Observers... or intruders??

[Lynchpics]

If the website in question is Wiltshire 999's you might want to read their Contributor terms page. This conversation is going away from the op's original question so i will finish now.

[Pete Snelling]

8 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

I agree it makes a difference when you are known.  When I first started the services, especially the police, would be quite spikey - I was not known and while legally anyone can shoot what is visible in public areas the police do worry about what can happen when Joe Bloggs puts stuff on social media.  As the one with the "proper" camera I was more obvious than the mobile phones.  I am now better known, and the group as a whole is accepted as using professional standards.   An issue that is growing unfortunately is where the group is becoming better known it is attracting trolls who just want to attack and the main editor/organiser especially gets flack not so much for the incident he is covering but just for the whole photojournalism thing.

I try and have minimal dealings with PC plod. Fortunate to have only had one tell me to stop photographing, CG chopper coming into land, despite explinations of who i was, why I was there and knowing RNLI & CG use my images he wanted me to stop, Yet to my left and right was joe public videoing on their mobiles etc but they were ok, it was me he had a beef with, I just put it down till he walked out of view. Complaint to the local PCC by the end of the day with assurances she will ensure her officers are better trained when dealing with photographers, yeah right waiting for round 2!

 

 

[geogphotos]

Reading that photographers are hiding in bushes and leaping out to grab pics of Meghan Markle at their new home in Canada.

 

Seems awful way to behave to me even if there is demand. 

 

As Harry has said the same photographers that chased his mother into that tunnel were the ones photographing her death on the back seat of the car.

Edited January 21, 2020 by geogphotos

[John Mitchell]

7 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Reading that photographers are hiding in bushes and leaping out to grab pics of Meghan Markle at their new home in Canada.

 

Seems awful way to behave to me even if there is demand. 

 

 

 

Busted! 😝

 

I have to admit that I've never gotten over the feeling of being something of a voyeur when taking pictures in public. Switching to smaller, mirrorless cameras has helped somewhat. However, I still find it difficult not to feel like a sneak. I think that one just has to accept that this is the way it is and carry on.

 

P.S. I've yet to stoop so low as to hide in the bushes or stalk the Royals. I'd say that would be very un-Canadian, but maybe it isn't.

[Starsphinx]

27 minutes ago, Pete Snelling said:

I try and have minimal dealings with PC plod. Fortunate to have only had one tell me to stop photographing, CG chopper coming into land, despite explinations of who i was, why I was there and knowing RNLI & CG use my images he wanted me to stop, Yet to my left and right was joe public videoing on their mobiles etc but they were ok, it was me he had a beef with, I just put it down till he walked out of view. Complaint to the local PCC by the end of the day with assurances she will ensure her officers are better trained when dealing with photographers, yeah right waiting for round 2!

 

 

I think to an extent it depends on both the force and their knowledge of you and/or any organisation you are with.  Having said that it is useful to carry a copy on your photo of the legal position - something similar to https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/guidanceposition_on_photography

 

Respect is necessary on both sides - I think one reason police can get a little tense with "free lancers" they do not know is because some do not fully appreciate where the police are coming from on things like identification.  If an officer has ever requested a certain part of an image be pixelated and been greeted with the "you cant MAKE me" or worse the "What are you covering up" the next photographer they meet may be dealt with brusquely (or yes worse - it should not happen but does).  The police usually have reasons for asking for pixellation - including families not having been notified.  If you politely ask the why you can decide if it is a legimate request.  If the police know you are respecting their job they are more likely to respect yours.  Of course you do get total asshole coppers - but I am sure there are asshole photographers out there too lol.

[Harry Harrison]

16 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

I'd say that would be very un-Canadian, but maybe it isn't.

Surely not Canadian Paparazzi! Probably the foreign press, I heard a 'Royal Commentator' saying that they'd be better off over here because our papers don't publish the Paparazzi stuff. I'm always quite shocked when I see what the French papers reveal.

[John Mitchell]

11 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Surely not Canadian Paparazzi! Probably the foreign press, I heard a 'Royal Commentator' saying that they'd be better off over here because our papers don't publish the Paparazzi stuff. I'm always quite shocked when I see what the French papers reveal.

 

Who knows? Fortunately, Canada doesn't have nearly as robust a tabloid press as the UK and some other countries have. However, the article I linked to doesn't identify who the bush-leapers were.

[meanderingemu]

1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Who knows? Fortunately, Canada doesn't have nearly as robust a tabloid press as the UK and some other countries have. However, the article I linked to doesn't identify who the bush-leapers were.

 

Québec does still have some, but they only care about home base.  

[John Mitchell]

2 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

 

Québec does still have some, but they only care about home base.  

 

Allô Police 😊

 

I'd say that Quebec always has been the tabloid capital of Canada, but you're right. They only care about local stuff.

Edited January 22, 2020 by John Mitchell

[MariaJ]

5 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Busted! 😝

 

I have to admit that I've never gotten over the feeling of being something of a voyeur when taking pictures in public. Switching to smaller, mirrorless cameras has helped somewhat. However, I still find it difficult not to feel like a sneak. I think that one just has to accept that this is the way it is and carry on.

 

P.S. I've yet to stoop so low as to hide in the bushes or stalk the Royals. I'd say that would be very un-Canadian, but maybe it isn't.

 

I don't know if it's the Canadian press who are the stalkers.  I was staying on Vancouver island for a few days over the holidays and learned from a friend who works in a hotel in Victoria that a couple of reporters who worked for a UK newspaper  had come to town and were staying there because they wanted to get a story and photos of H & M.

[Starsphinx]

13 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Reading that photographers are hiding in bushes and leaping out to grab pics of Meghan Markle at their new home in Canada.

 

Seems awful way to behave to me even if there is demand. 

 

As Harry has said the same photographers that chased his mother into that tunnel were the ones photographing her death on the back seat of the car.

Or it is possible that the press are being made out to be the bad guys for just doing their job.
As in Meghan has shown she is more than capable of using her security detail to stop or try and stop people taking photos when in a situation that photography would almost be considered acceptable and yet in a situation that is being framed as photography is totally unacceptable the security detail are not reacting at all.   How does the security detail know that it is only photographers hiding - if they are hiding and totally unexpected?

Yes some paparazzi photographers do get totally out of order BUT not every photo is taken by paparazzi and is an invasion of privacy.  

[John Mitchell]

16 hours ago, MariaJ said:

 

I don't know if it's the Canadian press who are the stalkers.  I was staying on Vancouver island for a few days over the holidays and learned from a friend who works in a hotel in Victoria that a couple of reporters who worked for a UK newspaper  had come to town and were staying there because they wanted to get a story and photos of H & M.

 

That makes sense (not that Canadians aren't just as sneaky as everyone else 😶).

[Betty LaRue]

Just imagine...we can go to a shop and buy something. Unbothered, unnoticed. No headlines shouting BETTY SHOPS THE BARGAIN RACKS! With an unflattering photo of me peering at a price tag splashed across papers.

 

Think of how you live your daily, weekly life. How your vacations go. Then think how it would be if you were famous. Not of your own making, like a movie star or athlete, but born into it through no choice of your own.

Many of the simple pleasures in life like walking peacefully on a beach while watching the sun come up, is denied to you.

 

I'm sorry the royals have to put up with it. They lead lives of pomp, rigid manners, rules and expectations, cloistered within their castles and homes with so many servants they have little privacy there.  Some manage it and accept it, some may not. I can’t ever blame Harry and Meghan and I almost feel panic at what they have to put up with.

Betty

[Julie Edwards]

On 20/01/2020 at 09:07, geogphotos said:

 

 

Same here but that is what the press pack often do.

 

Actually - A lot less than you think they do or are portrayed they do (unless there is a proper "relevant" news story).

 

As  is mentioned above - there are many cases where study of the image plus image metadata can show/prove that the subject I as complicit in the image as the photographer. I am personally of the opinion that there is a recent case like this.

 

This is not me defending all press photographers (in fact - I should clarify "so-called") . Some ARE unscrupulous but they are in the minority, no matter how it is portrayed elsewhere. A huge %age of the professionals in the UK are members of one of a number of professional and adhere to ethics and code.

 

More often than not, the picture does not lie and it is possible to see/work-out/understand if an image breached ethical , moral or privacy guidelines when studied.... Words less so... (including these words if you so choose)...

[Julie Edwards]

On 22/01/2020 at 20:34, Betty LaRue said:

Just imagine...we can go to a shop and buy something. Unbothered, unnoticed. No headlines shouting BETTY SHOPS THE BARGAIN RACKS! With an unflattering photo of me peering at a price tag splashed across papers.

 

 

"Most" celebrity person goes shopping in "xyzzy" are tip-offs or pre-arranged, either by said celebrities pr or by the shop... Do you really think photographers have enough time to risk hanging about in shopping centres on the off chance?

[Julie Edwards]

On 21/01/2020 at 20:37, geogphotos said:

 

As Harry has said the same photographers that chased his mother into that tunnel were the ones photographing her death on the back seat of the car.

 

For the record.... (and this is quoting someone who was working as a press photographer at the time...)

 

The press scooters were quite some way behind the car when it crashed (reports say over 5-10 minutes ). Not defending the chasing, but Di's security team were used to dealing with it day in , day out (and here again, there were tip-offs on where she would be)... What her security team did not ever do is drink and drive ... 

You seem to forget her drunk driver who was driving in excess of 120mph, the lack of seatbelts. The scooters where travelling at 50mph max. They knew where she was going (his flat). I have skipped some other known info. 

 

I am not supporting the photographers actions in general but try to get some basic facts right.

Edited January 24, 2020 by Julie Edwards
spelling

[meanderingemu]

6 hours ago, Julie Edwards said:

 

For the record.... (and this is quoting someone who was working as a press photographer at the time...)

 

The press scooters were quite some way behind the car when it crashed (reports say over 5-10 minutes ). Not defending the chasing, but Di's security team were used to dealing with it day in , day out (and here again, there were tip-offs on where she would be)... What her security team did not ever do is drink and drive ... 

You seem to forget her drunk driver who was driving in excess of 120mph, the lack of seatbelts. The scooters where travelling at 50mph max. They knew where she was going (his flat). I have skipped some other known info. 

 

I am not supporting the photographers actions in general but try to get some basic facts right.

 

 

not defending, and i agree with what you wrote, but the statement was not about the photographers, but what Harry said, and probably the now ingrained perception of a 12 year old that lost his mother.  So i think it is possible the two basic facts are right, what actually happen, and what Harry feels happened.  

[Betty LaRue]

Julie, I’m not only talking about the usual celebrity photographers. Everybody these days has a mobile phone. So a housewife spots a celebrity shopping, takes xx # of photos, then starts contacting sources to sell them. Wow, she might be able to finance a small vacation. You don’t think there would be takers? Lol.

 

I can go shopping anywhere, unnoticed. The only threat would be someone like me, surreptitiously shooting a few stock photos of shoppers and merchandise for an agency, not the tabloids.

As far as the usual run of celebrity stalkers, no, they aren’t going to stake out the mall. They are going to hang around the celebrity’s home, follow them, and get the shots. We’ve all seen pictures of topless sunbathing when the celebrity was on their own property with all the expectations of privacy.  You’ve got the tree-climbers, the long-lens shooters. 
If you don’t think that’s going on, I’ve got some ocean-front property in Kansas......

[Starsphinx]

10 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Julie, I’m not only talking about the usual celebrity photographers. Everybody these days has a mobile phone. So a housewife spots a celebrity shopping, takes xx # of photos, then starts contacting sources to sell them. Wow, she might be able to finance a small vacation. You don’t think there would be takers? Lol.

 

I can go shopping anywhere, unnoticed. The only threat would be someone like me, surreptitiously shooting a few stock photos of shoppers and merchandise for an agency, not the tabloids.

As far as the usual run of celebrity stalkers, no, they aren’t going to stake out the mall. They are going to hang around the celebrity’s home, follow them, and get the shots. We’ve all seen pictures of topless sunbathing when the celebrity was on their own property with all the expectations of privacy.  You’ve got the tree-climbers, the long-lens shooters. 
If you don’t think that’s going on, I’ve got some ocean-front property in Kansas......

It may be different in the US but I know parts of the UK almost pride themselves on "not noticing" celebs and treating them like "ordinary" people.   Quite a few of the royals do actually do "normal" shops quite often - and it does not get reported, people do not take snaps - or if they do it is for their own timeline and they would never dream of being so uncouth as to try and sell them and make themselves look "star struck".   Over the new year a very famous film start stopped in at a local club to see it in.  It made the local papers - because he bought a round for everyone in the bar.  Anyone buying a drink for everyone would make the local paper - his fame was besides the point.
There seem to a distinct lack of stalkers here as well.  There are well known homes in my area (yes including a major royal or 2) and I have never seen them staked out - even when one was being hung drawn and quartered on social media (that was a celeb not a royal).

The description you give does not fit with what I see happening here.

[Harry Harrison]

There's too many Harrys in this post, it's getting confusing. Thanks to Jean-François (meanderingemu) for pointing out that I was simply alluding to the effect on Prince Harry of the circumstances surrounding the death of his mother, suggesting that it had been 'skewed', in other words not necessarily borne out by the actual facts. It has to be said though that the UK inquest did find the photographers partially to blame but they were all 'foreign' and so beyond the reach of UK Law. Harry (the other one) accepted this verdict, as did his brother of course. As we all know, he also had to follow the coffin on foot through the streets of London at the age of 12.

 

Going back to the original post, John Morrison asked:

"How do we feel about our fellow photographers? Do we identify with the ‘press pack’, or with the people they’re photographing? Are we comfortable walking around with a ‘professional’ camera (rather than, say, a camera phone)? Or do we feel disliked, distrusted, while doing our job, like bailiffs and traffic wardens? Are we fulfilling a valuable role, chronicling what life is like in 2020? Or are we just voyeurs?…"

 

For me, if we do feel disliked and distrusted it will be partly because of the publicity surrounding tragic events such as this, and it's very disturbing to hear that the right picture of Harry & Meghan might be worth $250,000 in worldwide sales. That is likely to attract the unscrupulous.

 

I have a great respect for the press photographers and the job they have to do will not be pleasant at times. I believe that the Magnum photographer David Hurn was one of the first on the scene at the Aberfan disaster, and of course he had to take pictures. I can't begin to imagine what that would have been like.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[Betty LaRue]

I do identify with the press pack shooting the usual political, the arranged public exposures, and the ones documenting a tragedy. Some of those latter are historical iconic images that tell a story, and often benefit in a round-about way, such as donations. Or to raise awareness. Sometimes the photographers are historical heroes, in my opinion.

 

I don’t identify with press photographers who intrude upon private life to the point people cannot have even the slight semblance of privacy. I guess it’s because I get sqirmy just imagining it, as if it were me. So if I don’t want it to happen to me, I don’t want it to happen to them. We only have this one life to live on earth. I would hate to die thinking about all the things I would have enjoyed doing, but never could because I couldn’t get the front end of a lens out of my nose long enough to do them.

[Starsphinx]

34 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

I do identify with the press pack shooting the usual political, the arranged public exposures, and the ones documenting a tragedy. Some of those latter are historical iconic images that tell a story, and often benefit in a round-about way, such as donations. Or to raise awareness. Sometimes the photographers are historical heroes, in my opinion.

 

I don’t identify with press photographers who intrude upon private life to the point people cannot have even the slight semblance of privacy. I guess it’s because I get sqirmy just imagining it, as if it were me. So if I don’t want it to happen to me, I don’t want it to happen to them. We only have this one life to live on earth. I would hate to die thinking about all the things I would have enjoyed doing, but never could because I couldn’t get the front end of a lens out of my nose long enough to do them.

The trouble is there are too many  who claim their privacy is invaded when they are partly or fully complicit in such invasions.

How many pop starlets want the interviews and photos when it is all success and clean fun, often going out of their way to make it happen, then cry foul when they are photographed falling over drunk coming out of a well advertised after awards party?

The press is as always a double edged sword - if  you want to use them to show how wonderful you are be prepared for the fact they will also show you being the opposite of wonderful.

[IanDavidson]

Once again I must put my hand up.  Yes, I have hidden in bushes, up trees, in undergrowth with camouflage clothing, taken photos with a long lens while hiding, even used night vision goggles before firing my flash

 

But it is a good way to get wildlife pictures....  (and I am not really talking about TOWIE)

[Phil Robinson]

 

See - quite well-behaved really.

[IanDavidson]

Ah,  the gang (where am I?).  And if you had taken the picture a few minutes later, a shouting scrum trying to get the best (any) picture....