Celebrity photos - what's the big deal?

[bmattock]

Are you a better photographer only because you've been able to get access and take a close-up photo of some overpaid rock star or football player? It may impress some amateurs, but being a professional photographer getting access to these people is usually no big deal.

Paying the rent is a big deal. A photo of you will net me no dollars. A photo of Joe Schmoe the rock star will.

Make sense?

 

[bo_lorentzen]

Jarle,

Its all about paying the rent. (figuratively) a guy showing a huge pile of celeb shots, must have been trusted by others to be engaged to capture the images, good or not, the guy have pulled it off before. so chances are he is not going to f-up my job, therefore he is hired again.


Bo

www.bophoto.typepad.com

 

[sara]

What is kind of neat is when a celebrity recognizes you at an event and calls out your name. It shows that you have great "people skills" which are very important.

Yes I totally agree

 

[easyrider]

Well said.

(But I still think it's a bit silly for a good photographer to showcase mediocre - or even bad - portraits, just because the subject is a famous person).

Jarle

We do not really have enough info about the site to make an intelligent comment.

If he is a paparazzi-style photog, obviously he wants to show that he can capture celebrities -- i.e. that he has a long lens, good access or patience to wait outside a club.

If he is showing routine stuff at public events to which everyone has access, maybe you have a point.

If the celeb is shown in a private sitting, he is a high end guy or gal in the Annie Liebowitz class.

In any case, an image is an image is an image.

I remember years ago there was a lovely shot of Queen Elizabeth II looking radiant and waving at crowds from her coach. It was widely published and won all sorts of prizes. The photog was in a row of press photographers and held his Speed Graphic over his head. He just shot the one exposure and had to idea what he was getting.

Now, is that art? It was certainly a great image.

 

[JBC]

I just visited the website of a photographer I came across on Twitter. He had plenty of photos of rock stars, president Obama, Nelson Mandela and other celebrities. Then it struck me: I've seen all these photos before. Countless times. I left unimpressed.

I guess it's understandable, but for the sake of argument: Why do we put such photos in our portfolios? Are you a better photographer only because you've been able to get access and take a close-up photo of some overpaid rock star or football player? It may impress some amateurs, but being a professional photographer getting access to these people is usually no big deal.

Jarle

As a professional, who would care what you (another pro) thinks. If amateurs, or more importantly clients are impressed that is what is important! To a potential client, the fact that the photographer has access to these important people speaks very positively of the photographer.

Jim

 

[Jeicob]

As an amateur one can just leave out the name when it isn't important to the picture :angel:

Some one I used to work with down in England - Manchester in fact - equipped himself with a dslr and a lens or two then joined the ranks of the evil paps who leapt out of hedges etc to find some minor footballer with someone else's wife. Had no idea about f-stops or shutter speeds and just used the thing on Auto. Made a lot of money regularly selling to obscure red-top papers and minor-celeb mags. Scum-bag work tho.

I can highly recommend the documentary Videocracy