File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
How do you become a paparazzi?
>> Anonymous
use flash and huge lenses all the time

all the time
>> Anonymous
>>144810
what type of camera do you recommend?

canon? nikon?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>144813
Yes, one of those.
>> Anonymous
>>144806

vivitar ftw in that picture
>> Anonymous
It's more about the creepiness. Paparazzi can use video cameras or w/e, doesn't need to be a big fancy SLR. Long lens or zoom ability is key though.

I'd say go get a 40D, a 28-300 zoom, a 550EX, a track suit and a creepy mustache.
>> Anonymous
>>144820
Might've slipped your mind, but video cameras and big fancy dSLRs are for completely different purposes..
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>144977
Either one works for paparazzi purposes, though.
>> Anonymous
>>144979
True.
>> Anonymous
>>144989
Owned.
>> Anonymous
Don't get the ability to be a asshole invading into people's private life!

Seriously, you do need the mindset of a asshole for some of guyes you paparazzi.
>> Anonymous
>>144992
Really?
>> Anonymous
>>144806

Izzat Alec Baldwin?!
>> Anonymous
>>144995
i dont understand why everyone is against the paparazzi so much. mainly just because it like a defense to celebs which is weird. anyway, there are so many celebs that can keep out of the spotlight with no problem. the only ones who get followed and bothered constantly are the ones who hang out in LA in big night clubs basically asking for everyone to bug the shit out of them. the celebrities who you see all over magazines want to be there. they enjoy it. maybe not at the exact moment, but in the long run the ones who are attacked by cameras love what it does for them. sure some others get bugged who dont seem to be trying to bait it, but i think theyll live.
>> Sicko !L3HRY/miC.
>>145014
>>but i think theyll live

I think a certain Princess would disagree with you there.
>> Anonymous
>>145016
that whore doesn't count
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Paparazzi are pretty scummy.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=k_F-J6tIrzc
>> Anonymous
>>145014

Assuming you aren't a troll, they're feeding the fodder of stupidity to millions upon millions of already stupid fucks every day. They are worthless in terms of their career, and the fact that these people are using top of the line equipment to capture images that ALL LOOK EXACTLY THE FUCKING SAME makes me rage good.

If there was a new holocaust, I would like to see these people participating. In dying, that is.
>> Anonymous
>>145014

>>145057

This, and the celebrities they shoot aren't always that type. A barely-eighteen Natalie Portman had some extrem long telephoto shots of her taken in a bathing suit and topless sunbathing while on vacation, and she's definitely not one for the crazy limelight.

But the main problem is what that guy said: is there any need at all for this stupid Hollywood-worshipping cult? Do we really need to see 50,000 motordrive pictures of people in glitzy outfits walking down red carpets? Forget the "privacy invasion" stuff, why should people involved in cinema get treated as A) less serious and B) more worthy of attention than writers, photographers, painters, stage people, sculptors, and to a lesser extent, musicians?

It's just all the idolatry and false glamor these people serve up that really gets me. Don't kill anybody; just stop the stupid sham Oscars, Oscar parties, stop the free shit to celebrities to market it, stop the grocery store line magazines, stop shit like "The View" where being famous for random stuff entitles you to a pbulic forum on your ideas, stop paying these people millions... fuck, stop paying anyone millions. No one needs that much or actually wants to spend that much beyond stupid whims.
>> Anonymous
>>145061
But if you want to make money with your camera, this is an option.
>> Anonymous
>>145243
And if you want to make money with your genitals...
>> part 1 Anonymous
ITT people who've never actually worked as 'papaprazzi'.

most 'paparazzi' are freelance individuals with cameras (not photogs) who've provided their phone number to be available for public events to celebrity marketing agencies. that's all.

paparazzi are primarily a tool used by said agencies to stage public attractions. see the thing is, when everyday people see a bunch of people taking pictures of someone/something ... they naturally want to see what it is. and let's face it, having a bunch of people taking your picture is an ego pump too.

despite what most people think, 99.8% of paparazzi don't actually scrouge around day and night looking for celebrities in candid situations. think about it, it's not really that difficult to run into a celebrity. it's not like they're hidden unless they really want to be. most people have bumped into one at a mall or store at one point or another. you don't see them being mobbed by a wall of trigger-happy flash monkeys. paparazzi are simply there to create an attraction ... but if you actually know what you're doing with a camera you can sell some shots off to mags ... it's like a bonus/perk.

most paparazzi are really just people who want to get close to celebrities and use a camera as a fast-pass. along the way, you realize people will pay you to take photos and the rest goes terribly wrong.

there are some rules you abide by in order to be added to a paparazzi call sheet. one big rule is you NEVER follow a celeb away from a staged event. of all rules, this one is the most important because it can basically get you black-listed. it's a great way to weed out noobies.
(continued)
>> part 2 Anonymous
(continued from)
>>145282
now, that other .02% ... there are some who take it too far. they start getting all stalkerish and follow celebs to vacations spots and film sets. this is perpetuated by 'Star' and other low-grade rags. you'll notice how their covers always have some poorly photographed celeb doing something pretty mundane. this is a general no-no.

firstly, it's a serious pain in the ass from the camera shooter's perspective. you can track one celeb for a whole day and not get a decent shot. second, there isn't a strong market for it. like i said, usually only yellow rags like star even accept this kind of stuff and it's usually pretty low pay. imagine doing a week's amount of work and getting $75-300 dollars for all your shots.

second, the celeb you shoot will probably come out looking pretty unattractive. it actually takes a lot of time and effort to look good. and celebs only go through that effort when they are on the clock. just like on your personal time, there are times when they're not trying to impress anyone. combine that with some shitty camera angles/locations/distances ... and you've got some pretty crappy photos.

there you go ... that's the truth. this is simply a small part of a larger industry. the business of keeping celebs in the lime light is very lucrative. it is a form of marketing ... and you're nothing more than a name on a piece of paper. paparazzi, it's surprisingly undramatic and pretty equivalent to being an extra in a movie except no one sees your face ... oh, but you have to take shit like being spit on by abnoxious bitches like Lindsay Lowhan. that's another one of those rules.
>> Anonymous
>>145282
>>145283

>staged event
>larger industry
>the lime light

This is precisely what I object to. Thanks (honestly) for the insight into how paparazzi work, but the whole way media and celebrity works is what I object to. It a big, distracting spectacle and it sucks even genuine artists into looking pretty for the camera at big parties that exist only to produce photographs of celebrities at big parties.
>> Anonymous
i'm pretty sure all you have to do is have sex with a man. Even if you're a woman. But i'm sure it also helps if you suck at minding your own business.