This is where Ian Burley, DPNow's editor and founder, shares his unique thoughts and impressions on subjects that he hopes will be of interest to others on the subjects of digital photography and other related or loosely related topics! You can follow DPNow Editor's blog on Facebook and Twitter, too.
Photography technology v.s. the young Royals
Posted 14-09-12 at 06:21 PM by Ian
If you haven't yet heard the furore over the Paparazzi shots of the Duchess of Cambridge relaxing topless at a remote chateau in France, then where have you been?
I'll leave the debate over the acceptability of these pictures to others, although I personally feel the photographer and the magazine publisher most certainly did overstep the line and why shouldn't the Duchess sunbathe topless in private?
My point here is that the our Kate, and a few weeks earlier, Prince Harry, have both fallen victim to advances in camera technologies, although at very different ends of the spectrum.
Harry, of course, was caught out by the sheer pervasiveness of devices with cameras thanks to the smartphone. I wonder if this scandal would ever have happened even 5 years ago under similar circumstances.
With Kate, the problem for her is that the Paparazzi are better equipped than ever before. I haven't seen the pictures for myself, but I understand they are not very sharp. But it's also understood that the vantage point the photographer would have used is likely to be incredibly far from the chateau, lulling the Royal party into a misguided sense of seclusion.
But let's say this Paparazzi had a Nikon D800, and a 600mm f/4G ED VR AF-S, plus a 2x teleconverter, he would be equipped with an image stabilised 1200mm f/8 super telephoto lens. While Kate's image might have been tiny on the frame, with 36 megapixels and even more usable resolution with the D800E version of the camera, even if you cropped out 90% of the image you would still be left with 3.6 megapixels - more than enough for sharp A4 print - heck, I have printed 3 megapixel images to A3 and been surprised at how well they turned out.
And another thought - stick that 600mm Nikkor and converter onto a humble consumer Nikon D3200 and you have even more resolution to play with as the D3200 sensor pixel pitch is smaller than the D800's.
All this boils down to the fact that if you are a celebrity, a Paparazzi could be several hundred yards away and still get a sellable image of you. You have been warned!
I'll leave the debate over the acceptability of these pictures to others, although I personally feel the photographer and the magazine publisher most certainly did overstep the line and why shouldn't the Duchess sunbathe topless in private?
My point here is that the our Kate, and a few weeks earlier, Prince Harry, have both fallen victim to advances in camera technologies, although at very different ends of the spectrum.
Harry, of course, was caught out by the sheer pervasiveness of devices with cameras thanks to the smartphone. I wonder if this scandal would ever have happened even 5 years ago under similar circumstances.
With Kate, the problem for her is that the Paparazzi are better equipped than ever before. I haven't seen the pictures for myself, but I understand they are not very sharp. But it's also understood that the vantage point the photographer would have used is likely to be incredibly far from the chateau, lulling the Royal party into a misguided sense of seclusion.
But let's say this Paparazzi had a Nikon D800, and a 600mm f/4G ED VR AF-S, plus a 2x teleconverter, he would be equipped with an image stabilised 1200mm f/8 super telephoto lens. While Kate's image might have been tiny on the frame, with 36 megapixels and even more usable resolution with the D800E version of the camera, even if you cropped out 90% of the image you would still be left with 3.6 megapixels - more than enough for sharp A4 print - heck, I have printed 3 megapixel images to A3 and been surprised at how well they turned out.
And another thought - stick that 600mm Nikkor and converter onto a humble consumer Nikon D3200 and you have even more resolution to play with as the D3200 sensor pixel pitch is smaller than the D800's.
All this boils down to the fact that if you are a celebrity, a Paparazzi could be several hundred yards away and still get a sellable image of you. You have been warned!
Total Comments 4
Comments
-
There's a photo of the 'Pap's' position in the DM HERE. He seems to have been more than just a few hundred yards away too.
I've seen the offending pictures too. They're obviously tiny crops, not sharp and not especially clear but clear enough to show they were just an innocent couple. he was putting sun protection cream on her on one picture and she was putting on her bikini top in another picture. The others are the 'in-between' images.
Disgraceful behaviour by the photographer imho and also by the mgazine for publishing them. Now that Wills and Kate are suing, other publications might be less inclined to publish copies, according to Max Clifford.
And no, I won't tell how or were I viewed the pictures. They aren't worth the effort ... truly.
PolPosted 14-09-12 at 07:16 PM by Pol 
-
It's an outrageous invasion of privacy and entirely inappropriate. These type of pictures give photography a bad name (I nearly typed "bad image," but groaned at my own inadvetant pun) and in my view the type of photographers who do this dirty work lack the talent to succeed in more worthwhile areas of the business.
Presumably as the pictures were taken in France and published by a French magazine, the legal action will also happen in France. I believe their privacy laws are somewhat stricter than ours, so it could be interesting. The photographer and publishers might end up looking the real tits in this matter!Posted 14-09-12 at 08:20 PM by John Perriment
-
This was discussed on Radio 4 this evening. The pundit said that damages in France are much lower than in the US, for example with maximum payouts in the region of £20,000. They also said that the new celebrity magazines, like the offender, Closer, build in potential fines into their projections because it will be set off by huge sales than usual with the possibility of an extra print run and increased revenues from advertising.
Posted 14-09-12 at 09:45 PM by Caz
-
Pol, laughing at puns. I take it that only in Scotland is paps slang for breasts?
Posted 22-09-12 at 01:05 PM by TheBull1875
