Steven Randolph and videographer Steven Perilloux give celebrity chasing paparazzi a taste of their own medicine in this short video Vice segment, "Pap Smear". I dare you to watch this video and not make some kind of comment. I'm curious to see if any of our readers will come to the defense of paparazzi. Is there a right way to do this kind of work? Let's hear your thoughts. Vice: "Paparazzi make a living by chasing down celebrities and shoving cameras in their faces and up their skirts. We decided to hunt a few down and give them a taste of their own disgusting medicine."
via [BoingBoing]
Those stalkers should be jailed. The reason why we don't see more "in depth" pictures of celebs, and why they don't let photogs in their house without full crew and lawyers... are those vultures.
Garbage.. just garbage... I despise any who buys those folded glossy sheets.
I think the line in the sand for me is when paparazzis fabricate situations by purposefully creating a hostile or tense atmosphere with nonstop shouted questions, physically accosting them, and then trying to shoot the reaction. If it's more like wildlife photography where they shoot the celebrities in their natural habitats without interference, then that'll be fine in my eyes.
That being said, I feel like the title is a little misleading to the contents of the video. There was no stalking, and aside from a one-off verbal harassment outside of BOA, there was no "give them a taste of their own disgusting medicine." In fact, there was more verbal harassment during the "interview" than on the sidewalk. I thought the guys would find a few paparazzis and follow them for a few days in order to give them the same quality of life they force on others.
I'd like the 6 minutes and 56 seconds of my life back please fstoppers.
Not a quality video. Just some guys bullying the pap. No real story here.
nice.
the guy probably can't get a wedding gig because he'll shoot it with a on camera flash, and shooting the bride and groom while they're mouth is full of food or yawning from being exhausted from the night before.
paparazzis aren't photographers, they're just picture takers, just some guys with cameras, which also have no common decency.
Most of the celebrities chased by the paparazzi are of the talent-free variety. They NEED the exposure to compensate for a lack of talent. They owe their success and fame to the tabloid media.
That's not factual, unfortunately. All celebrities deal with this issue, regardless of whether they're "talent free" or not. Some take measures against it - but the highest desire for tabloid smears are for whoever is most popular in the public eye - whether they're talented or not.
Many celebrities and their publicists actually work with the paparazzi, sometimes to the extend of tipping off events before they happen.
Many PR managers worth their salt know that there is good and bad pap coverage, and you'd be surprised how many events are actually planned, or stars looking for attention.
Just look at Paris Hilton.
honestly. this video is quite biased and doesn't tell any truth about the paparazzi issue and the public demand for the images - not to mention that some celebs might want to get images of them (although a minority). weak video. "Teenage Paparazzi" is a good documentary about the topic - covering more bases to the issue. just my two cents.
yep
Even if demand is there it doesn't grant any one the right to follow, stalk and bother anyone. The demand is there for cocaine and it's illegal.
Also, if celebs WANT there image taken they usually deal with a pro not a pap. And beside, if pap were illegal, and celebs REALLY wanted them, they would hire them directly. This way they keep their rights .
there is no need for all this...
There is a demand for tobacco, which kills you and people around you over time.
There was (and still is in some areas) a demand for slaves. That was legal for a long time.
What do you think about those?
"celebs REALLY wanted them, they would hire them directly"
Paparazzi isn't about posed shots, although sometimes that happens.
Stop sales of all copies of OK, Star, Nat Enquirer, etc etc and then your mission will be complete.
Good luck with that.
FSTOPPERS, are you so desperate? Stop posting this junk and go back to the good old days, about a year ago, and post some good stuff. Quality, not quantity is what people are after, instead of 5 posts per day of average content, 1 awesome post per day would suffice.
i was waitinf for this comment...hehe
You could aswell just watch the videos that seem interesting to you or search for "quality videos" yourself. Fstoppers is trying to cover the interests of a range of creatives with different interests.
But I would agree that Fstoppers used to be a better "curator" of these items...they did the work up front to cull out the noise and give us what mattered. That's what made them more valuable to me. The value diminishes when I have to read each post myself to determine it's worth. There's no question that there are many more posts each day now than there were 6 months ago.
Stupid comment. The video does seem interesting, then you realise it isn't once you watch it. The idea about fStoppers is that this is all sorted out for you, or that's how it used to be. Now you have no idea if what you're going to watch is complete shit or not.
Wow... people who actually agree with me. You'd think by Patrick's recent comments he thinks everyone loves his "I'm right, you're not" idea.
I'm surprised he hasn't come into this thread to argue with you people about how you can't please everybody and because you wrote a negative comment you're clearly unwashed idiots.
+1
I don't quite get the whole industry. I am trying to think of one candid shot that these paps have taken that I couldn't wait to see (having heard about it) or studied for more than 3 seconds once I saw it. I have never seen one with a thought given to composition. I guess it just comes down to how much you care about about celebrities. I prefer celeb portrait photography: Andy Macpherson and Martin Schoeller in particular.
Most porn looks terrible, even after 2 seconds.
This industry isn't about producing art, it's about commodities. Gossip and faux news are the stories of the day here, and I'm sure many creative people don't give that much of a crap about gossip photography.
I find criticizing pap images, on the same level as a site meant to critique sh!tty imagery in porns. Of course it's going to be bad, it's not meant to be art, usually.
why is F-Stoppers becoming such a piece of shit blog. kick out all the people besides the original crew. fstoppers becomes a advertising mashine made to create profit. I rather go to SLR lounge or any other legit photography blog. THIS IS BULLSHIT!
Crap video. But besides that, the interviewee could be the most talented wedding photographer in California, but we would never know it with the attitude he has. I think he was an extreme end of the spectrum. Bottom feeder as it were. Get in a celeb's face and blast it with a speedlight when they are indisposed. On the other side you have the ones that actually have talent. They find the celebs during the day when they haven't had a half dozen cosmos, use a long lens and get actual candids that are artistic and flattering to the subject.
Many celebs would not exist without paparazzi. It is integral part of the industry.
It doesn't entertain me but obviously it works very well on big percentage of consumers.
The relationship between celebrities and paparazzi is symbiotic. This is more of a grey issue than black and white.
Vice Guides are usually so much better than this POS story too
Great documentary ... awesome VICE !!!!
When you don't like an article, why do you need to insult fstoppers? Don't you have anything better to do? Why is it that when some people dislike a video, they have to insult who ever put this in? I hate you comments, do I tell you you're a moron? Can we please ban those who keeps insulting others for free? This is ridiculous...
By the way, I'd like to know who can shoot like a Paparazzi, I dislike the fact that people are invading other's private life but honestly, shooting like a Pap isn't that easy and it does requires lots of skills. Try it for the heck of it... it's not that easy.
When you're a public figure, aka lady gaga, a politician, or anyone else in the public eye, you do not have privacy anymore.
Get used to it, that is the trade off you make, for fame.
Many people become famous and avoid the paparazzi, yet many more crave the attention.
As a non-pap photographer I nearly turned down a date with my now boyfriend, because he is in the public eye and I was 'afraid' of others in my own profession.
Not everyone in the public eye chase publicity, but while we do have the 'I want to be famous' celebs, then we are going to have the shark photographers.
I was a papparazzi for 8 years, I quit the game when things started to get really out of hand, right around 2008 or so. I finally managed to leave LA in 2010 after moving to a more respectful agency that did more news and features stories, where sometimes I was invited into celebs homes to shoot.
The Vice Story is bullshit, one of the worst pieces of journalism I have ever come across, very poor research and a bully of an interviewer. Sure people hate the papparazzi but he would have had a better story if he had gone undercover and tried the job himself, the 'source' is some rookie pap with no idea and the one restaurant they go to is obviously on a quiet night. This story was done in a day - rushed and poorly done.
The guy crying in the vid is a sad case even by 'pap' standards - Being a Papparazzi is addictive and some people dont want to leave, back in the day it was easy money, now its a little harder but its true - you dont have to have real skills to do the job, just a set of balls and a camera.
I started my career as a News and features photog, got sucked into the 'pap game' and now am making a name for myself as a Portrait and Wedding photographer. We aren't bad people but as with anything a few bad apples spoil the entire lot.
HAHAH best part of the vid is at about 5:30.....hahahhaha "i went to places to try and get hired as a photographer and they wouldn't take me!"...."hire me then! give me a wedding gig!" hahaha so awesome....hahahahah that says it all right there! haha
In México, some magazines and TV shows use that hostile treatment with the actors or celebrities; but some of them sign contracts with those magazines and TV shows to make a fake paparazzi coberture.
My personal opinion is that paparazzis ( the kind who only uses a wide angle lens and shoots while act agressive) are not complete photographers, they have very limited public relationship and photographic skills.
ummm the dude works for vice, one of the lamest publications in the world
Worst vice video ive ever seen.
Ok Kenn...I wasn't up to your challenge (to NOT comment)... While I think the subject is a good one for this community to ponder, there has to be something better than this video to get a conversation going... REALLY weak sauce IMHO...
Always a good topic to discuss, but this video is lame and looks like a big fake up.
For me, this is just another reinforcement that the people who've been hired at Fstoppers don't seem to make even the slightest effort to scrutinise anything they post. It's just filler filler filler.
Agreed.
that was a lame un researched beat up steven.
you blew what could of been a good story.
someone put someone who knows what to do some the right way on here, im bored.
Hey fstoppers, it's tough being #1 - not to worry still plenty of love for you guys!