Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Photography General Interest

Photography General Interest Neat Photo stuff NOT particularly about Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 04-27-2013   #41
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisP View Post
I think saying "Beyonce Banned" and calling her names is probably incorrect. These people make very few of their own decisions... They have PR teams that decide all this stuff for them... so the thread should probably say "the PR coordinator for Beyonce's current tour makes a decision to ban all pro photographers except a select few who they hand chose."

They probably didn't ask for her input at all in making this decision.
Then she must take full responsibility for what is done in her name. Otherwise, it's a reverse format of the old "We were only obeying orders" defence; "I was only following advice."

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2013   #42
hepcat
Former PH, USN
 
hepcat's Avatar
 
hepcat is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Eastern Iowa
Age: 64
Posts: 1,268
Oh c'mon guys... in the entertainment world, ANY press is "good press".... it all sells tickets, and that's the bottom line.
__________________
Leicas and lenses

Find me on the web...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-28-2013   #43
Turtle
Registered User
 
Turtle is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,628
True, but since when have egos been rational?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hepcat View Post
Oh c'mon guys... in the entertainment world, ANY press is "good press".... it all sells tickets, and that's the bottom line.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-28-2013   #44
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Ho, ho, ho. She really thinks this will get her GOOD publicity?

Cheers,

R.
I don't see your point. Do you honestly think this will get her bad publicity? Nobody really cares about this apart from a few paps who would normally try to get an unflattering shot they can sell to the tabloids. I hardly think any serious concert photographer is that keen on taking pictures at a Beyoncé concert and I also doubt that any freedom of the press advocate will waste their time with this.

So all in all it seems like a good move on her part as it will reduce the amount of unflattering pictures of her out there while doing little to no damage otherwise in regards to publicity. Unfortunately all of that will not help make her music bearable.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-28-2013   #45
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,595
I'm not anti Beyonce ... but I sure as hell don't like the talent void she represents.
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-28-2013   #46
Addy101
Registered User
 
Addy101 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,522
Some of you sound very much like grumpy old men. Beyonce is destroying American music? Really? Is American music (whatever that is) that vulnerable? It survived the British Invasion

These are her concerts, she decides who she allows in. It happened before and it will happen again. She only allows photographers she trusts visiting her concerts. I can't blame her seeing that picture!

And remember, it's her party, she cries if she wants to!
__________________
Das Bild ist ein Modell der Wirklichkeit - Wittgenstein
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2013   #47
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
 
noisycheese is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by frank-grumman View Post
some singer who shakes her crotch in front of the camera
...And then bitches about it when a photographer gets an image of her with her "girl" barely covered, standing on stage doing 8000 pelvic thrusts per minute with one foot in the EDT time zone and the other foot in the MDT time zone.
__________________
The Leica M passion: From the inside it's hard to explain; from the outside it's hard to understand.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-29-2013   #48
frank-grumman
Registered User
 
frank-grumman is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: SoCal/PA
Posts: 257
Indeed, sir, indeed. I have to think that if all she's got goin' for herself is her crotch, she might as well exploit it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2013   #49
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by frank-grumman View Post
Indeed, sir, indeed. I have to think that if all she's got goin' for herself is her crotch, she might as well exploit it.
Joke or not, that's quite offensive. Can we please dial down the misogyny a bit?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2013   #50
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie123 View Post
I don't see your point. Do you honestly think this will get her bad publicity? Nobody really cares about this apart from a few paps who would normally try to get an unflattering shot they can sell to the tabloids. I hardly think any serious concert photographer is that keen on taking pictures at a Beyoncé concert and I also doubt that any freedom of the press advocate will waste their time with this.

So all in all it seems like a good move on her part as it will reduce the amount of unflattering pictures of her out there while doing little to no damage otherwise in regards to publicity. Unfortunately all of that will not help make her music bearable.
It comes down to this: Those who can stand her will not be upset by the occasional very unflattering picture, and those who cannot stand her will merely have their opinions confirmed: on balance, therefore, bad publicity. It may also be that some newspapers/magazines will neglect to cover her concerts where otherwise they might: again bad publicity.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2013   #51
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
It comes down to this: Those who can stand her will not be upset by the occasional very unflattering picture, and those who cannot stand her will merely have their opinions confirmed: on balance, therefore, bad publicity. It may also be that some newspapers/magazines will neglect to cover her concerts where otherwise they might: again bad publicity.

Cheers,

R.
I don't think you're right here. Some of those who love and idolize her will gradually change their views if they see too many unflattering pictures of her. What they couldn't care less about is freedom of the press.
Those who cannot stand her won't really care about whether or not she allows photographers at her show. They don't want to see the pictures anyways.
And the magazines who cover such things will only stop doing so when they feel it no longer sells.
So all in all a very reasonable move by her and not really bad PR.

Don't get me wrong, I'd agree with you if this was a politician but I think the rules aren't quite the same with pop stars.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2013   #52
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie123 View Post
I don't think you're right here. Some of those who love and idolize her will gradually change their views if they see too many unflattering pictures of her. What they couldn't care less about is freedom of the press.
Those who cannot stand her won't really care about whether or not she allows photographers at her show. They don't want to see the pictures anyways.
And the magazines who cover such things will only stop doing so when they feel it no longer sells.
So all in all a very reasonable move by her and not really bad PR.

Don't get me wrong, I'd agree with you if this was a politician but I think the rules aren't quite the same with pop stars.
You are quite possibly right; perhaps even very likely right. Thanks for the clarity of argument.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2013   #53
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,599
The great hope is less photos, less TV shows about pathetic people foisted on the Public as IMPORTANT. They are not! The truth is TV is about selling these images.I watch PBS,TVO mostly. Mostly i switch off and go to internet..
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2013   #54
btgc
Registered User
 
btgc's Avatar
 
btgc is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,755
Popmusic is all about joke, so why can't they joke with public.
__________________
MyFlickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2013   #55
steveclem
Registered User
 
steveclem's Avatar
 
steveclem is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by hepcat View Post
Oh c'mon guys... in the entertainment world, ANY press is "good press".... it all sells tickets, and that's the bottom line.
I think in this case it's called the 'booty' line but feel free to correct me.
Pfft, she lives for the camera, take the rough with the smooth dear.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2013   #56
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,876
You guys take this stuff seriously huh?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2013   #57
nikkor-watching
Registered User
 
nikkor-watching is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 98
It all smacks of being rather precious, of course. When someone takes an extra-ordinary picture like that, it's bound to get published somewhere. I'm used to pictures of sportspeople and it's nothing unusual to me or them. Re celebrities attempting to protect their image, I'm more interested in the concrete harm that shots of unguarded celebrities has done in less than flattering circumstances. A haggard Melanie Griffiths comes to mind. Not done a lot in the past decade either. Her, I mean.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2013   #58
Cold
Registered User
 
Cold is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 106
I think it's rather telling that the woman has a website full (mostly) of male, middle aged guys gathered together by a common interest that is, according to most, "behind the times" seriously and interestingly discussing her.

Granted, she's part of the conversation here specifically because of the photography stuff, but we're all still here talking about her.

Perhaps her publicity team is not so dense as they may appear.

For what it's worth, while I'm not really a fan of her music, neither do I feel the need to pan the woman or her music because of her actions against photography. I don't think that this decree will do anything to stop or even reduce photography at her shows, but neither do I think that her publicity dept. really expect it to. Rather, I believe this was a measure to give them more legal ground upon which to stand and build a case against those publishing unflattering photos in the future.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2013   #59
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sejanus.Aelianus View Post
I can't quite see where Frank's joke is misogynistic or offensive. This is a woman who sells the image of "woman as sex-toy" and to my mind it lays her open to criticism on many levels. Frank's joke would, I suspect, gain approval from many feminists.
First of all, "sex-toy"? Wow...just....wow...

Last I checked she was just another pop star who wants to come across as sexy. We can discuss the gender politics of that but in no way does it warrant to reduce her to her sexual organs. There's plenty of male celebrieties around who try to have a sexy image but when people talk about a guy's lack of talent it would never occur to anyone to point out that at least they still have a penis. But apparently when it comes to women it's perfectly alright to point out that, even if they can't do anything else well, they can still be used for their hole.

And no, I don't think many feminists would approve of derogatory sexist comments about a woman just because she might promote a problematic image. But maybe you just don't know many feminists.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2013   #60
nikkor-watching
Registered User
 
nikkor-watching is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie123 View Post
There's plenty of male celebrieties around who try to have a sexy image but when people talk about a guy's lack of talent it would never occur to anyone to point out that at least they still have a penis. But apparently when it comes to women it's perfectly alright to point out that, even if they can't do anything else well, they can still be used for their hole.
The only one I saw writing in disgusting terms is you.
Everybody else recognised the laconic irony in Beyonce's presenting herself sexually, going awry. You are the only one perseverating with sexual content. You appear to be contaminated with the doctrine of "Original sin".
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2013   #61
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikkor-watching View Post
The only one I saw writing in disgusting terms is you.
Everybody else recognised the laconic irony in Beyonce's presenting herself sexually, going awry. You are the only one perseverating with sexual content. You appear to be contaminated with the doctrine of "Original sin".
That's the thing, though, this thread didn't start out being about sex or sexiness at all. But somewhere along the line it started turning into a group of guys joking about her bodyparts. Funny innit?

And as for me writing in disguting terms. Please. So it's all prefectly fine if you use tropes like "crotch" or "girl" for a vagina but as soon as you use a term that reflects the crudeness of what is actually being said it's disgusting? Right. Got it. We can all be misogynistic guys as long as we're gentlemen about it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2013   #62
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sejanus.Aelianus View Post
You are, of course, entitled to your views, while Frank, I and the rest of us are entitled to ours. I wouldn't bother letting it get serious. Sellebrities like this woman really aren't worth getting worked up about, when there are so many people of both sexes who are suffering far greater indignities on a daily basis.
I completely agree, we shouldn't get too worked up about it. Which is exactly why I kept my initial comment short and just proposed that we try to keep the misogyny in check. Just to quickly rehash what prompted my comment: frank said "some singer who shakes her crotch in front of the camera " to which noisycheese added "...And then bitches about it when a photographer gets an image of her with her "girl" barely covered" to which frenk replied that "...if all she's got goin' for herself is her crotch...".
So maybe you can see how I thought it might be good to dial it back, no?

I also agree that everybody's entitled to their opinion but what annoys me is when people act sanctimoniously about the offensive things they say. And I honestly have no particular interest in defending this celebrity. I find her mildly annoying but I don't have any strong opinions about her be they positive or negative. I will say, though, that just because there are great indignities in the world, does not mean we should actively add to the number of small ones.
  Reply With Quote

The Vagina Dialogue
Old 04-30-2013   #63
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
 
noisycheese is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,285
The Vagina Dialogue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie123 View Post
That's the thing, though, this thread didn't start out being about sex or sexiness at all. But somewhere along the line it started turning into a group of guys joking about her bodyparts. Funny innit?

And as for me writing in disguting terms. Please. So it's all prefectly fine if you use tropes like "crotch" or "girl" for a vagina but as soon as you use a term that reflects the crudeness of what is actually being said it's disgusting? Right. Got it. We can all be misogynistic guys as long as we're gentlemen about it.
I used the euphemism "girl" because I thought it would cause less of a kerfuffle than using the proper medical term, "Vagina." There are some folks who twitch at the use of medical terms for the reproductive parts of either gender (yes, even in the year 2013).

I will close with a historical note of interest that is germane to the analysis of my vaginal faux pas which has been held up to derision. I would like to point out that I was introduced to the use of "girl" as a substitute for "vagina" by a registered nurse in the ICU unit of the hospital where my mother-in-law was being prepped for heart surgery.

The ICU nurse in question had a "girl" of her own, by the way.

Given that fact, I naturally believed the use of "girl" when the RN referred to my mother-in-law's vagina was neither demeaning to women, misogynist in nature or politically motivated.

It is my fervent hope this revelation will allow us to lay the vagina dialogue to rest.
__________________
The Leica M passion: From the inside it's hard to explain; from the outside it's hard to understand.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2013   #64
darya151
Registered User
 
darya151 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie123 View Post
First of all, "sex-toy"? Wow...just....wow...

Last I checked she was just another pop star who wants to come across as sexy. We can discuss the gender politics of that but in no way does it warrant to reduce her to her sexual organs. There's plenty of male celebrieties around who try to have a sexy image but when people talk about a guy's lack of talent it would never occur to anyone to point out that at least they still have a penis. But apparently when it comes to women it's perfectly alright to point out that, even if they can't do anything else well, they can still be used for their hole.

And no, I don't think many feminists would approve of derogatory sexist comments about a woman just because she might promote a problematic image. But maybe you just don't know many feminists.
+1 to that!
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2013   #65
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 75
Posts: 3,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Patterson View Post
I remember a while back Barbra Streisand sued the California Coastline Project ( Commission? ) because they had posted an aerial view of her house. So, every news agency posted a link to the photo on their online news story. ..................
The epilogue to that was the California court found her suit so frivolous that Streisand had to pay the legal cost of the California Coastline Project defending itself.
__________________
http://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-30-2013   #66
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 75
Posts: 3,757
Strangely when Beyonce and JayZ showed up in Havana last month for their 5th anniversary, they had no problems being photographed everywhere on the street. Reports, including a first hand account, were that they were more than cordial to everyone they met. They are as big with the younger set down there as they are in the US. In most of the photos I saw, Beyonce was carrying some consumer Canon DSLR in her hand.
__________________
http://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:34.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.