UKC

Do people set out to become paparazzi, or do they end up being that?

Are paparazzi, photographers who failed to make it big, or is there a "thrilling" lifestyle round it that I fail to see?

I am obviously biased against them as I can't imagine why you would set on a career path to become one, but I am also quite curious to see what the UKC collective mind has to say about it.

BTW, I am not that interested about slagging them off. If you wish to do so create your own discussion

PS: As a true republican, I couldn't give two hoots whether the Royals are annoyed or not. I must admit that taking on toddlers is an issue though. Let the kids be (although not sure that after 16 they're kids anymore in the same way -defenseless darlings- but that merits its own thread).

In reply to French Erick:

I had a really nice papparazo pizza the other night

In reply to French Erick:


There is a lot of money in it.

In reply to GrahamD:

Nice...really? Did it not have an aftertaste of déja vu?

In reply to Mark Bannan:

Is there that much money? It seems to me that only very few shots are juicy....what about the hordes not getting that money? What do they live on? Are these guys free-lancing?
The more I think about it, the more curious I become. Not that I plan on a career move, mind!

In reply to French Erick:

I guess many of them feel motivated by the potential to strike it lucky and get a huge payout for desirable photos.

In reply to French Erick:

I think it's a bit like panning for gold. A lowish chance of a big rewards so plenty try and occasionally strike it rich.

In reply to French Erick:

I've met a couple of guys who did this sort of thing ( although not chasing royals ). I didn't get to know them well enough to find out how they dealt with the moral implications, because they weren't the sort of people I had any interest in getting to know...
They were both struggling to make a living from photography, and had fallen into papping. They didn't set out with the intention of making a career out of it, and one had already quit. The guy still working had an informal deal with one if those celebs whose entire career involves publicity. All her papped photos were staged. He would be given a time and place where he could get some supposedly unauthorised shots, he'd sell them and she'd get the publicity she needed. She made it very clear that if he took photos of her at other times, his cosey deal would be over.
I can see how people like this, without much in the way of scruples, can start with high ideals of being a professional photographer and gradually descend into the sort of person who hides in a car boot to take a picture of a baby.

In reply to Hooo:

I've heard that it's often people who struggle to make a living in photography in other areas too.

In reply to French Erick:

I knew a snapper who moved into papping after leaving the company I previously worked for; he was a bit of a knob.

He went to the states (LA) where the money, celebrities and potential work are all far greater than they are here.

The days of five figure payouts are over though as far as I'm led to believe.

I'd imagine that like other forms of photography, you do it enough and I guess you get used to it and tend to lose any inhibitions you might have held previously.
I still get nervous photographing (essentially papping) court snatches, crime scenes or film sets, but I'm not keen on confrontation and you often find it in those places, even though we all develop a bit of a code of practice for ourselves, certainly in delicate circumstances. That said it's very easy to get used to pointing a camera at somebody you don't know. For most of us however it's with generally good intentions, can imagine it's harder to justify when you're essentially f****** somebody over.

Wouldn't fancy it myself.

In reply to French Erick:

It used to be seen as a way into pro photography with newspapers/mags/agencies but now most of the paps seem to be struggling part timers tied into agencies which take a cut of their fee so the pickings get even slimmer. It's hard to see how you can make much if you are one of half a dozen snappers standing round outside The Ivy for hours on end all taking the same shots and then racing each other to blast them over to potential clients. Maybe that's why some push it further and further to try to get exclusive shots. That's also why slebs and paps get into these relationships to take phoney 'off-guard' pix. Sometimes the subject even takes a cut of the fee.
As to how they can justify doing it, I think that often the pic becomes the be-all-and-end-all and the people being photographed cease to be people, they are just the subject of the pic. For the more closely guarded A-list slebs, eg Kate Middleton sunbathing topless, I think some of them see that as a challenge as well as a big pay day. They also justify it by saying that being papped goes with the territory of being a star or a princess. You can't switch the attention off and on as you choose. It's part of the deal you make with the Devil when you ask to be rich and famous.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

I would probably have waited hidden for hours somewhere to see Kate's bosom as a teenager! May be even taking a camera for those lonesome moments afterwards...
I would have defended those shots with my life though. My precious, mine alone!

Cheers for the few enlightening answers.

Defo NOT a job I would fancy. Horses for courses and all that.

In reply to French Erick:

Photography as a career as a whole is suffering at present - the barrier to entry is much lower than it used to be - anyone can buy a decent camera for a reasonable price and blaze away until they gain some competence. In the old days the cost of film and your own darkroom was a massive hurdle to climb. It doesn't take many half-decent hobby photographers dabbling in weddings or baby shoots to take significant business away from an established pro.

In reply to Toerag:


Well when wedding pro's charge upwards of £1500 for a few hours work they became the architects of their own misfortune by creating a market for the budding amateur photographer fill. I shopped around extensively for a photographer for my wedding and quite frankly the average prices on offer were disgrace. A friend who is a keen photographer in his spare time stepped forward, his shots of our day were superb and he refused to take any money for it, just proud that we thought his efforts were brilliant. We eventually convinced him to let us take him and his wife out for dinner, a small price to pay I thought!

In reply to Cú Chullain:

I think you're putting the cart before the horse there if you don't mind me saying.

Wedding photography rates seem expensive because your mate and others like him - who as you say are often superb photographers - do it for free; presumably your pal can only to do it for free, or for a small charge because he's not trying to make a living directly out of wedding photography.

To break it down most of the weddings me and my mate (boss) used to do started at about £1500 going up to about £2k. For the £1500 figure, the customer got two photographers covering their wedding for on average about 12 hours, so on average about 24 man hours on the day. Then either myself or my boss would do the digital post production and physically put the album(s) together, ordinarily between a day and a day and a half. About 75% of customers would also have a 'viewing' of their images once done, at which point we'd give them the album. Let's say all this work post-wedding adds up to another 16 man hours - so average 40 man hours in all per wedding is probably about right.

hourly rate per photographer is now £37.5.
Add on top of that the cost of a blank album and mats £100+, print costs for probably about 50-75 images to go in the album. Petrol costs for travelling to, between and from venues on the day. Sundry cost on the day, rent for premises, rates for premises, new cameras every couple of years, new speed lights more often than you'd think, new lenses every five years or so, sundry camera supplies, camera repairs (expensive!), camera insurance, professional indemnity insurance, website cost, promotional costs, etc. At around this point we can start to think about paying ourselves and the taxman. It's just like any other business and pretty soon that £1500 doesn't look like quite so much of a rip off as it did previously.

I don't blame highly capable amateurs any more than I blame the people who design and build highly capable digital cameras - I've worked myself for friends for free. There's also some pretty terrible 'pros' out there, from whom you definitely won't get your money's worth.
Unfortunately, photography as the profession it once was is pretty f***ed really (I'm trying to get out of it myself), but that's okay, it might even be a good thing.
What's it's not as a general rule is a rip off, it's just that economies have changed. So, I think you're putting the cart before the horse and (if you'll excuse my mixed metaphores ) unfortunately for many of those who make a living from photography, the horse has well and truly bolted!

Cheers,
Tom

In reply to French Erick:



Is it not like most freelance jobs. In software development you can either contract for big bucks or get a steady job for a reasonable wage. But then there are websites where freelancers can bid for one off project work. Having seen the price some of these folks have bid based on the time I think it will take to complete I can't help feeling that the winners will end up working for slightly less than a street beggar.

Seems to be the same in Paparazzi. There are a few who will mint it whilst the rest spend their week camped outside Z list celebrities houses hoping to get a glimmer of some cellulite in return for a couple of hundred quid.