paparazzi Wars!

[ellis_vener_photography]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/movies/17halb.html

[john_h.1]

Great. Another Subscription. Forget it.

[Spearhead]

Interesting article, thanks for posting.

[doris_chan]

In the 90s there was a big push by Brit tabloid photographers into the US because it was

seen as easy pickings. The US had the stars who fetched the big money (particularly after

the death of Princess Di) and the local photographers were seen as being really soft edged

and therefore easy to outshoot. Photographers exchanging blows in London or Paris is

utterly commonplace.

[doris_chan]

"Great. Another Subscription. Forget it."

 

You could have subscribed (at no cost) in less time than it took to disparage the original

post.

[basscheffers]

Or just use the New York Times Link Genenrator to come up with a login-free link:

<p>

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/movies/17halb.html?ex=1279252800&en=b9da10fa4f8bc228&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss">

Eye vs. Eye: Inside the Photo Wars</a>

[lex_jenkins]

Two opinions:

 

1. Photographing celebrities should be more like sniping than a mob hit. The celeb should never even know she's been photographed. The paps who engage in muggings probably deserve what they get.

 

2. F*ck hypocritical publicity whores like Cameron Diaz who prance publicly for all the ink and air time they can get but have the audacity to criticize and even threaten the photographers who are feeding her apparently bottomless ego. "Look at me! NO! Don't look at me!" They too deserve what they get.

 

Without publicity photography nobody would even know who these celebs are. And if they really dislike it they'd do what the saner celebs have already done: move to Montana, Idaho, etc., and have a real life when they're not working.

[cálico]

The paparazzi are the lowest humanity can offer with a camera. I don't really care or can't care less for their situation. They're nothing but the scum of the earth with cameras. They're parasites. They are, in short, akin to a mob lynching.

 

They exist because gossip rags buy their lousy snaps to cater to the ghetto/trailer trash across the world; goes to show how many ignorant people there are... enough to make millions for those rags!

 

They should be the ones being chased to their death! They're the ones that give the rest of us in photography a bad name.

[john_h.1]

"You could have subscribed (at no cost) in less time than it took to disparage the original post."

 

Perhaps you enjoy providing websites you visit once with your biographical data, e-mail address for spam mailing lists, ect. I don't.

[Spearhead]

<i>Perhaps you enjoy providing websites you visit once with your biographical data, e-mail address for spam mailing lists, ect. I don't.</i><p>

 

This is a ridiculous argument for refusing to read the news. Websites only have the info you give them. The NYT sends out one email a month to its users. And like many people, you can have a separate free webmail address for website registrations. You give ridiculous arguments for not reading the news. And, I would add, you seem to think this is a place to air your views about websites rather than contributing anything about the article or photography.

[john_h.1]

That was a grand contribution.

[doris_chan]

"The paparazzi are the lowest humanity can offer with a camera....the scum of the earth

with cameras. They're parasites....akin to a mob lynching.....ghetto/trailer trash....They

should be the ones being chased to their death! They're the ones that give the rest of us in

photography a bad name"

 

With crass comments like these you're not doing so badly yourself at giving "photography

a

bad name".