Celebrity photos - what's the big deal?

[Jarle Aasland]

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

 

[sevo]

Being a professional photographer getting access to all these people IS a big deal - it essentially means that you are a staff member or under assignment by a nationwide or international newspaper, news agency or magazine, were contracted by the promotion agencies of the subjects themselves, or (if you managed to portray them self-assigned) are a prominent artist that sure knows how to hustle (or has a very capable management)...

 

[Roger Hicks]

Being a professional photographer getting access to all these people IS a big deal - it essentially means that you are a staff member or under assignment by a nationwide or international newspaper, news agency or magazine, were contracted by the promotion agencies of the subjects themselves, or (if you managed to portray them self-assigned) are a prominent artist that sure knows how to hustle (or has a very capable management)...

An excellent point. Professional photography is a rather different business from what most amateurs imagine -- and there are many kinds of professional photography businesses (editorial, hard news, feature, advertising, industrial, food, glamour...)

The word 'business' is very important.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jarle Aasland]

..it essentially means that you are a staff member or under assignment by a nationwide or international newspaper, news agency or magazine

So what? That doesn't make the photos any better, does it? I've covered major news stories and photographed world famous celebrities myself. Does that automatically make me a great photographer?

Most celebrity shots are pretty mediocre. You've seen them countless times before. Some famous actor with his girlfriend on the red carpet outside a cinema, surrounded by 150 other photographers. So what? Do you really think that's great photography?

Jarle

 

[Roger Hicks]

So what? That doesn't make the photos any better, does it? I've covered major news stories and photographed world famous celebrities myself. Does that automatically make me a great photographer?

Most celebrity shots are pretty mediocre. You've seen them countless times before. Some famous actor with his girlfriend on the red carpet outside a cinema, surrounded by 150 other photographers. So what? Do you really think that's great photography?

Jarle

Dear Jarle,

No. I think it's evidence that if you commission that photographer for that sort of shot, you'll probably get a usable image -- not necessarily great photography.'Illustration' and 'great photography' can be quite different. Ideally they're both, e.g. Jane Bown, but I'd go for a reliable-but-dull illustration over the sometimes lucky (or even brilliant) photographer every time. As I said, it's a business.

Cheers,

R.

 

[skibeerr]

So what? That doesn't make the photos any better, does it? I've covered major news stories and photographed world famous celebrities myself. Does that automatically make me a great photographer?

Most celebrity shots are pretty mediocre. You've seen them countless times before. Some famous actor with his girlfriend on the red carpet outside a cinema, surrounded by 150 other photographers. So what? Do you really think that's great photography?

Jarle

They are made to sell magazines, they pay for the groceries and mortgages and tomorrow they are yesterdays news.

Just don't get upset about it.

Cheers,

Wim

 

[Al Kaplan]

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.

 

[Schlapp]

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.

 

[chris000]

I guess it's understandable

Jarle,

You said it yourself - the fact that they are celebrities means that they are photographed and seen often, and professionals commissioned by magazines and newspapers have to please their picture editors and are therefore always in danger of being formulaic.

True greatness is the photographer who manages to produce (and sell!) something new and ground breaking under these circumstances.

Unlike celebrity true greatness is, by its nature, rather rare.

 

[Jarle Aasland]

Just don't get upset about it.

Don't worry - I'm not 🙂

I'm obviously playing the devil's advocate here. I guess I'm just a little amused/frustrated/surprised whenever I see great photographers show off some mediocre celebrity photos as their "best" work. I guess it just illustrates that a photographer (or any other artist) isn't always the best judge of his/her own work.

Jarle

 

[Jarle Aasland]

'Illustration' and 'great photography' can be quite different. Ideally they're both, e.g. Jane Bown, but I'd go for a reliable-but-dull illustration over the sometimes lucky (or even brilliant) photographer every time. As I said, it's a business.

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

 

[Roger Hicks]

(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).

Dear Jarle,

I completely agree. But if it's all you've got, and all you can do...

(Which in itself tells you a lot about the photographer/s in question, and invites speculation as to whether their 'good' shots are either just lucky, or completely unsalable.)

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jarle Aasland]

(Which in itself tells you a lot about the photographer/s in question, and invites speculation as to whether their 'good' shots are either just lucky, or completely unsalable.)

Funny thing is, I often see this in portfolios of photographers which are undoubtedly both "good" and commercially successful. Could be a matter of taste, but I don't think so.

The photographer mentioned in my first post has an impressive bio, and there's no doubt he's a skilled and successful professional. He's got plenty of great work, but is still showcasing mediocre celebrity shots on his front page.

I guess my question boils down to "Why the obsession with celebrity and fame?" in society in general.

Jarle

 

[Pickett Wilson]

"I guess my question boils down to "Why the obsession with celebrity and fame?" in society in general."

That's a different question. The pro is using his site to generate more work. So he is going to showcase the kind of stuff buyers hire photographers to shoot.

As for the obsession with celebrity in society, that has never made sense to me. But I understand perfectly why pros shoot and showcase photos of celebrities: to get work that pays the bills.

 

[sevo]

So what? That doesn't make the photos any better, does it? I've covered major news stories and photographed world famous celebrities myself. Does that automatically make me a great photographer?

No. But being a great photographer generates less jobs than having done the right kind of jobs and knowing the right people - most of the time you get paid for experience at mediocre tasks. Showing a portfolio demonstrating the latter rather than the former is understandable from a business perspective.

 

[Jamie123]

Well, I think we need to distinguish between red carpet celebrity photos and proper celebrity portraits. I will say something about the latter.

Firstly, as someone already mentioned it IS a big deal for a professional photographer to get access to a celebrity. It is an even bigger deal to get quality time with a celebrity as a lot of times the photographer has to work under huge time constraints getting anywhere between 30 seconds and 10 minutes with the celebrity. Pulling out a decent shot in such a short time is not a small feat.

Secondly, not everyone can take a good photo of a celebrity given the access. It takes a lot of people skills to handle celebrities. I worked for an agency for a while which represented a very successful celebrity photographer. Seeing him do his thing was quite amazing. The way he put the subject at ease and kept the small talk going while still being fully focused on when to press the shutter was incredible.

Thirdly, why is it important for some photographers to shoot celebrities? Well, franky, because that's where the money is. Editorial fees aren't very high, not even for shooting celebrities. The only way to really make money off of editorial portraits is *syndication*. You might get $500 for the initial assignment but make thousands of dollars by selling that picture over and over again to different publications.

 

[Roger Hicks]

This reminds me of something George Bernard Shaw is reputed to have said to Henry Ford on the subject of artistic quality and pleasing the audience: "Well, there is the difference between us, Mr. Ford. You think only of art, and I think only of money."

Cheers,

R.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I have several tightly framed B&W shots of Janis Joplin singing on stage. I've sold reproduction rights to one of them numerous times since I shot it in the late sixties, as well as a number of signed gelatin/silver prints. I think that it's a dynamic shot of her, but what makes it into a money maker is that Janis was a celebrity. A really fantastic shot of a girl scout singing at a Veterans Day ceremony would be worthless in comparison.

 

[dll927]

It must occur to some editor somewhere that a picture of Bam-bam (current dork at the the White House) doing his latest jig is no different than yesterdays "photo opportunity" set up largely to please the papparazzi. Oh yeah, maybe he's wearing a different tie.

No wonder presidents keep their kids (assuming they have young enough ones) away from the lenses.

Most of this stuff is sheer competetiveness. But I suppose we have to admit that there are people who eat up such stuff. If that is their intellectual level, so be it.

 

[sara]

Speaking from a student's point of view, to get access to a celebrity is a huge challenge for us.

Last year when I was in the 2nd year, I photographed a celebrity for my 2nd year exhibition but to get to that stage, it wasn't an opportunity that was open to many other students. I think especially for us, it's a huge thing if we even manage to have a celebrity reply to us, saying "yes you can photograph me for your project".

I also photographed the celebrity with cupcakes, my tutor said to me, "it's great how he agreed to lie down on the ground with cupcakes for your photos".

In the end, I think that experience itself really helped me in a way? because I'm quite a shy girl and I had to communicate to a person who was "big" in name 🙂