Premium Members Peter Hoare Posted April 7, 2009 Author Premium Members Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 The burial was supposed to be private, the funeral was public and we were covering for Sky News who had the deal to televise it. We did not do any photography at the burial, those aerial photographs you saw must have been from a helicopter. The funeral was a public event, they had huge screens relaying the service to thousands outside, you can hardly say that photographing that is immoral, its just the same as any news story. In any case, our photos are wide landscapes, showing the church and the crowd, and we did not go there to invade privacy or expose a celebritys secret, what we do is high up aerial photos, we are not paparazzi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Michael Tsimperopoulos SOC Posted April 7, 2009 Premium Members Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Dear Ian, Philosophy (love of knowledge) was originally the science in quest of morality, honor, pride, dignity and decency above all other matters. Not even once did you mention the family’s right to privacy in your analysis. Until you somehow manage to fit this in your equation, I can’t really distinguish the merits of your argument. We each make a choice of what to make out of the little time we have in this world. Would you spend your days shooting preteen porn (hey…there is a huge market and appetite for that too) and still face yourself in the mirror ? Some might even call it “a living”… Social responsibility and morality, starts with the individual, with each and every one of us. Making a stand for something meaningful ALWAYS costs dearly, but usually feels better afterwards, when it really matters. I’ll be the first to admit that I am not proud for a lot of the projects that I’ve been involved with, but believe me, I am trying (and failing more often than not). If we, as artists and craftsmen, are not in sync with our dignity and values, then who will ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Iain Baird Posted April 7, 2009 Premium Members Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Dear Ian, Philosophy (love of knowledge) was originally the science in quest of morality, honor, pride, dignity and decency above all other matters. Not even once did you mention the family’s right to privacy in your analysis. Until you somehow manage to fit this in your equation, I can’t really distinguish the merits of your argument. We each make a choice of what to make out of the little time we have in this world. Would you spend your days shooting preteen porn (hey…there is a huge market and appetite for that too) and still face yourself in the mirror ? Some might even call it “a living”… Social responsibility and morality, starts with the individual, with each and every one of us. Making a stand for something meaningful ALWAYS costs dearly, but usually feels better afterwards, when it really matters. I’ll be the first to admit that I am not proud for a lot of the projects that I’ve been involved with, but believe me, I am trying (and failing more often than not). If we, as artists and craftsmen, are not in sync with our dignity and values, then who will ? My point was that their privacy would have been invaded whether Peter was involved or not. I don't believe it is right, but that's besides the point. Who is at fault, the Photographer, the Magazine buying the pics, or the people buying the Magazines? Only one of these three can change the end result, I'll give you a hint, it's not the photographer. If any photographer had made a stand and walked away from this assignment do you think the magazine would have reconsidered and decided to NOT do the story? NO, they would have hired another photographer. So making a moral stand wasn't going to change anything. Until we as a public all make that stand together and stop buying what they are selling this sort of media will continue. As for your comparison to Child Porn it's insulting, they aren't even in the same ball park as far as morality, honor, pride, dignity and decency are concerned not to mention the criminal aspects involved. I will add that Peter was the one who first mentioned the word "Paparazzi" even though he later clarifies that he was part of a public broadcast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Michael Tsimperopoulos SOC Posted April 7, 2009 Premium Members Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 I don't believe it is right, but that's besides the point. Dear Ian, when you make a philosophical analysis, and yet you say that being right or wrong is "besides the point", admittedly I'm kind of lost... So making a moral stand wasn't going to change anything. Until we as a public all make that stand together... History teaches us that a moral stand is usually an individual act. It is extremely rare for the general public to "make a moral stand" uniformly...it's like a contradiction in terms. As for your comparison to Child Porn it's insulting, they aren't even in the same ball park as far as morality, honor, pride, dignity and decency are concerned not to mention the criminal aspects involved. I apologize if I offended you, my intention was anything but that, although I struggle to understand why you found it insulting. I was making a rhetorical hypothesis (lots of Greek words in this thread...) to make a point in a world of constantly changing moral ideas and thresholds. I have worked in the News Division many many years ago, when I was 17, and for three years I had chased ambulances, walked ankle-deep in blood covering dreadful accidents and murders, zoomed-in on teary faces and stuck a mic in front of people's faces while the reporter was asking "How do you feel that your child just died ?" And I always, ALWAYS had a choice of how to "capture this reality", how to "interpret the situation" with the camera in a dignifying manner, and I'm afraid I did not always took the road of decency and respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Michael Tsimperopoulos SOC Posted April 7, 2009 Premium Members Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 Oh s@#$% ! Dear Iain, Sorry for misspelling your name, not once, but twice in my precious posts. I really didn't mean anything by it. Respectfully, Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Peter Hoare Posted April 7, 2009 Author Premium Members Report Share Posted April 7, 2009 I am aware that I first mentioned the P word, I tried to edit the post and change this as soon as I clicked submit. We usually photograph industrial estates and golf courses, we were only there because sky wanted a feed from us, we dont usually do it. We are far from being paparazzi. We did see some proper papps the day before, all fighting over who had which spot. There was also a pap fight (known as a bumfight) during the funeral, we heard all about it over the radios from the sky gallery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Iain Baird Posted April 8, 2009 Premium Members Report Share Posted April 8, 2009 Oh s@#$% ! Dear Iain, Sorry for misspelling your name, not once, but twice in my precious posts. I really didn't mean anything by it. Respectfully, Michael No worries about misspelling my name Michael, you aren't the first and won't be the last. I do appreciate the correction and apology though, you are a gentleman and quite obviously a scholar. This will be my last post on the subject as it has strayed far from the threads original intent. As well, I clearly don't have the knowledge of Philosophy that you do Michael. I don't say that to be facetious or sarcastic, I'm in over my head and I know it. What I originally objected to, was WHO was being labelled Morally Corrupt. Personally I would never be a paparazzi but I don't blame that person for making a honest living (It's not illegal last I checked). A photographer is the worker, NOT THE OWNER, providing a LEGAL service and earning a living (mind you some do cross over to illegal methods but there in a whole different category) It is the company that is paying them for the photos that I have issue with (the same company that also will buy photos obtained by illegal methods, no questions asked, I might add) and we as the consumers are the ones to blame for giving that company a reason to exist. There are Sweat shops, right now all over the world, making cheap T-shirts for companies like WALMART or DISNEY. But I don't blame the poor kid making the T-shirt, I blame the Corporation buying them and the consumers turning a blind eye to save a couple of bucks. WE buy the magazines or watch the TV shows, WE want cheap clothing and shoes and until WE stop supporting these companies WE are the ones to blame for creating the monster that we now find objectionable. On another note I do find it ironic that this has all stemmed from Jade Goody's funeral and/or burial seeing as how she made her living off of the exposure provided by reality shows and paparazzi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Amando Crespo Posted November 1, 2009 Premium Members Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 Peter- Antlers work great in Steadicam (balanced) situations to increase angular inertia. I think they'd only increase the pole's wobbliness. Guy wires or ropes are probably the easiest and cheapest solution. Just be careful you don't over-stress the mast. Jerry I agree, Mr. Holway post. Antlers is for movement camera. Perfectly designed for inertial steadicam use... For still shots?... Use 1/125, 1/250 speed...or??. :unsure: :unsure: Try Gyros... But antlers???. Well dude, if you get right result, please, post it here to know it. PD.: Jerry, I need a little bit of purple strap for your Antler....Thank you one more time again, sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.