[NYpHoToGraphEr]

I just started a fan page on facebook (link below). But I just wanted to get everyone's opinions here on whether they think the Paparazzi's are Photographer and/or Photojournalists. I just want to know what people's feelings are towards them.
Paparazzi's are not photographers!!!

Here is some anti-paparazzi material:
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjpmNNNSGlk[/YT]
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhQ2zk-HYWo[/YT]
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF-m_6xzzjk[/YT]
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAKX6fOEYCc[/YT]

[MRRiley]

They are photographers, in that they use cameras to do their job. Thats simple. Whether they are "photojournalists" is another question.

I don't mind the ones who simply mob celebrities when they are out in public. Frankly the celebrities, for the most part, sought their fame and would likely complain even more loudly if the Paps stopped taking their photos.

As for the ones who stalk their celebrity prey to the point of ultra long lenses and ghillie suits so they can sneak onto private property to shoot compromising photos should be fair game for bear traps...

Mike

[Wheatfield]

Of course they are photographers and photojournalists.
A lawyer who is a professional ambulance chaser is still a lawyer, the trained baboon who is GWB is still called "President".
If you want to carry the line of thinking to an extreme, then most professional photographers aren't photographers.

[lithos]

I'd imagine a paparazzi's bank would probably say "Yes. And a f*cking good one, too."

Depending on the shot and who/what's in it (how much of Britney's undercarriage is visible?) we're talking amounts of $20,000US and up. Easy.

And have you flicked through a tabloid rag? The shots are something that'd make every measurebater on dpreview blow his brains out. Noise? Who cares? Either leave it in, or run it through Noise Ninja until it looks like it's been rendered in pastel (note: you may lose money on it if they want a story about how wrinkly the starlet looks.) That 300mm L lens not long enough? Crop the crap out of - hell, don't even bother up-rezing.

[dragonfly]

I'd like to point our that paparazzi is Italian and plural for paparazzo. It's already plural and needs neither an apostrophe nor an s at the end to make it plural. You don't write 'the spaghetti's are good' do you?

You might use the term 'paparazzi's' when referring to the group in general: The paparazzi's rights (the whole group).

[reeftool]

They are photographers, in that they use cameras to do their job. Thats simple. Whether they are "photojournalists" is another question.

I don't mind the ones who simply mob celebrities when they are out in public. Frankly the celebrities, for the most part, sought their fame and would likely complain even more loudly if the Paps stopped taking their photos.

As for the ones who stalk their celebrity prey to the point of ultra long lenses and ghillie suits so they can sneak onto private property to shoot compromising photos should be fair game for bear traps...

Mike

My guess is that most are just doing the job they were hired to do. Some do cross the line but that also happens with news photographers and journalists on occasion also.

[Nesster]

A paparazzo is the highest form of photographer, period. Excepting new parents, wedding and police photogs, and pornographers. Everyone else is a pretentious fay dweeb, myself included

[stevewig]

The Paparazzi ARE photographers and they use their camera and camera skills to give the public what the public wants. They only exist because the public wants their product.

The public, in its usual deceitful and lying manner, denies that they want this product and promptly condemns the paparazzi for what they are doing.

The public isn't interested in the fact that the paparazzi makes very good money because they, the public, buy their product and then pretend that they don't.

Just look at all the money that the public gave to the paparazzi for pictures of Princess DI - as an example. Where does the public think that all those millions and millions of dollars came from?

[lithos]

Just look at all the money that the public gave to the paparazzi for pictures of Princess DI - as an example. Where does the public think that all those millions and millions of dollars came from?

Same place the ****ing royals get their millions of dollars from...

[NYpHoToGraphEr]

I don't mind the ones who simply mob celebrities when they are out in public. Frankly the celebrities, for the most part, sought their fame and would likely complain even more loudly if the Paps stopped taking their photos.

Mike

I completely disagree with you. I don't believe in any way that the celebrities would complain if every time they walked outside they weren't mobbed. I think that is a common misconception that alongside people saying that it helps celebrities in some way. Please explain why the celebrity would want it and why it would help them.

"The only thing I think I can be accused of about paparazzi is being really naive. I didn't think about it coming along with the job and I never, during my three years at drama school, fantasized about one bit of it. " Paul Bettany

The Paparazzi ARE photographers and they use their camera and camera skills to give the public what the public wants. They only exist because the public wants their product.

The public, in its usual deceitful and lying manner, denies that they want this product and promptly condemns the paparazzi for what they are doing.

The public isn't interested in the fact that the paparazzi makes very good money because they, the public, buy their product and then pretend that they don't.

Just look at all the money that the public gave to the paparazzi for pictures of Princess DI - as an example. Where does the public think that all those millions and millions of dollars came from?

This is something else I don't believe is true. There are only a certain number of people that actually want these photos. And like anything else in the world, there are other people who would like to see photos of anything sick. It doesn't mean you need to deliver. Magazines use that excuse every time and it's complete BS, it's like saying well the public wants us to follow this guy and make him insane to see if he commits suicide so let's do it.

What do you mean the public gave money to the paparazzi for Princess photos?
I actually don't know that story but let me ask you something...Did the PUBLIC buy the photos or did the magazine buy them and say that's what the public wanted.

Here watch this:
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmu9e4FvWRs[/YT]

[little laker]

What do you mean the public gave money to the paparazzi for Princess photos?
I actually don't know that story but let me ask you something...Did the PUBLIC buy the photos or did the magazine buy them and say that's what the public wanted.

If the photos wouldn't have sold millions of copies of their gossip magazine they would have been worthless.
However, the magazines all knew they'd draw in millions of customers "The Public" which they did, making the pic's valuable.

[Glarus]

Distasteful as their activity is, they are photographers. They're providing a bad product which appeals to society's lowest common denominator. It's no different than say, Top 40 music or anything made by Anheuser Busch.

[NYpHoToGraphEr]

If the photos wouldn't have sold millions of copies of their gossip magazine they would have been worthless.
However, the magazines all knew they'd draw in millions of customers "The Public" which they did, making the pic's valuable.

But again just cause the public wants it, it doesn't make it right.
It just doesn't sound right. The magazine knew it would draw in millions. OK sooo....
Take a photo of Britney Spears nude in her shower it'll sell millions of copies, does that make it right. Any more right than selling a photo of Princess Diana dead?

[stevewig]

You are now switching the topic to morality?

In the commercial world there is NO right or wrong (in terms of morality) there is only legal or illegal. That IS the real world.

All that matters is the answer to the questions "will it sell?" or "will it make money". If it is not illegal then the answer to those questions is ALL that is needed.

For an answer to those (marketing) questions in regard to the subject that we are discussing just look at the magazine covers and at the supermarket checkouts. This product is amply marketed either by the headline or the photograph on the front of the magazine. The public buys and the magazine stays in business and makes a handsome profit which the magazine uses to pay the photographer.

The paparazzi has done his job and stalked his prey just like you stalk your photographic subject.

[Wheatfield]

You are now switching the topic to morality?

In the commercial world there is NO right or wrong (in terms of morality) there is only legal or illegal. That IS the real world.

Business is making the product available.
Morality is how well it sells.