drew_leo

People who perform life saving procedures on the injured, from good samaritians to medical personelle can be and have been sued. I think that most lawyers would tell you not to touch or move a subject/body after a car accident occured. After I got certified in CPR, the medic explained that there are legal issues to helping people. Asking the injured for permission to help is vital to limit liability.

If I got into an accident I would call the police and emergency crews. I already caused a collision, I'm not going to make it worse. Perhaps all I would do is nothing, just stand there. I may take photos.

Let me put this into prospective. Car accidents in big cities happen everyday. Many of those accidents are promoted by drivers who: drink and drive (Hell my girlfriend does it and I hate that fact), take drugs, speeding, racing, tailgate, delivery trucks UPS, etc. Which brings me to the story about Lindsay Lohan's car accident. Yes she was being chased by the pap but there not enough $$$ earned to recover the $35K bail, the lawyers, the fine. One would need to sell at least $85K to be make the accident worth it (and they didn't). I know the guy who crashed into her but never got to speak to him after. We as paps would not cause any accident to get a photo UNLESS it's worth it, and the law makes it not worth it all the time. There have been stories I heard that paps would let the air out of celebs' tires which created a excellent set of photos. "Pamela Anderson fixes her flat tire to her $85,000 Range Rover". I think this is wrong to do. Is it illegal to let air out of tires? You think about it while the photographer goes to sell his $10K photos.

Princess Diana: A highend, Mercedes sedan with a drunk driver behind the wheel racing in a tunnel with 2-3 mopeds/scooters in pursuit. Who was more in danger? The people in the 2500 lbs car or the guys on the 400 lb bikes?

It's not cool and sometimes not right when it comes to some of the tactics that paps use, however most are just annoyances or inconviences to stars; referring to the times annoying tactics are used which are 5% of the time. Remember, a good pap takes photos, gets what he needs, and leaves without a celeb knowing.

I didn't see the Paparazzi movie but I heard the paps were sleezy, fat, ugly, mean and ruthless. Kinda sounds like some real life paps. But lawyers and going to court is something we don't like to get ourselves into. Getting restaining orders limits our opportunity to shoot. In summary; creating accidents, confrontation, sneaking into homes is not worth it.

Reflect on the idea that if paps did this to regular non-celebs, who one would care plus it wouldn't sell magazines/papers. But because it's a celeb that complains, gets into a car accident, hits a photographer, people like to hate the paps.

Stock photography is true for both paparazzi, red carpet to scenic images. More you have, the better. The photo maybe used in the distance future.

One thing that is different with paparazzi is we shoot without the subject knowing and our opportunities are limited. On the red carpet you know the star is arriving, you know it'll be infront of you, or for a scenic shot you know you can take you sweet time setting up.

Say I see a B-actor or a not so popular celeb like Jim Ballushi at a park with his family. I'll have to decide if I want to look for parking to position myself, if I need to shoot from the trees, or spend time on him. I have to think the last movie/film he made, remember if there's anything controversial (divorced, battered wife?, alcoholic?). I recall if there has been any photos of him lately. Accessing the situation with my celeb knowledge (from reading mags/websites/publications every day or week) I decide if I will shoot. Overall Jim wouldn't sell and I probably wouldn't spend time 'working on him'. However, paparazzi always need to think about the What If factor. "What if he dies today? on the way home?".....so I'll shoot a few frames and leave. Stock photography of B-list celebs would sell when the celeb gets into the news like when they die/surgery/etc.

Some might ask why leave the opportunity? I already decided he doesn't sell even if I shot tons of photos plus the chances of him not making it home is less than 1%. Time is money to paparazzi so we need to keep moving: checking the hot spots, making calls to waiters, visiting cafes or gyms, keeping up with gossip.

Here's another thing that a paparazzo can experience like no other photographer. Say I'm shooting Jim Balushi at the park with his family and he just recently had surgery. (Remember: photos need to be accompanied w/ stories.) I'm trying to capture 1. Jim playing with his family, 2. Tell/show how he is recovering from his surgery. Just as I get a good spot to shot I see Helen Hunt walking her dog. Now there's less than a minute to decide which subject to work on. Jim or Helen. Helen or Jim. Quick quick. Decide.

Times like these are what I enjoy as a pap and not a regular photographer. Paps need to think, be creative, and improvise because our situations and subjects are not under our control. I think that most paps can produce what a studio/portrait photographer shoots but it's not as easy the other way around. Are paps better photographers. No, absolutely not. But more people want our photos and willing to pay to have it. With my few years in the business I had my work seen more than 1,000 photographers' images combined and they probably been shooting twice as long as me. This last comment is more fact than showing off.

I'm interested and ready to hear from the regular photographers. Please keep your opinions to facts and figures. If you do resort to name calling, we won't get anywhere.

Like photojournalism, paps need to follow a story 75% of the time. Yes it's true that mags will request certain photos of X or Y in a week. They make those requests based on stories like who is the new love interest, who is starting in a new movie/show, what is the new purse/exercise/car? etc. It's not always about getting the photo. The most extreme 'job' was a pap told me he followed a story/subject for 3 weeks in Europe and waited until the right moment to shoot. A more simple story is that I may not take a photo and tail a celeb till they go home or to their lovers house or to their crack dealer. Why? So I know where they will eventually drive to at least once a week.

A story accompaning a photo greatly increases the sale of a set of photos.

Risks involved: I've seen and experienced things that most studio photographers would pee in their pants, and that is rewarding in itself. All hypo: Imagine Nicole Kidman slapping a bus boy's face who she accused of him of taking photos when it wasn't, Bruce Willis trying to pass a vehicle at 70mph and then facing a school bus on the opposing lane and still doesn't stop (just to get away from people with dangerous cameras), Paris shop lifting, etc.

In the law: As a pap most things we do are within the law. We take photos of people going into a restaurant, going into a gym, and we take the photos thru the window which is legal. We drive on the same public streets as the celebs and drive just as fast as the celeb drives. It is lawful to take photos from a public area. Notice all those outside cafe patios, people jogging or making out on a beach photos? It is unlawful to prevent people from taking photos in public. This point is always the one that opponents easily brush aside when it comes to: Is it legal?.

I'll try to add some info about right&wrong vs legal/illegal if I have time next time I log on.

Good discussion. I notice that there are harsh opinions about being a paparazzo. I think it's short sighted and not answering a reasonable and professional question that Jonathon asked: What is it about?, how do you get started?, etc. The question was not asking if it's a honest living or should we attack paparazzo's personalities.

Paps can distinguish when they are paps and when they are photographers. Most paps have little formal photo training. A successful pap said to me, "I'm horrible as a photographer but I'm great at spotting celebs, tailing them, and anticipating their moves".

My personal opinion is that a good photographer needs to be at least 60% business oriented to make a living out of this life and not just use it as a hobby like most people with a camera.

I share my story:

My background began with just 1 year in a photo program in California. As most students concentrated on the skill I worried about making a living with it so I dabbled in weddings, taking actor headshots, and local magazines. I decided that making photography work required that I needed a job not more schooling. I asked myself: After 3 years and $20K at school, would someone hire me as a photographer? NO. Most jobs were ass't photographers or internshipa. Never the photographer. Photographers take years to be the shooter. I wanted to shoot everyday. Most of the students were shooting in studios for projects while I was shooting at clubs, live people, at events. A respected instructor explained to me that pap business was difficult and used little traditional methods. All these people remained teaching, shooting in bldgs w/ no windows all day, going into debt with no real job shooting.

What can I do with limited funds and experience? How can others see my work instead of me handing a porfolio to them in person?

After showing my photos in independent magazines to all my friends and teachers, the lab tech at school referred me to someone he met once who said he was a pap. Will continue later......