Your Dumb iPad Picture Taking Is Keeping Real Photographers From Doing Their Jobs

Hmmmmm.....YOU were not obsessive and YOU did not care about getting a shot, but all those other obsessive a**holes were. But you got three or four frames.

Paul Luscher said:
And that reminds me of a problem created BY serious photogs:

Years ago, I got a permit to shoot the San Francisco Blues Festival. They even had a special platform built right in front of the stage that the photogs could use. The idea was that you'd go up there, keep down low, shoot your shots and get out quick.

Well, that all went to pieces when John Lee Hooker showed up. From the moment he got out of his car to the moment he went on stage, he was surrounded by a wall of photographers. I'm amazed he wasn't crushed or asphyxiated by the mob of camera-clicking obsessives.

Then, when he went on stage, ALL the photogs rushed up onto the aforementioned platform, stood straight up, and began firing away--not for a moment or two, but throughout Hooker's entire set. The audience--who paid for this, after all--was treated to the delightful view of a row of photographer's asses.

I got off the platform when I saw what was going on--it just seemed so rude and inconsiderate to me. Being an a**hole didn't seem worth it just to get the shot. I certainly was not surprised when in the years after that, no such privileges were extended to photogs. It's behavior like that which makes photogs as beloved as ...well, lawyers.

(BTW, I did get a decent shot of Mr. Hooker. I waited till the wall of asses parted for a few seconds, then fired about two or three frames.)
Click to expand...
 
swoop said:
. . . . The person with the ipad took a picture just for themselves. . . . .
Click to expand...

How did you figure that out ?

Why wasn't she (judging by the fingernails) a journalist, shooting that image across the internet to her office for a news report ? ?

EDIT: and why wasn't he (?) the rank amateur, since he shot a political mob scene at 235mm from ground level ??
 
The most important photographer in any situation is one who has a camera with him.

Think of all the photos and news videos that we have seen because someone had a camera phone. In the past, most people would not have a camera or a device with video capabilities, now everyone carries a tiny device capable of excellent HD video in their pocket all the time.

The Saddam execution, the Qadaffi execution, hundreds of crime and riot scenes, you name it, insane people fighting in the subways, screaming inner city people destroying a fast food joint, police beating citizens, EVERYTHING that happens in modern times is documented and gets posted somewhere online.

Nobody complains or mentions which cameraphone was used.
 
I Love Film said:
Hmmmmm.....YOU were not obsessive and YOU did not care about getting a shot, but all those other obsessive a**holes were. But you got three or four frames.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was a real "decisive moment"for me. I was standing at the bottom of the platform, gazing up at all those asses, wondering "WTF?",when they parted. That's when I whipped up the old camera and fired away. Got a nice low-angle shot. Having a motor drive and a zoom lens helped. (And was I part of the mob surrounding JLH when he got out of his car? No I was not. I could only gaze in awe and wonder from afar as he disappeared from view behind the wall of shooters).

(Not that I am claiming to be a paragon of virtue and righteousness on all occasions. There are plenty of people who will testify to the contrary.)
icon7.gif
 
If I get your rant correct you are saying if a person uses an ipad, cell phone, or any camera other than a high dollar DSLR and carries the tag "professional photographer" he/she does not have the right to photograph an event??

"Professional" photographers usually have a better location at events than the average citizens...
 
Who's the guy in the pic everyone keeps refering to as 'prez?' :confused:

Must be pretty important huh! :D
 
And why is some woman trying to hit him with a picture of himself? :p
 
Perhaps this is not what it seems. Is this photo the start of a new iPad marketing campaign, featuring Obama to lend street cred to the product?
 
And IF the photographer got the shot, minus the ipads, Getty would have paid $50 for it and then licensed it on after that. $50 being VERY optimistic.

Much ado about nothing.

Leave that crap to the ipads and flicker crowd... No photojournalist is out making $ popping shots of the prez from 1/2 kilometer away. And if they,by the grace of God, are... It won't be for long. Focus on what the ipad crowd can't get, bitching about them is senseless as they aren't going away.
 
I can't help but think holding up a giant iPad over a crowd is similar to someone holding a claymore .. sigh.
 
At least the US has a leader that capures people's imaginations ... as a leader!

We seem to wind up with uninspiring automatons! :(
 
This is why Apple is the richest company than most countries combined.


Here for example, the "rebellious apple users" blocking the pros and taking great pictures of Obama. Of course the pros are so rude and even dare to say others have no right to take such pictures!

Suddenly all ipad users are rebellious citizen journalists taking their own photos --- go buy an ipad because it makes you rebellious, cool and also a photojournalist.

Ka ching!
 
I like the shot for some of the same reasons cited by others.
The inclusion of the ipads makes the shot. Would'a rather had a very close wide angle from slightly above, but whatever.
As others have stated, these electronics devices give the photo context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom