Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
What camera shot Kate Middleton
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Sep 22, 2012 10:06:06   #
Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)
 
While I am rarely a reader of supermarket tabloids, I could not help but notice the controversy over her topless photo. From what I understand, the shot was taken from over `1/2 mile away. Anyone on the hog know what camera/lens combo was used. Were this knowledge made public, I wonder how this would impact the manufacturers' sales

Reply
Sep 23, 2012 06:40:22   #
PhotoStar Loc: Calgary, Alberta
 
I wondered the same thing. I couldn't give a darn about all the fuss people are making, because they are just blowing things out of proportion. But what lens could take a decent image of someone half a mile away peaked my interest. I wondered if it was even a decent image.

Reply
Sep 23, 2012 07:38:26   #
BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD
 
In the picture I saw of the photographer and her rig, purpotably to be the one taking the shot, was using a Canon lens - that, is provided no other manufacturer uses whitish colored lenses. It was a biggg lens and she was using, I think I read 2 teleconvereters. The images were grainy but otherwise pretty good

Reply
 
 
Sep 23, 2012 07:44:15   #
JoeB Loc: Mohawk Valley, NY
 
Check this link out;

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/how-paparazzi-get-pics-that-make-royals-snap-20120917-262pm.html

Reply
Sep 23, 2012 08:02:14   #
Wahawk Loc: NE IA
 
Let's see now, 600mm plus a 2x extender.....
I could get that shot with my Canon SX40!!!

Reply
Sep 23, 2012 08:20:14   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
Shutterbugsailer wrote:
While I am rarely a reader of supermarket tabloids, I could not help but notice the controversy over her topless photo. From what I understand, the shot was taken from over `1/2 mile away. Anyone on the hog know what camera/lens combo was used. Were this knowledge made public, I wonder how this would impact the manufacturers' sales

Buy a new car, or buy long range camera equipment. :?

Reply
Sep 23, 2012 08:58:39   #
wbym300 Loc: Wisconsin
 
I sometimes use my astronomy scope to take land based wildlife photo's. At that distance the atmosphere has to be fairly clear and a tripod with remote trigger used. It could be done with an 800mm canon with a 2x converter.

Reply
 
 
Sep 23, 2012 09:11:34   #
rayford2 Loc: New Bethlehem, PA
 


The editorial seems more concerned about Royal Family pictures. I guess anyone else doesn't matter.

Paparazzi photographers have no morals; their main interest is the money.
One of the lowest occupations on earth.

Reply
Sep 23, 2012 09:36:05   #
rts2568
 
jerryc41 wrote:
Shutterbugsailer wrote:
While I am rarely a reader of supermarket tabloids, I could not help but notice the controversy over her topless photo. From what I understand, the shot was taken from over `1/2 mile away. Anyone on the hog know what camera/lens combo was used. Were this knowledge made public, I wonder how this would impact the manufacturers' sales

Buy a new car, or buy long range camera equipment. :?


Boy oh boy, you don't half like buying expensive cars?

rts2568

Reply
Sep 23, 2012 10:48:45   #
BigBear Loc: Northern CT
 
Wahawk wrote:
Let's see now, 600mm plus a 2x extender.....
I could get that shot with my Canon SX40!!!


It was reported to be a 300 2.8 with 2x. I was able to get a nice eagle shot with that combo when the eagle couldn't be seen without a lens.
It appears to me that whoever took the photos was a beginner or not experienced with an extender as the photos aren't really that good.

Reply
Sep 23, 2012 11:32:24   #
TdogKing
 
I don't think Paparazzi are doing anything wrong basically. They get paid to get pictures of famous (?) people who are out in public. If you don't want to be seen you can in most cases avoid it, but most seem to thrive on it and then complain about it. Most know the consequences when chasing the dream of being famous. If you don't want your topless pictures plastered all over the media then you better keep your top on or do a better job of staying concealed. Privacy is way different in todays world and thats a fact.

Reply
 
 
Sep 23, 2012 11:41:57   #
BigBear Loc: Northern CT
 
TdogKing wrote:
I don't think Paparazzi are doing anything wrong basically. They get paid to get pictures of famous (?) people who are out in public. If you don't want to be seen you can in most cases avoid it, but most seem to thrive on it and then complain about it. Most know the consequences when chasing the dream of being famous. If you don't want your topless pictures plastered all over the media then you better keep your top on or do a better job of staying concealed. Privacy is way different in todays world and thats a fact.
I don't think Paparazzi are doing anything wrong b... (show quote)


The issue is that Kate was NOT out in public. She was in a private area not knowing she was being observed. So in essence the photographer was invading her privacy. It's the same as tapping into a private phone line and stealing information.

Reply
Sep 23, 2012 11:58:53   #
TdogKing
 
The pictures show she was out where she could and did get her picture taken and thats considered 'out in public'. She of all people should know they are under a watchful eye and act accordingly. And its not at all like tapping into a phone line, you don't hear of any police investigation going on because she was again...'out in public'

Reply
Sep 23, 2012 12:14:04   #
OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR
 
600mm = $13,000
2X converter = $450
Hmmmm....now try to blend in with the typical beach crowd. ;)

Screen shot from video
Screen shot from video...

Reply
Sep 23, 2012 12:16:39   #
BigBear Loc: Northern CT
 
TdogKing wrote:
The pictures show she was out where she could and did get her picture taken and thats considered 'out in public'. She of all people should know they are under a watchful eye and act accordingly. And its not at all like tapping into a phone line, you don't hear of any police investigation going on because she was again...'out in public'


If you have to resort to using high-tech equipment to spy on someone who is in a private setting, you are an invader of their personal space and are subject to prosecution.

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.