Can You Define the Difference Between Paparazzi Shots and Fine Art Candids?

<p>Hello, all! <br /> <br /> This is my first post of, hopefully, many! I'm promising to spend more time in 2010 stepping away from the camera and dishing with others to gain a broader perspective. Tunnel vision and I get along really well (ha). So, without further adieu, I'm building on an October post re: paparazzi.<br /> <br>

I think it's the Tiger Woods scandal that's setting me off this time, but I'm feeling more and more like the more ruthless paps denigrate what we, as 'art' photographers, do. <br>

As someone who relishes opportunities to photograph an iconic person/moment, I'm frustrated by the image the tactless paparazzi give us. I don't get paid by People or TMZ, but I really enjoy photographing pro athletes on court for the aesthetic value. No, I don't like shooting upskirt angles of starlets. Eeew. But when I pull out a 300mm lens, I can't help but feel everyone in the audience is identifying me as one of <em>them</em> . <br /> <a href="http://andreanayphotography.squarespace.com/blog/2009/12/27/the-vulnerability-factor.html" target="_blank"></a> <br>

<a href="http://andreanayphotography.squarespace.com/blog/2009/12/27/the-vulnerability-factor.html" target="_blank">Check my blog</a> for a few thoughts I pulled together expressing why candid shots are so important to me and an explanation of how I approach them. Then, please let me know what you think! Do you feel like specators at events, passers-by on the street, guests at parties, etc. see you in same camp as the paparazzi just because you're there with a lens? And if so, what steps can we take to differentiate ourselves so that we're looked upon with respect and not as intruders on a scene?<br>

Cheers,<br /> Andrea</p>

<p><br /> </p>

<p>It doesn't matter who takes it, it matters whether it's a good photo or not. That's all I can really say.</p>

<p>Anyhow, welcome to PN!</p>

<p>Would it be where the photo is sold? A salacious tabloid or a fashion glossy being the two ends of the spectrum.</p>

<p><strong>Andrea - "</strong> But when I pull out a 300mm lens, I can't help but feel everyone in the audience is identifying me as one of <em>them</em> ."</p>

<p> If you're mentally focused on what the audience is thinking of you, you're misplacing your attention. It should be focused on what you're doing. Besides, the reality is that most have no idea you exist.</p>

<p>There are not many women paparazzis so I don't think you have to be worried about being labeled one just because you break out a 300mm lens at a sporting event. The paparazzis serve an important role in letting the public know what the spoiled-brat celebrities are up to. With out those obnoxious papas, how would we have known how many girlfriends Tiger had, how many drugs Brittany and Lindsey ingested, who Brad is currently seeing and what Madonna's adopted kids look like? If we took the word of the celebrities publicists, we would only get photos of the celebs drinking hot chocolate and roasting weinies around a camp fire. Long live the paparazzis!</p>

<p>Paparazzi photographs are sold to gossip mags for 10s and 100s of thousands of dollars. Fine art candid photographs sell for hundreds or thousands of dollars in galleries. If the subject of the photo doesn't care to be photographed they will unlikely see any difference.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The essence, in fact the sole purpose and reason for existence, of paparazzi shots is that the subject is a celebrity and the picture is thus worth money to the gossip magazines. In many cases concerning "outside" paparazzi ("inside" paparazzi work mainly by colluding with celebs), the value of a picture is in direct proportion to its embarassing or undignified nature (e.g. Sean Connery throwing a punch at phootgraphers [who have deliberately provoked him]. Lindsay Lohan falling out of a nightclub, her dress and her underwear [in any order]).<br>

Street photographers will generally be motivated by a desire to make some statement on the human condition, whether celebratory, satirical, accusatory or surrealist. Athletes performing in public have chosen to place themselves on general view, as long as your pictures are not derogatory, I would carry on making them with a clear conscience.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, and this is only my perception based on what i see and read about the confrontations between paparazzies and celebs, what distinguishes paparazzis from other photographers is their approach to taking candids of celebrities that borders on harassment. Stalking and spying for photos and juicy gossips to sell to tabloid magazines. I think the celebs in general dont mind people taking shots of them in public places during galas, or receptions etc, but they rightfully resent ppl invading their privacy especially if they are looking to reveal secrets they want to keep private about their lives. I think if you respect the privacy of whoever you are taking pictures of, and whenever possible if you ask them permission first then you have nothing to worry about. It's all about respect or in the case of paparazzies lack thereof</p>

<p>It's just simple politeness that makes the difference. If you ask, if you don't intrude where you're not wanted, then you will gain some trust from those you are photographing. I suppose there could be polite paparazzi, but maybe they're not in business for long.</p>

<p>There are people who can get a date, and people who stalk the admired. Which one are you?</p>

<p>Now, think about what Luis said. If you are going to honor your subject when making the picture, wouldn't it help to think more about the subject?</p>

<p>Both interacting with people and honoring your subject can require a little bit of self confidence. You can gain and build that self confidence; when this occurs, you won't worry about scrutiny as much. You will know you are leading the situation.</p>

<p>Photographers lead the making of the photograph. This is the difference between finding a picture and begging for one. Lead the making of the photograph and treat your subjects with respect. In the long run, this will show. It will not matter if the subject is a famous person or not.</p>

<p>Many successful photographic reporters have articulated a need to honor what they witness, sometimes through bald honesty. "Make it count." If you take that kind of approach, people will figure it out.</p>

<p>Besides, sometimes when the world seems focused on us, the truth is, many of the other people might not care. There are over 300 million Americans running around the US. Did anybody really care what we were doing yesterday?</p>

<p>You can govern yourself. Proceed with confidence. Make good photos. Honor your subject and don't worry too much about this.</p>

<p>"Fine art candids" = oxymoron. I can't find anything in your post that defines "fine art candids," and so I will continue to believe such a thing isn't possible. I think I know what you mean, but it seems candid, paparazzi and fine art photos are three different things. I think if nothing else, "fine art" photos depend heavily on the subject's cooperation and willingness to take direction from the photographer.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p><em>"Fine art candids" = oxymoron.</em></p>

<p>Galleries that have displayed shows and publishers that have printed collections by Garry Winogrand, Robert Frank, and Henri Cartier-Bresson (to name a few) might disagree.</p>

<p>Of <em>course</em>, they might disagree. This whole discussion is about opinions.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it seems candid, paparazzi and fine art photos are three different things.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Candid defines a method of shooting. Paparazzi defines people by their subjects, relationship to their subjects, and outlets. "Fine art" refers to an art form. So one can have a fine art candid taken by paparazzi.</p>

<p>Love you logic, Jeff. LOL</p>

<p>You asked for a definition, so here goes:<br>

The paparazzo is interested in content--salable public figure in a situation that gratifies the public palate--and formal properties such as composition are interesting only as they function to make the content read well. Such shots can perfectly well be posed, and are frequently the result of covert collaboration between paparazzo and celebrity, so "candid" does not apply, except to shots of the form commonly referred to as pap smears.<br>

In fine art the formal properties are always of interest, to the extent that they dominate or even obliterate the content. In the case of techniques like lomography, the subject can even be unrecognizable or entirely outside the frame of the picture, existing merely by suggestion or in the doubtless-warped imagination of the viewer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Such shots can perfectly well be posed, and are frequently the result of covert collaboration between paparazzo and celebrity,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not what the definition says. What you are talking about is a celebrity shooter, who may or may not work in the paparazzi field. The definition of paparazzi is quite clear - it's a candid shooter. A lot of people confuse people shooting celebrities with paparazzi, but that doesn't change the definition.</p>

<p>I feel Paparazzi are telling a story about a specific person where street photographers are telling a story with people. A paparazzi is a predator who takes advantage of his subjects weaknesses. The paparazzi is a wolf and the world needs wolves. You just don't want a wolf in your kitchen. A street photographer is a cultivator and a builder. That's just my opinion anyway.</p>

<p>If you mean by looking at the image? Maybe. Perhaps even more by looking at the paycheck. Both are working journalists if telling stories and selling the images. They are starving artists if the images don't sell.</p>

<p>If the subject of the images is creeped out or bothered by the efforts made by the shooter, then is it important what the motivation of the "artist" is? Or is it an excuse to continue with the activity that bothers the other persons?</p>

<p>Does the "quality" of the gear or the motivation make a difference? Is the fan (or the efforts/results) with a cellphone or P&S less worthy of appreciation than the artist with the dslr or Leica?</p>