Privacy is something that we (as "normal" people) take for granted. We don't have photographers hiding in bushes waiting to take our photo. If we did, I don't think it would be pretty. If I were famous, I don't think I would be a very good role model. Whether I was walking my dog without makeup, or strolling down Fremont Street with an alcoholic beverage smoking a cigarette. Either way, the paparazzi would probably have no shortage of damning material on me.
So what's the difference between paparazzi and photojournalists? To me, a photojournalist tells a news story. Granted, your average dopey American might consider Kim and Kanye's wedding to be "news", but I strongly disagree. That's not to say that paparazzo do not serve a purpose. Obviously they do since some make a good living off their work. However, I would put them closer to biographers than journalists.
For my Paparazzi inspired photo, I wanted to show what it could be like to be minding your business, and then have someone start snapping photos of you unexpectedly. We set the shutter speed very low (15 seconds), kept my ISO at 100, and my F-Stop at 8. It was pretty dark, so we could have such a long shutter time. I set up my off-camera flash about 15 feet behind my model. As he walked, I fired the flash at three specific points to create the ghostly effect.
No comments:
Post a Comment