h a l f b a k e r yNot just a think tank. An entire army of think.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Incorporate lots of reflective material (the kind they put on
backpacks and cycling gear) into clothes and accessories.
When someone takes a flash picture, the flash will bounce
straight back to the camera, and their photos will come out
overexposed, making them worthless. It would be especially
effective around the face: hats, sunglasses, scarves. If this
stuff catches on with enough celebs, it would turn into the
hot new fashion, and you could make big money.
Here's a question: could one make a pair of "mirror shades"
with lenses made with the same kind of treatment as that
reflective material? Design them to reflect most of the light,
but let enough through for clear vision. Or are the features
that give the material its special properties too large (large
enough to blur vision)? (This stuff might be good for use as car
rear windshields, too. Having their headlights sent right back
at them might help keep tall SUVs from tailgating cars and
blinding their drivers.)
HP Camera Privacy Protection System
http://www.timesonl...,,2-1353482,00.html
"Celebrities hounded by paparazzi may at last be able to emerge from behind their dark glasses without trepidation." [bristolz, Nov 29 2004]
David Bailey images....
http://www.google.c...en%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG
......I was flattered [normzone, Nov 29 2004]
[link]
|
| |
I'm afraid paparazzi photographers rarely use a flash for various reasons: |
|
| |
-if they do, they get caught |
|
| |
-the photographed object is so far away from their lenses that flashing won't improve the lighting quality. |
|
| |
- For the same reason, when taking pictures in the dark they use one of those night vision lenses (which make everything look green but don't distort the image when taking pictures of reflecting materials). |
|
| |
For these reasons I have to say that the inicial intention of this idea is very respectable (I think everybody should be entitled to have privacy) but it wouldn't change much the way paparazzi work. |
|
| |
I love to shoot black and white photos on film - sometimes I'll amuse myself by loading my pockets with film and roaming crowded streets, making images of lovesick couples, drinking bums, children misbehaving while their parents chase them, etc. |
|
| |
I wouldn't bother hounding celebs.....that's been done enough. |
|
| |
I spent two weeks in London doing this - during which time I was called pornographer, David Bailey, and paparazzi. Interesting interpretations of the artist's role....... |
|
| |
You mean people called you these things or, what, exactly? |
|
| |
I met a fellow in a pub, he suggested I talk to his girlfriend about modeling. I showed her my portfolio, which included what I consider some tasteful nudes. She said I was a pornographer. |
|
| |
I was taking pictures in Earl's Court tube station, after clearing it with the bobbies, and someone called me David Bailey - kind of him, I thought. |
|
| |
In the same location, a woman getting off the tube, who I was not photographing, sneered at me and called me paparazzi. |
|
| |
Well, everybody has a different expectation of privacy. If someone objected, my standard response was " I won't print it ". |
|
| |
The law tends to allow persons to be photographed in situations where there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy. I'm not a collector of up-skirt shots and the like, so I don't have too much trouble. I also find that film gets a different level of respect than digital. |
|
| |