Discussion
Watching BBC1 at the moment and they have a fly on the wall type programe following the employees of Big Pictures. To me it looks a good laugh, find a celeb, take a pic in an uncompromising position and you are quids in!!
What sort of kit are these guys using? What sort of Wedge would one be looking at. These guys get hustled, bustled and beaten up a fair bit so I would be worried about too much expense.
But, a pic of Becks in his kecks or Harry thumping a colleague (lol) that would/should be worth £thousands.
Any opinions of our celeb loving friends here? Would you, if you could take the plunge??
What sort of kit are these guys using? What sort of Wedge would one be looking at. These guys get hustled, bustled and beaten up a fair bit so I would be worried about too much expense.
But, a pic of Becks in his kecks or Harry thumping a colleague (lol) that would/should be worth £thousands.
Any opinions of our celeb loving friends here? Would you, if you could take the plunge??
I had first hand experience working alongside paparazzi when doing a shoot in St Tropez last year. It was interesting there were 2 distinct packs of photographers, the paps and us yachting togs. The response of the celebs/royalty was to make things as difficult for the paps but very relaxed and accommodating for us.
I guess if you like to spend hours waiting to catch a pic and playing games of hide and seek with your 'prey' fair enough. To make the £thousands you will not do that standing outside celeb hangouts in London. The only way you make the £thousands is to get that unique shot, to achieve that you will need to establish a very good network of tipper-offers and that will take time and money. Alternatively establish a good rapport with celebs PR people so you are tipped off uniquely where they will be. It is the rarity value of a shot that makes the dosh.
Oh and in terms of investment you will need good quality digital camera, several lenses including 5/600mm a laptop a facility to transmit whilst mobile...say all in all £15-20k
I guess if you like to spend hours waiting to catch a pic and playing games of hide and seek with your 'prey' fair enough. To make the £thousands you will not do that standing outside celeb hangouts in London. The only way you make the £thousands is to get that unique shot, to achieve that you will need to establish a very good network of tipper-offers and that will take time and money. Alternatively establish a good rapport with celebs PR people so you are tipped off uniquely where they will be. It is the rarity value of a shot that makes the dosh.
Oh and in terms of investment you will need good quality digital camera, several lenses including 5/600mm a laptop a facility to transmit whilst mobile...say all in all £15-20k
Those big Canon lenses they are using are expensive. They use the fastest glass they can, so they can shoot even in low light - and that does not come cheap.
A big 400 2.8 and a decent converter to make it even bigger - £5k I would say. And you'd a couple of strong bodies ( say £3k each ) and a decent Mac Powerbook to handle the images quickly and post them back to base ( another £2k)..You also need some quality zooms including a decent wide angle for those close up under the skirt....thats another £3 or 4k all in for a handful of lenses.
And expect the stuff to get trashed pretty often. Being thrown in and out of cars and hiding in bushes, having celebs assault you etc...expect equipment breakages...
A big 400 2.8 and a decent converter to make it even bigger - £5k I would say. And you'd a couple of strong bodies ( say £3k each ) and a decent Mac Powerbook to handle the images quickly and post them back to base ( another £2k)..You also need some quality zooms including a decent wide angle for those close up under the skirt....thats another £3 or 4k all in for a handful of lenses.
And expect the stuff to get trashed pretty often. Being thrown in and out of cars and hiding in bushes, having celebs assault you etc...expect equipment breakages...
Scooby_snax said:
"Those big Canon lenses they are using are expensive"
Go for Nikon gear less likely to fall apart after a bashing....;-)
I am a Nikon man personally. But the Paps and Sports boys generally use Canon - not because its better but because Canon got in first with big fast lenses and worked hard to get the press to use them. Its a big investment to change brands...
But I agree. I actually switched from Canon to Nikon - much happier as a result. Nikon just suit me better.
Most of them seemed to using Canon 1D and 1D MkII DSLRs by the look of things (£2600 or so for the body). The Australian chap was using what looked like a combination of the 70-200mm L and the 100-400mm L glass.
I thought that I saw the chap in the studio using some Nikon kit as well.
I should think it gets pretty boring after a while - not really a great deal of room for artistic interpretation. The Autstralian guy was also definitely atypical - most paparazzi are not spending their time interviewing woman, taking staged photos and running multi-million pound businesses.
I thought that I saw the chap in the studio using some Nikon kit as well.
I should think it gets pretty boring after a while - not really a great deal of room for artistic interpretation. The Autstralian guy was also definitely atypical - most paparazzi are not spending their time interviewing woman, taking staged photos and running multi-million pound businesses.
Get the right shot and you can make a fortune.
Apparently the lad who took the photo of Harry in the Nazi outfit sold his pictures to the Sun, thinking it was the photos of Will that were worth the big money.
The Sun gave him £8k for the photos, then went on to make over half a million selling them to other papers and to TV.
I say apparently because I read this in PopBitch, which isn't exactly a bastion of journalistic integrity!
Apparently the lad who took the photo of Harry in the Nazi outfit sold his pictures to the Sun, thinking it was the photos of Will that were worth the big money.
The Sun gave him £8k for the photos, then went on to make over half a million selling them to other papers and to TV.
I say apparently because I read this in PopBitch, which isn't exactly a bastion of journalistic integrity!
Scooby_snax said:
"Those big Canon lenses they are using are expensive"
Go for Nikon gear less likely to fall apart after a bashing....;-)
I have found the Canon Pro bodies (1 Series) and the L lenses to be far more weatherproof and rugged than their Nikon counterparts.
Edited to put Nikon in the right place, been drinking the Canon drugs for too long...
>> Edited by Bee_Jay on Thursday 20th January 11:29
Bee_Jay said:
"Those big Canon lenses they are using are expensive"
Go for Nikon gear less likely to fall apart after a bashing....;-)
I have found the Canon Pro bodies (1 Series) and the L lenses to be far more weatherproof and rugged than their Canon counterparts.
Interesting
Totally agree with this statement - I dropped my 70-200mm L zoom lens from hip height onto the tarmac at Donington - absolutely nothing happened to the lens other than the UV filter on the front breaking.
I now have Canon 1D MKII which I have used in the rain, the cold and had a slight "accident" involving a uni-loc tripod that didn't (lock that is) and again no problems have occurred.
I would'nt hesitate to recommend the Canon equipment - build quality on the L and 1 series gear is very high (although you pay for it in money and weight!)
I now have Canon 1D MKII which I have used in the rain, the cold and had a slight "accident" involving a uni-loc tripod that didn't (lock that is) and again no problems have occurred.
I would'nt hesitate to recommend the Canon equipment - build quality on the L and 1 series gear is very high (although you pay for it in money and weight!)
I have friends who have been places with both Nikon and Canon users in inclement conditions, and the Canon guys were still snapping long after the Nikon guys had been forced to pack up.
Another friend who shoots regularly in Antarctica switched to Canon from Nikon for reliability reasons.
Another friend who shoots regularly in Antarctica switched to Canon from Nikon for reliability reasons.
OK, before this gets into another Canon vs Nikon debate the opinion here is that circa £20-£25k worth of kit is a must 
£20-£25k is ALOT of money, it is a massive outlay on something that is not exactly going to bring home the bacon. Watching the program, the impression I got was that they drove around all day and hoped to get lucky.
My question to you all is,
how would you go about getting started in the paparazzi circles? Do you have to have the right kit? I could take a picture of a celeb falling over on my phone, would this do?
the opinion here is that circa £20-£25k worth of kit is a must £20-£25k is ALOT of money, it is a massive outlay on something that is not exactly going to bring home the bacon. Watching the program, the impression I got was that they drove around all day and hoped to get lucky.
My question to you all is,
how would you go about getting started in the paparazzi circles? Do you have to have the right kit? I could take a picture of a celeb falling over on my phone, would this do?
zetec said:
£20-£25k is ALOT of money, it is a massive outlay on something that is not exactly going to bring home the bacon.
But if they get the right shots then they'll make 6-figures from a single shot.
If someone got a photo of Britney with her baps out then they'd make millions.
Apparently the bloke who photographed Harry with the Swastika sold it to the Sun for £8000... who sold it onto the other papers for over £500k... rumour but the numbers sound real enough.
Also... hanging out in St Tropaz or Barbados all the time...
Errr if you use a cameraphone then you are probably 5 feet away from your target. To get the £00000 picture I would suggest that
1 the celeb will be more than 5 feet away
and 2 if so then an investment in the appropriate camera gear is required.
Of course there is another requirement in actually recognising said celeb....I would be useless as I even physically walked into Jerry Hall at an after Rolling Stones gig party/bash and didnt recognise her
1 the celeb will be more than 5 feet away
and 2 if so then an investment in the appropriate camera gear is required.
Of course there is another requirement in actually recognising said celeb....I would be useless as I even physically walked into Jerry Hall at an after Rolling Stones gig party/bash and didnt recognise her
Scooby_snax said:
I had first hand experience working alongside paparazzi when doing a shoot in St Tropez last year. It was interesting there were 2 distinct packs of photographers, the paps and us yachting togs. The response of the celebs/royalty was to make things as difficult for the paps but very relaxed and accommodating for us.
Absolutely right. The guys who have been in the business for a long long time they tend to be the ones that build up a rapport with the celebs and do not go for the one off "falling over drunk" type shots but ones that make the celebs look good. Celebs grow to trust these folk and they get invites into the parties and peple take the time to pose for them. Yes it won't give you that one off massive payday but does provide lots of regular income. One further advantage you're in the warm inside the aprty rather than outside on the pavement freezing your nuts off.
Chris
Scooby_snax said:
Of course there is another requirement in actually recognising said celeb....I would be useless as I even physically walked into Jerry Hall at an after Rolling Stones gig party/bash and didnt recognise her
I did that too! I (literally) bumped into Elton John outside Prada in Venice, and I was so preoccupied with my camara that I didn't notice! It took Debbie telling me to realise.
Martin.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff