|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Beyonce's publicist wants unflattering photos down
TimothyH wrote: Jesus, and they say Gaga has a dick!!? Feb 07 13 03:14 pm Link Michael Pandolfo wrote: I love you man! Feb 07 13 03:17 pm Link Swank Photography wrote: Too late, it's circled the planet and beyond at least 6,000,000,000,000 x 100 times! Feb 07 13 03:18 pm Link oh poor poor Beyonce. Who cares? Feb 07 13 03:23 pm Link i guarantee somebody, somewhere, is photoshopping huge penises into those pics right now.  Feb 07 13 03:30 pm Link Michael Broughton wrote: How did you know? I haven't even posted 'em yet! Feb 07 13 03:34 pm Link It's amazing how many people are ok with and even celebrate someone doing something just for the pure meanness of the act. Because make no mistake about it, the photographer had nothing but ill intentions. Feb 07 13 03:38 pm Link Lars R Peterson wrote: Haha, I agree. It's a decent photograph, it was just taken at an inopportune time (for Beyoncee) Feb 07 13 03:39 pm Link Michael Broughton wrote: Since this thread has been in existence these photos have come through my facebook feeds (both safe for work): Feb 07 13 03:44 pm Link PR types want to control the Brand 100% Photographers want unique images. Everyone has shots of her looking stunning and hot. He has something unique. Would I have posted them? No. Feb 07 13 03:53 pm Link K E E L I N G wrote: Agreed. It makes us all look bad.. Feb 07 13 04:23 pm Link KA Style wrote: Hardly. Feb 07 13 04:25 pm Link MMDesign wrote: Well it certainly doesnt show photographers in a good light. Feb 07 13 04:28 pm Link nyk fury wrote: +1 Feb 07 13 04:34 pm Link KA Style wrote: Agreed. I wouldn't want my name attached to those shots in a million years. The majority of the photographers at the Super Bowl are sports photographers who probably have little interest in protecting a celebrity's image. If they were celebrity photographers (not paparazzi) or concert photographers they wouldn't have posted those shots if they cared about their reputations. Feb 07 13 04:35 pm Link TimothyH wrote: because no sports photographer has ever published a pic of a soccer player with his package falling out. or a pic of a players face right in an opponent's nuts. or... Feb 07 13 04:37 pm Link AVD AlphaDuctions wrote: They are going to get a press pass for the next big game regardless of what they post. The same does not go true for someone who photographs celebs and works with publicists on a regular basis. Feb 07 13 04:40 pm Link TimothyH wrote: if these were the only series of pics circulating i would probably agree with you. but, as others have mentioned, this is really what she looked like and pretty much everyone seems to have the same images. some are even worse. I wonder why the publicist even bothered? Feb 07 13 04:51 pm Link My thoughts in no coherent order: 1 Famous person does something deliberately on stage in front of a worldwide audience. How is this not "news"? Viewable by all without fear or favor. 2 Image is shot by accredited photographer at the event. Nothing sneaky here. 3 The individual editors might show some discretion. That's where the publicist is putting the pressure. Not on the photographer. 4 The photographer is not working for the publicist. The publicist has two choices: go pound sand or buy all the image rights from Getty. 5 Is that Beyonce? What the hell happened to her nose? I thought that was Brittany Spears. 'Roided up tranny taking a dump, indeed. 6 I too have suppressed images of VIP's being indiscreet at parties, etc. I guess I lack the killer paparazzi instinct. 7 Nobody looks good with stage makeup. Have you ever seen a cheerleader up close? Theater is meant for medium or long distance viewing. Feb 07 13 04:51 pm Link Reality can hurt  Feb 07 13 04:58 pm Link On reflection, I think everyone posted pics of her looking bad because she shot with Terry and not with them Feb 07 13 05:12 pm Link Publicist has done this photographer a financial favour. Notoriety of images has increased with the requesr, so the value per licence increases and number of licences also increases. Suppress images, no sales. Sell images, good money. Seems simple to me Feb 08 13 03:31 am Link There are unflattering photos of any real music performance, but usually they are never shown or released for publication. The source of these photos is a staff photographer for Getty Images- a huge company that licenses photos from major events for publication by smaller magazines and more who can't afford their own photographer at an event. They generally have a great reputation, but this is a serious mistake on their part. The artist always controls media access to their performances, and I am certain that Beyonce will never allow them near her again. Other artists may follow suit as well when they see how willing Getty was to make Beyonce look bad. Getty and other sources of media photos may be required to get approval from an artist before releasing images now. Its a serious breach of the usually mutually supportive relationship between the media and artists. For concert photographers, this is the start of even more restrictions and limitations. A bad move by Getty. -Scott Feb 08 13 04:42 am Link Loki Studio wrote: Surely the real issue is that there is a market for images of celebs looking bad, not that Getty (or any other organisation) is willing to cater to that market? Look in the sunday supplements of the crappier newspapers for examples of this. Feb 08 13 05:24 am Link Matty272 wrote: Yes there is a market for paparazzi and negative photos of course. Legitimate media usually stays far away from paparazzi work and therefore gets special access. The artists will rethink special access for media that has a history of degrading them. Feb 08 13 11:17 am Link ok for publicist to request nicely (not demand) ok for the photographer/site to say no. in the long run though, this probably ends up hurting photographers because next time they won't allow photographers access, or if they do, they'll make them sign a 10 page contract first. which - lol - in the long run probably ends up hurting the artists because the publicists' over-control helps fuel the demand for paparazzi pictures where the publicists have virtually no control. Feb 08 13 11:33 am Link TimothyH wrote: Sure he will. Whose pictures are we all talking about? Feb 08 13 11:39 am Link EMRAGERD  Feb 08 13 12:14 pm Link -Ira wrote: Haha, fantastic! Feb 08 13 12:30 pm Link TimothyH wrote: I totally agree with you, granted she produce the expressions. But really, how many people we as photographers have captured models/clients and celebrities with a unexpected mood or look that happened in a very brief second, in the flow of a series of motions during a shoot. I wouldn't do it to anyone, but for speaking only for myself, I think it all come down to ones on personal ethics! It wouldn't be a label I would want to be known for... just my 2 cents. Feb 08 13 01:41 pm Link K E E L I N G wrote: You are so right, as if this was something that was really needed. Things is difficult enough as is. His intentions was definitely not to promote her. I am sure he had much better, then again was that his best? Feb 08 13 01:53 pm Link Swank Photography wrote: I disagree ,I shoot gigs regularly and If I had taken that pic damn right it would be released! Its a seller; what magazines want as you will all see when this is used everywhere. Feb 08 13 02:38 pm Link TimothyH wrote: He probably didn't take shitty pictures..He (or someone) just picked them..... A LOT of what we do is not what we show but what we don't show.. Feb 08 13 02:45 pm Link Wait am I missing the point/something, I thought she had this alto ego called (SASHA FIERCE), aren't these photo's showing her fierce side. Her publicist must have realized, she's just jumped out of the pan in to the fire. Talk about making a meal of nothing, she's a bloody human being. People are to court up on this perfectly groomed image of so called celebs n super stars: There good looking all day everyday (they were born photoshop'D or they have the skin of babies their whole lifes) they don't shit? (it doesn't stink) they don't fart? (it doesn't stink) they don't take drugs? (get high) they don't have boggies? (crap in their noses) they don't have cheesy feet? (feet stink) they don't stink? (don't need to wash) they don't suffer from acne?(never get spots) they don't get sti's? (they are immune to them) they don't get bad breath? (smells like peppermint always) they don't cheat? ( they stay with the same person for more than 1years, also if there hitched) they don't sleep around (because they are god most precious virgins, untouched by the sin of common man) list is endless, there human beings like us, can you say over it. In my OPINION, there only as big as people make them, not very big IMO. Photographer's though, there amazing Feb 08 13 05:08 pm Link I mean why would you post these? I know if I were a performer or anybody doing a performance, I would not want these pics out either. I know she was performing, but geez put the best pics up and not this garbage. Just my two cents. Feb 09 13 02:00 am Link Jake Jacobs wrote: I could not agree with you more on that!!!!!! Feb 09 13 02:02 am Link Those here who are saying these photos would never have seen the light of day if they'd been the photographer have obviously never covered an event of this sort for the press. I worked for PA Press in London a few years back and they got all the images from a shoot like this as the photographer doesn't have time to edit properly on site - that's the Picture Editor's job. The images come in and are categorised then given a chainsaw edit in Photoshop (even if the photographer has already done post work himself - i've seen it happen) and those deemed 'newsworthy' are sent to the board for subscribers to pick if they want them. 'Newsworthy' not 'flattering', you note. These were not taken by someone paid by Beyonce to do PR shots of Beyonce - they were press images. Now with wi-fi, those images were in all likelihood transmitted direct to the pic-desk as the photographer was shooting them, so even less chance he got to look at them first. Images of this type are pure gold to a News Agency - a 'nice' photo of Beyonce will sell, up to a point - images like this will sell to 1,000's more customers for way more than standard rate. Feb 09 13 02:44 am Link With high FPS cameras this is bound to happen. Feb 09 13 06:04 am Link The publicist handled this all wrong. Once the pictures were out, there's absolutely nothing that can be done about them. Even if the original request to have them taken down had been honored, they would surely have been copied by that time. The publicist should have turned a negative into a positive. They should have posted the shots themselves and put out a press release saying something to the effect of "Here's what a REAL singer / dancer looks like when she's putting on a show, LIVE, in front of several hundred thousand people - no multiple takes, no makeup artist, stylist, hair designer to 'fix' her up between filming a few frames at a time - how many of you can sing and perform a choreographed routine simultaneously? You think she looks bad? We are thrilled and proud that this gorgeous and multi-talented performer has the guts to let everyone know how physically demanding her work is." And so on. I don't understand why more people don't turn negatives into positives. It's just basic Marketing 101. Maybe her publicist needs to take it. Feb 09 13 06:26 am Link Melodye Joy wrote: This. And the publicist is an idiot. These are action shots of a performer doing her job well. Not lip synching the national anthem Feb 09 13 07:36 am Link |
