbrushing' or
other photoshopping to add a sense of fantasy or perfection to the
image, that's fine. But to do it without their approval or
encouragement is altering reality. Remember when Katie Couric's waist
was altered in her promos and she threw a fit? Or when Newsweek fixed
that septuplets mother's teeth? Photojournalists should never, never
alter an image other than a simple crop, curves or levels. Fashion
photography, on the other hand, is entirely different.
therickman said:
Best regards,
Alex

PS: the 28-300L sounds like it was build exactly for the purpose of
adapting to any situation quickly.
therickman said:
Joekarter said:
Would the 100-400 IS be a good lens. I bought a 40D from someone
that was doing Paparazzi work and they were using the 70-200 IS 2.8.
They want $1400 used for the lens but I fighured that I would check
out the 100-400 IS since it is about the same price new and give more
range. Which one would be prefered for that type of work?
Click to expand...
No offense, but that line of work is vulturous and contributes to the
worst of our culture. People who get off seeing unflattering images
of celebrities in tabloids, reading gossip that in no way affects or
improves their lives, and look forward to the fall from grace of
successful people are themselves leeches, absent of compassion,
respect for privacy, and personal ambition. And as a paparazzo, you
will become part of this cancer that is destroying civility.

Have fun stalking people more successful than you'll ever be. I
changed my mind: yes, take offense.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Insert obligatory quote here...
Click to expand...
--
I like them fast & silent, fast & shallow...
.......................................................USM Primes

 
candleJack said:
About fashion photographers, yes what they do is legal, but is it
really your opinion that what they are involved in doesn't have a
hurtful effect on society?

Best regards,
Alex
Click to expand...
Fashion photographers, magazines, and models don't hurt society. It's society's unwillingness to evaluate itself that is destructive. Americans lie to themselves, making the outside world seem unfair and corrupt, when in fact the world is what it is, and these people themselves are responsible for what they're reeling against.

Not everybody can be pretty. Not everybody can be a winner. Nor should they. It's people who say to their children that looks don't matter that are hurting society more than Cosmo. Because looks do matter! Science has shown beauty equals career success. Therefore, if the parents of a fat teenage girl truly cared, they'd tell their girl to exercise and lose weight, because not only is it better for her health, but her eventual income. Or when parents give trophies to their fourth- and fifth-place finishing kids so they feel like winners. Life is about winners and losers. Winners succeed. Losers don't. And obscuring this fact from children is disingenious at best, and malicious at worst. It brings down the quality of everything when poor performance is put on the same level as exceptional performance. That's much more destructive to society than an airbrushed face on the cover of a fashion magazine.

(To prove my point about how good looks = $$. I'm a wedding photographer. When I got into the business a couple years ago, my rates were low since I was just starting out. Because I was 'cheap,' my clients tended to be from poor or lower middle-class neighborhoods. And for the most part, my clients were average to, well, very unattractive. They were overweight, and many had bad skin and poor teeth. When my rates grew with experience, the attractiveness of my clients also improved. That's a fact.)

Back to the models. Let's be honest, the majority of these models have beautiful faces and perfect teeth regardless of any photoshopping. They are beautiful and require very little in the way of photo manipulation to make them "perfect." So what!? That's their talent - their good looks. Just like a professional musician's talent is expertise with their instrument. But, when they record an album, the producer splices clips, loops certain licks, and they do endless takes to get the perfect guitar solo, drum fill or vocal track. Rarely is a song recorded 'live' all the way through without fixing mistakes or adding multiple instrument tracks in production. That is no different than cloning out a pimple or adding shadow to cleavage to have the perception of perfect skin and bigger boobs.

--
Insert obligatory quote here...
 
"After all, they killed Princess Diana, and cause many young actresses to crash their cars to escape the flashing lights outside their windshields."

Stupid comment, obviously there were other contributing factors, but until they can prove that the paparazzi pushed her car into a tunnel wall, she died from impact due to a speeding driver who was intoxicated and lost control. This line of work has slimeballs, and respectable photographers, just like any other kind of work. Sure they can get aggressive, but so can the public who demand these images and more. It's like blaming the hooker and not the john.

The 100-400 is a great lens, you will have twice the focal length of the 70-200, but you also will be reducing your ability to shoot in lower light. From what I can tell though from paparazzi shots, if you can get close, use a flash, if not, you can't have l;arge enough lens.
 
I'd go 70-200 F2.8 IS (it's next on my lens).

you can always zoom in with the legs, but how else can you freeze action without that extra stop of light.........

not all paps are bad, granted that most are over zealous but it's the people who buy the result (i.e. tabloids) that are to blame: no demand, who's gonna want to supply.

The media is reflection of society, which is a very sad state of affairs.

--
WEBSITE:
http://www.sunnykalsi.com
BLOG:
http://sunnykalsiphotography.wordpress.com/
 
candleJack said:
I never assumed paparazzi photography and fashion photography are the
same. The reason I mentioned it was because I had the impression your
disgust with paparazzi was based on moral, not legal issues.
Click to expand...
i don't see the connection

how is swaming around someone's car and sometimes trying to make them mess-up while driving and catching people at the worst angles and trying to make them look freaks so people can so oh gee i look better than that star it's just movie magic and so on the same as doing fashion? what is immoral about fashion photography?
candleJack said:
But let's be honest for a second. Sure, celebs don't like paparazzi
flashing at their windshields, but how many do you see complaining
about getting obscene amounts of money for commercials, TV
appearances, etc. All that is generated by public interest, which is
sustained also (or mostly) by tabloids. It may suck for them, but it
comes with the territory.
Click to expand...
does it?
execs make many more times the obscene money and they don't get it.
some doctors, lawyers, finance people are way up there too.
mega-lottery winners too

and it is easy to say oh you have money just deal with it, but as everyone knows money does not have any affect as to how you feel, not saying it is bad or they don't get lots of perks, but just look at how many end up popping pills and you see it is not a fix for anything. people are people.
candleJack said:
And one last thing. My wife is pretty interested in this celebrity
phenomenon (investigates it in her past time :p) and she noticed that
just before a big movie launch (or similar) the celebrity is involved
in some kind of paparazzi happening. Her conclusion (based on the
fact that the event is not embarrassing, but "intriguing") is that
everything is arranged.
Click to expand...
or maybe because that is when the paps know the will get the most money from some incident?
 
Sunny Kalsi said:
I'd go 70-200 F2.8 IS (it's next on my lens).

you can always zoom in with the legs, but how else can you freeze
action without that extra stop of light.........

not all paps are bad, granted that most are over zealous but it's the
people who buy the result (i.e. tabloids) that are to blame: no
demand, who's gonna want to supply.
Click to expand...
there was always demand but not always the degree of swarming and harassing as it seems more recently, is it really good to have like 6 cars circling around you while you are trying to drive?? and is that photo really needed even for a tabloid?
 
everyone think what they want to think, to me I think everyone have a good point, some celeb like being taking picture some doesn't and some like or doesn't like depend on the situation. One situation, I think is unethical is when some one using a superzoom and taking picture of them in their house through the window. I am sure no one expect seeing their picture in the magazine without their permission when they are inside their house.
 
Only wide angles should be allowed so that the celebs have an opportunity to strike back when paparazzified :-)
Joekarter said:
Would the 100-400 IS be a good lens. I bought a 40D from someone
that was doing Paparazzi work and they were using the 70-200 IS 2.8.
They want $1400 used for the lens but I fighured that I would check
out the 100-400 IS since it is about the same price new and give more
range. Which one would be prefered for that type of work?

Mike G.
Click to expand...
 
Which lens? That depends on how close you can get to your intended subject.

If you can't get close because you have to shoot from public property, longer is better. In this picture I think that these two were using 400 f/2.8's.

 
A good Paparazzi lens????
--

I'm a novice amateur but I can pick out a half decent photo pretty easily... And I must say, all the anti-pap rhetoric aside, most of the photos I see in the checkout lane could've been taken by a 6 year old with a disposable... why spend a bunch of money on good lenses??? It seems that the shots that sell the most (get the most covers) are the ones that make the celebs look bulbous, pale, grey, skinny, double-chinned... and it looks like a good half of the pictures were taken a few seconds before a sneeze.

It doesn't take a good lens to make someone look bad, it takes a poor photographer.

I have nothing inherently against the paparazzi... they just take the shots that sell. It's the editors/producers in the media that push these wretched "i just ate a hot pepper" look photos on us...

One of my biggest peeves is the use of an ultrawide lens taken at eye level... of course Kate Moss in her red carpet dress is gonna look ridiculous!!! Because the photographer made her look like a bobble head!!!

Final thought: the Paparazzi community (picture takers, editors, producers, AND customers) should really take a look at the "weekly street photography" thread in this forum... SO THAT THEY CAN GET A CLUE OF HOW IT SHOuLD BE DONE!!!!!
 
therickman said:
Fashion photographers, magazines, and models don't hurt society. It's
society's unwillingness to evaluate itself that is destructive.

Not everybody can be pretty. Not everybody can be a winner. Nor
should they. It's people who say to their children that looks don't
matter that are hurting society more than Cosmo. Because looks do
matter! Science has shown beauty equals career success. Therefore, if
the parents of a fat teenage girl truly cared, they'd tell their girl
to exercise and lose weight, because not only is it better for her
health, but her eventual income. Or when parents give trophies to
their fourth- and fifth-place finishing kids so they feel like
winners. Life is about winners and losers. Winners succeed. Losers
don't. And obscuring this fact from children is disingenious at best,
and malicious at worst. It brings down the quality of everything when
poor performance is put on the same level as exceptional performance.
That's much more destructive to society than an airbrushed face on
the cover of a fashion magazine.
Click to expand...
To someone who believes life is about winners and losers (where the winners are those who come in first in competitions, while the losers finish last) you make a very good point. I however am not one of those people. I believe life is about love, however corny that may sound. I believe being unattractive to most peers and not having a cent in the bank do not make one a loser. It's hard to express this and not sound condescending and I really hope I'm not saying this because I'm a self-righteous piece of cr@p, but it seems very sad to me that someone would view life the way you described.
therickman said:
(To prove my point about how good looks = $$. I'm a wedding
photographer. When I got into the business a couple years ago, my
rates were low since I was just starting out. Because I was 'cheap,'
my clients tended to be from poor or lower middle-class
neighborhoods. And for the most part, my clients were average to,
well, very unattractive. They were overweight, and many had bad skin
and poor teeth. When my rates grew with experience, the
attractiveness of my clients also improved. That's a fact.)
Click to expand...
I notice that too. But we should not confuse what it is with what it should be.
therickman said:
Back to the models. Let's be honest, the majority of these models
have beautiful faces and perfect teeth regardless of any
photoshopping. They are beautiful and require very little in the way
of photo manipulation to make them "perfect." So what!? That's their
talent - their good looks.
Click to expand...
I don't want to get into whether or not they are beautiful (it's subjective anyway) but I am honest when I say that I've seen enough before and after shots to know the differences introduced by photo retouching are substantial.
therickman said:
Just like a professional musician's talent
is expertise with their instrument. But, when they record an album,
the producer splices clips, loops certain licks, and they do endless
takes to get the perfect guitar solo, drum fill or vocal track.
Rarely is a song recorded 'live' all the way through without fixing
mistakes or adding multiple instrument tracks in production. That is
no different than cloning out a pimple or adding shadow to cleavage
to have the perception of perfect skin and bigger boobs.
Click to expand...
Interesting comparison. The problem I see is that music is an artificial product from the start. The guitar is not natural, it is engineered. Just like everything that follows after the recording. When an album is created a team is assembled that works to bring you the best possible sound. That includes the original artist, guest musicians, producer, mixer (you sound like you probably know this better so I won't continue).. They are all credited for the sound. The artist gets extra credit for writing the music. I don't have a problem with this. It's all out in the open. But when a picture is used to sell face cream for example I don't see them crediting the guy that plastified the model. They just show you what they think is a perfect face and insinuate that it's natural (meaning found in nature). That is a lie, one that is difficult to evaluate, one that encourages people to feel ugly. Everybody is responsible for their own reality and one cannot pin the feeling of inadequacy on the people generating these images. I am just arguing that their contribution the the well being of society is a negative one. In this sense I see them in the same team with the paparazzi.

Best regards,
Alex
--
I like them fast & silent, fast & shallow...
.......................................................USM Primes

 
bronxbombers said:
candleJack said:
I never assumed paparazzi photography and fashion photography are the
same. The reason I mentioned it was because I had the impression your
disgust with paparazzi was based on moral, not legal issues.
Click to expand...
i don't see the connection

how is swaming around someone's car and sometimes trying to make them
mess-up while driving and catching people at the worst angles and
trying to make them look freaks so people can so oh gee i look better
than that star it's just movie magic and so on the same as doing
fashion? what is immoral about fashion photography?
Click to expand...
I tried to explain the connection in the last part of this message. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=31299463
bronxbombers said:
bronxbombers said:
But let's be honest for a second. Sure, celebs don't like paparazzi
flashing at their windshields, but how many do you see complaining
about getting obscene amounts of money for commercials, TV
appearances, etc. All that is generated by public interest, which is
sustained also (or mostly) by tabloids. It may suck for them, but it
comes with the territory.
Click to expand...
does it?
execs make many more times the obscene money and they don't get it.
some doctors, lawyers, finance people are way up there too.
mega-lottery winners too

and it is easy to say oh you have money just deal with it, but as
everyone knows money does not have any affect as to how you feel, not
saying it is bad or they don't get lots of perks, but just look at
how many end up popping pills and you see it is not a fix for
anything. people are people.
Click to expand...
If you read again you will notice that I didn't say that rich people have to tolerate this abuse. I said that people who are rich (at least in part) because they are famous have to accept that this abuse is how their fame is built.

I have a feeling some of the celebs are not smart/educated/aware enough to realize that this lifestyle is not beneficial for personal growth and get manipulated and cashed upon by their agents or managers. I think those are the ones we stop envying and start felling sorry for.
bronxbombers said:
bronxbombers said:
And one last thing. My wife is pretty interested in this celebrity
phenomenon (investigates it in her past time :p) and she noticed that
just before a big movie launch (or similar) the celebrity is involved
in some kind of paparazzi happening. Her conclusion (based on the
fact that the event is not embarrassing, but "intriguing") is that
everything is arranged.
Click to expand...
or maybe because that is when the paps know the will get the most
money from some incident?
Click to expand...
It's possible.

Best regards,
Alex
--
I like them fast & silent, fast & shallow...
.......................................................USM Primes

 
yes

stalking people and totally sell their private life/weaknesses to the public is SHAMEFUL
i dont understand how people can really do that stuff...
i would feel so useless to do something like that...sad
hopefully some of them get you
 
COMPLETELY AGREE therickman
therickman said:
candleJack said:
You make a good point and I have to agree with all but the last part.
I am however curious if you feel the same why about fashion (and
similar) photographers.
Click to expand...
Fashion photographers get paid to shoot models who knowingly and
contractually allow their images to be taken for the purposes of self
promotion, selling a product, magazine, service or film. Most
paparazzi get paid to spy, stalk, and harass celebrities in order to
capture an embarrassing or otherwise akward situation to splatter on
tabloid covers for the lifeless leeches in our society to gossip
about. If not for the cameras in their hands, these people would be
arrested for harassment, and probably should be. After all, they
killed Princess Diana, and cause many young actresses to crash their
cars to escape the flashing lights outside their windshields.

I'm waiting for the day when one celeb will grow the balls to start
stalking and harassing some paparazzo, pointing the camera back in
their face and peeking over their fence while they're sunbathing.
After all, just because they're movie actors doesn't mean their right
to privacy is any less than say a CEO, garbage man or car salesman.
therickman said:
I assume you know what I mean, but if you don't I'd like to quote a
bud light "real men of genius" commercial: "thanks to you (centerfold
retoucher, if I remember correctly) we can enjoy beauty just the way
we like it: completely fake!"
Click to expand...
This is all within the boundaries of the contract between the
photographer and the client. If the client wants 'airbrushing' or
other photoshopping to add a sense of fantasy or perfection to the
image, that's fine. But to do it without their approval or
encouragement is altering reality. Remember when Katie Couric's waist
was altered in her promos and she threw a fit? Or when Newsweek fixed
that septuplets mother's teeth? Photojournalists should never, never
alter an image other than a simple crop, curves or levels. Fashion
photography, on the other hand, is entirely different.
therickman said:
Best regards,
Alex

PS: the 28-300L sounds like it was build exactly for the purpose of
adapting to any situation quickly.
therickman said:
Joekarter said:
Would the 100-400 IS be a good lens. I bought a 40D from someone
that was doing Paparazzi work and they were using the 70-200 IS 2.8.
They want $1400 used for the lens but I fighured that I would check
out the 100-400 IS since it is about the same price new and give more
range. Which one would be prefered for that type of work?
Click to expand...
No offense, but that line of work is vulturous and contributes to the
worst of our culture. People who get off seeing unflattering images
of celebrities in tabloids, reading gossip that in no way affects or
improves their lives, and look forward to the fall from grace of
successful people are themselves leeches, absent of compassion,
respect for privacy, and personal ambition. And as a paparazzo, you
will become part of this cancer that is destroying civility.

Have fun stalking people more successful than you'll ever be. I
changed my mind: yes, take offense.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Insert obligatory quote here...
Click to expand...
 
you guys are pretty far out about music
unless for music you just mean pop stuff, (but at least you should specify it)
which i agree about the process

check out some live recording of brad mehldau, chris potter, joshua redman, glenn gould, yo yo ma, wiener philarmoniker and thousands of other amazing musicians
no slice or bullcr@p there
just amazing musical talent and instrument virtuoso
please stick with photography, i am sure you know better about it than music
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Z 70-200 and 1.4 TC
Replies
14
Views
2K
Mike Arledge
M
A
So how big would a 200-500 f4 be, in theory?
Replies
2
Views
15
Andy01
Andy01
T
EF 70-300L on an R10 or other R Camera
Replies
17
Views
880
TryAgain
T
W
Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S II - form factors considerations
Replies
7
Views
11K
Rodenmg
Rodenmg
T
Too much overlap
Replies
8
Views
819
Dave
Dave

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top