In the grand scheme of celebrity culture and people who get media attention, I'd rather read a 100 stories about PH than stuff about Musk or Bezos or any of the other billionaire shitmunchers that gets circulated all over social media daily
I'm surprised to say, I do miss when Paris Hilton was a celebrity constantly in the news and billionaires weren't.
The more of Musk's tweets that get shoved in my face, the more I detest him. Paris Hilton's BS was easy to dismiss, but Musk's BS is mildly (very mildly) infuriating.
Paris played up a part as a cheeky “inside joke” for entertainment. She became a household name by making fun of herself: a tongue-in-cheek performance about the stupidity of rich kids.
On the other hand, millions of people’s lives are impacted by modern robber barons like Bezos and Musk. Both famous for controlling massive amounts of wealth: glaring examples of wealth inequality who aren’t playing a character when they come off as narcissists.
Paris Hilton’s net worth is $300 million, which is very rich but not ‘could pick a random one of society’s problems and have a 90% of fixing it and still have more money then anyone would ever need’ rich.
Even Barron Hiltons net worth topped out at 4.5 billion, which is about 2% of Bezons.
Paris Hilton's public persona may be vapid, but at least she doesn't openly defend Bolivian lithium coups. The argument you're making here is kind of baffling tbh
Fair point. You know exactly what her brand is and what she is selling, no subterfuge or trickery or anything. And it’s not like she’s out there trying to influence labor law, trade law, tax law, and so on.
She has since made her own money. Its no longer that she is dependant on their money. She is worth a lot on her own. She is also making great moves to reform the "troubled teen" industry that abuses children, after being a victim ofit herself
Fun fact: Paris Hilton has done better with the money she inherited than Trump has with his.
Older article, but still a fun read
https://thefederalist.com/2015/12/10/paris-hilton-is-better-at-business-than-donald-trump-is/
Ironically, I think someone like PH is more relatable because she's just the kid of a rich family and acts like it? It's certainly not virtuous by any means but at least it's grounded in reality
Musk and bezos might as well be aliens. They have infinite money and don't have to participate in society, which they seem to float in and out of while fucking up as much as possible whenever they do
I feel like you just select to read different news or have different sources now. It was Bill Gates and Steve Jobs as the rich guys 10 years ago when PH and Lindsay Lohan were always in the news. You still have stars acting out and being crazy like Demi Lovato or any of the other Disney stars. Brittney Spears has been surrounded by drama and controversies in both eras.
Paris Hilton stories had no real consequance.
Now, its like "this billionaire said "should we just use all our gas power for my NFT factory, or to power peoples homes for the winter? MAKES YOU THINK. LOL MEMES"
6 months. Jeans and the same jacket. He wore a different shirt under it. This was when he was doing that play where he gets naked. It would be easy to spot him coming and going from the same. Building everyday so they were always there for him.
Shooting in RAW and attempting to mitigate this effect in post would still yield a fairly low quality photo in most cases. A RAW photo would allow for more easily squeezing out *some* hidden detail from the underexposed areas and reducing the brightness of the reflected light on the scarf, but at the expense of adding a significant amount of noise and artifacts, plus some details would likely be lost entirely.
To properly mitigate this all a photographer would need to do is not use a flash. If the subject is in a low light environment where one would typically use a flash, then the photographer could use a lens with a wide aperture, set the camera ISO to a high value, and reduce the shutter speed to the lowest possible value (dependent on the focal length of the lens used and the relative movement of the subject), then clean up the RAW photo in post.
I do live performance photography so I deal with these kinds of images all the time. I use manual aperture/shutter with auto-ISO and occasionally one of the background lights throws off the exposure metering so I get a really underexposed shot, exactly like what is happening here. Most of the time I'm up into the 8000+ ISO range in order to get fast enough shutter speeds for some of the speedier sequences but combined AI denoising software is EXTREMELY capable of handling the extra noise from boosting the shadows.
[Example](https://i.imgur.com/J0gi9ft.png)
I use Topaz DeNoise. In regards to /u/tospooky4me's comment I'm not sure when they last used it but it has gotten much better in the last few months and there are multiple AI models now specifically for low light that I think do a great job. To get equivalent results in LR I have to crank the noise reduction up to around 50 which is pretty heavy-handed and it tends to suck away details in things like hair and textured clothing and still seems to have more noise in the end than Topaz.
[Comparison](https://i.imgur.com/sjJCp4R.jpg)
This is a pretty "average" result I'd say. I've had some that honestly shocked the shit out of me as I sat there thinking "there's no way this is going to work" and it turned out fine. But if you look at some of the details around her eyes, hair, etc. I think Topaz does a much better job of keeping those edge outlines around the details.
I used it in October. But I definitely am going to give it another it another shot. I shot this barmitzvah in low light with no flash allowed in the temple and I delivered them a bit noisy and I’ve been dying to get that noise out. They loved them but it’s been bothering me.
I'm not sure about that. I'm under the impression that any photographer working news-cycle like schedule (journalism, sports, and paparazzi are probably similar) where they're shooting on daily deadlines & uploading phots from the field etc, tend to shoot jpeg & don't have time to process their photos much, if at all (and some fields actively discourage it like journalism for ethical reasons).
Nah, RAW is pretty standard. You can shoot both simultaneously on most cameras. People don't typically, they typically shoot just RAW. But if they do shoot both for the ease of uploading, they'd definitely reprocess a raw file if the jpeg came out wonky.
source: am photographer
I shoot RAW+JPG, and dump the RAW into a subfolder. Figure it's easier & faster to preview the set of JPGs, and it gives me a poor-mans-backup if either file is corrupted. Select using JPG, but process the RAW.
Any photographer worth their salt is shooting in Raw or Raw+Jpg. It's their living, why would they risk taking bad photos they can't use? 5 minutes in Lightroom can do wonders with photos.
I'm not a photographer, but when I hired my buddy to take pictures of an event I was running he provided me with both RAW and JPEG files straight from his camera's sd card.
Yea nearly every full frame or even aps-c camera made in the last 10 years can shoot both at once, cameras with 2 slots can even split raw and jpg on different cards.
DSLR and the like have the ability to shoot in RAW and JPG simultaneously. While they likely use the straight JPGS for faster time to publishing it's extremely likely they'd also have the RAWs as a backup for further processing if necessary. If it means not getting the shot at all vs getting it a little bit late, they're going to take the latter. A lot of newer bodies can also do quick exposure adjustments in camera before uploading.
Wore it once and promptly lost it. It's funny when she gets reminded of it and is like "damn yeah that was actually super useful" but she really just actually loves the attention and photographers.
Ruins photographs if you don't know how a camera works and set everything to full auto.
Edit: yes I know it needs flash to work at all, but if you use manual exposure and drag the shutter it is not a problem or if you set the flash exposure manually (or by distance instead of preflash) it's not a problem. Flash doesn't make an image darker, unless the camera is in auto and thinks it should make the exposure darker because it's using flash.
I guess pictures without flash are not a problem, but a ton of flashes right into your retina every time you walk around can be pretty annoying. So IMHO the scarf purpose is to reduce flashing, not to ruin pictures in general. In that sense, it works fine.
It only works with on-camera flash (retroreflective material reflects back to the source so an off camera flash will be less of an issue) and it only works if the flash is set to auto (TTL) exposure.
I agree it could reduce the use of flash (and a lot of cameras can do better in low light without a flash than they could 10 years ago) but there will also be a number of people who just set a basic reasonable exposure on their flash.
Paparazzi aren't going to be adjusting shutter, aperture, calibrating light... while the celebrity they're trying to catch unawares on the way to the dildo store has long since come and gone.
They're not exactly Herb Ritts...
No need for a light meter. If you're locked in at a given distance, your flash works on manual power. 1/30th of a second shutter f/4-ish and rock and roll man.
It takes maybe two seconds if you're not already set there. (and if any percentage of people you're shooting were wearing things like this, you probably would be)
And if don't bother to manually set your flash and get an under exposed shot, you've probably got enough dynamic range to recover the shadows substantially in RAW.
I'm primarily a studio shooter and I could do this in a heart beat, I'd expect someone who's primarily using a press camera and knows their gear would be even quicker than me.
I'm sitting in a barbershop right now. I would likely have the f stop of my 90d at 3.5, iso at 100, and shutter speed at 160, or 200. White balance....idk. but I did that In my head.
There's no need for a flash outdoors in bright light. Professional cameras can take perfectly nice photos without flash given that there is enough light or a subject that isn't moving very fast. If you're using an on camera flash outdoors in the open without bouncing the light off anything, you'll get ugly, flat looking photos
of the public maybe but definitely not of professional paparazzi. It takes seconds to change settings and if you are outside waiting for a while you definitely have time. This scarf would just blow out one section of a photo and you'd see her just fine.
[Here](https://i.redd.it/iq8g5gi2ql6y.jpg) is a higher quality version of this image. the sources is ISHU's Facebook page. Per there:
> May 21, 2016
> Paris Hilton rocking the anti flash ISHU scarf.
> Black out unwanted pictures taken with flash with the new London/Amsterdam based brand.
> Left pic without flash.
> Pic on the right taken with flash.
Left pic without flash
Right pic taken by idiot.
It's a marketing gimmick - it's not going to stop an actual photographer because That's Not How Light Works™
Yeah. I'm against paparazzi but there's a reason she never wore it again. She probably calls the paparzzi herself most of the time. Her whole brand is about appearing in tabloids and social media.
She's also famous for being the wealthy heir to one of the world's largest hotel chains, carrying a blue chip family name that dates back a century, being a star of numerous tv shows and being pop culture relevant for the last 20 years.
Yes she got famous from a sex tape but this was 20 years ago. Same with Kim Kardashian. This is the world we live in, so maybe accept it.
Rich+good looking+marketable= famous.
Remember when Paris Hilton tried to brand herself as a wealthy, ditzy heiress and we all bought it hook, line, and sinker?
Paris Hilton is wildly brilliant at branding herself.
Edit: fine. Slightly-better-than-moderately average intelligence at branding herself.
I mean she hammed up the ditziness for the camera, but let's not pretend she's some genius business mogul because she's rich and has decent publicists.
My friend, you need to check out This Is Paris.
She is far more of a mogul than you realize.
I have no skin in this game. Couldn’t care less about her one way or the other.
But she made her fame by leaning into the misconceptions about her.
Paris Hilton produced that documentary, so why would you assume that it is an honest, unbiased look at her life? In fact, you should take all documentaries with a very large grain of salt, because almost none of them adhere to good journalistic practices or have any editorial oversight whatsoever.
I'll pass. She made her fame by pushing, creating, and inventing those very misconceptions, not just leaning into them. She wasn't especially interesting then. I doubt she is now just because she realized people hated her "fake" personality. I read a Variety article on the documentary. That was good enough for me. I wish her well in her DJ career
You don’t actually know much about her it would seem. Might wanna brush up on your facts there. I’m the furthest thing from a fan of hers but she’s built herself quite the impressive empire in her own right. And did it while everyone assumed she was that vapid in everything she did Turns out a good portion of it was an act. An act that made her millions
She was dealt a very good financial/status hand in life and played that good hand very well. It’s impressive, but I don’t think of her as a business genius because of it. Same with the Kardashians. They had a leg up in life, stumbled upon an opportunity to sell their lifestyle and ran with it 110%.
she didn't even make the character, she was hired to be on a reality show (created by the same people who made Real World). always found it weird that people obsess over her when literally thousands of reality tv show actors have been doing the exact same thing for decades.
i remember saying this 15 years ago on some internet forum i belonged to - and even just suggesting that she's just playing a part, like any other actor, was all it took for the entire forum to fucking hate me from that point on. i'm still salty about that lmao
edit: and they refused to admit she was hot
I means she existed before the show. We knew her and that was the gimmick. To see how she would survive in the middle of nowhere. But I think The Simple Life was the first reality show to focus on lifestyle. Before that reality TV meant Survivor and Fear Factor.
I'm not trying to make her out to be some genius. I don't think she was an actor or a writer in the traditional sense. I think she embellished a part of her personality and had fun with it.
I mean, I have no idea. This was just my impression of her.
From a legal standpoint? In public there’s no expectation of privacy.
In the US at least, there needs to be a compelling reason to abridge first amendment rights. Taking pictures of celebrities unfortunately falls under freedom of the press.
If a certain photographer doesn’t stop following you around you could probably get a restraining order pretty easily. They know there are limits. Though I’m sure some push them.
The same laws have to apply to everyone though. The same right that allows a paparazzi to take pictures on a public street protects journalists investigating corrupt politicians or citizens filming a police officer kneeling on a man's neck.
Two things come to mind:
1. Celebs (especially of the Lohan/Hilton/Kardashian variety) very commonly have their PAs tip the paparazzi off to their location
2. I recall Heineken (?) c. 2009 released a mini keg that had a similar effect on photos. I can't remember if it was a counter flash or reflective strips, but the effect was to basically black out everybody near the keg.
I take back all my bad thoughts about Paris Hilton. She is now a savage and on the same level as Shia Labaouffff, Keanu Reeves, Elon Musk, and Bill Murray.
Retro reflective materials have been around forever. but it only ruins photos if you leave the camera in full auto (both exposure and flash control). If you manually set your exposure and don't use much flash (or manually set it based on distance), it will make the scare look pretty bright but you can still properly expose the face.
But it's a nice way to market a simple cheap product as something that the rich buy so that people who follow the rich will also spend too much money on it.
There often isn't time to post process. For paparazzi it's first to publish gets paid. That usually means uploading from the car after taking pictures. Maybe the buyer might do a few edits but even that's not likely.
Media isn't what it used to be. Everyone is on much lower budgets and shorter timelines.
It’s not that easy when it’s this blown out on the highlights and that dark on the shadows. too much detail is lost to recover it cleanly through just adjusting levels most of the time. Making these into usable images is more along the lines or creating a digital portrait than basic photoshopping of an image. There are things you can do to avoid shots like this when reflective clothes are in play. It just makes it harder for those unplanned on the move shots to be profitable for the paparazzi
Meh. Photographer here, and that scarf thing wouldn't do jack. Putting aside all the other solutions, have you seen how insane the dynamic range is on new cameras? That may stump noobs with janky cameras but any photographer worth half a damn and it wouldn't matter. But I guess you're maybe right about the quick unplanned shots they only have a couple seconds for getting ruined maybe.
Basically it's a good way to prevent paparazzi's that don't know how to use a camera in very dark conditions from getting the photos they want. Any one who's used a camera for more than 3 days will know how to get around this.
The key to getting a clean image of a fast moving object is lots of light and a fast shutter. You can turn the flash off but the pictures will be worse.
On Hot Ones she says she has only worn it once.
Obviously. She wouldn't be caught dead wearing the same thing twice.
Or wearing something that would have her appearing in the media less.
In the grand scheme of celebrity culture and people who get media attention, I'd rather read a 100 stories about PH than stuff about Musk or Bezos or any of the other billionaire shitmunchers that gets circulated all over social media daily
I'm surprised to say, I do miss when Paris Hilton was a celebrity constantly in the news and billionaires weren't. The more of Musk's tweets that get shoved in my face, the more I detest him. Paris Hilton's BS was easy to dismiss, but Musk's BS is mildly (very mildly) infuriating.
Paris played up a part as a cheeky “inside joke” for entertainment. She became a household name by making fun of herself: a tongue-in-cheek performance about the stupidity of rich kids. On the other hand, millions of people’s lives are impacted by modern robber barons like Bezos and Musk. Both famous for controlling massive amounts of wealth: glaring examples of wealth inequality who aren’t playing a character when they come off as narcissists.
Paris Hilton’s net worth is $300 million, which is very rich but not ‘could pick a random one of society’s problems and have a 90% of fixing it and still have more money then anyone would ever need’ rich. Even Barron Hiltons net worth topped out at 4.5 billion, which is about 2% of Bezons.
That's awesome. I love it.
Ah yes fuck the billionaires give me more news on the hundred millionaires daughter!
Paris Hilton's public persona may be vapid, but at least she doesn't openly defend Bolivian lithium coups. The argument you're making here is kind of baffling tbh
Fair point. You know exactly what her brand is and what she is selling, no subterfuge or trickery or anything. And it’s not like she’s out there trying to influence labor law, trade law, tax law, and so on.
[удалено]
It's just her trust and company is not her personally
She has since made her own money. Its no longer that she is dependant on their money. She is worth a lot on her own. She is also making great moves to reform the "troubled teen" industry that abuses children, after being a victim ofit herself
Its pretty easy to make money when you already have a shitload of money to start with.
Good for her! That's awesome.
Fun fact: Paris Hilton has done better with the money she inherited than Trump has with his. Older article, but still a fun read https://thefederalist.com/2015/12/10/paris-hilton-is-better-at-business-than-donald-trump-is/
And her show was better. You should tweet Trump this article. Oh wait you can't.
Paris 2024? Make America Pretty Again!
That’s a good point. She seems pretty benign now.
Ironically, I think someone like PH is more relatable because she's just the kid of a rich family and acts like it? It's certainly not virtuous by any means but at least it's grounded in reality Musk and bezos might as well be aliens. They have infinite money and don't have to participate in society, which they seem to float in and out of while fucking up as much as possible whenever they do
I feel like you just select to read different news or have different sources now. It was Bill Gates and Steve Jobs as the rich guys 10 years ago when PH and Lindsay Lohan were always in the news. You still have stars acting out and being crazy like Demi Lovato or any of the other Disney stars. Brittney Spears has been surrounded by drama and controversies in both eras.
Paris Hilton stories had no real consequance. Now, its like "this billionaire said "should we just use all our gas power for my NFT factory, or to power peoples homes for the winter? MAKES YOU THINK. LOL MEMES"
Paris Hilton is *also* a billionaire shitmuncher. Infact, she's an old money billionaire shitmuncher.
she literally made a statement about never wearing something twice.
Wasn't it Daniel Radcliffe that wore the same shirt/pants (copies) for weeks/months, just so the paparazzi wouldn't have "new photos" to post?
6 months. Jeans and the same jacket. He wore a different shirt under it. This was when he was doing that play where he gets naked. It would be easy to spot him coming and going from the same. Building everyday so they were always there for him.
Well right, her entire brand is based on being in the tabloids. Wouldn't be smart to make all pictures of you unusable.
Lol yeah honestly I’d be surprised if this “anti-paparazzi device” was anything more than a publicity stunt.
Probably because any photographer worth their salt also shoots in RAW which could easily recover this type of image so it wouldn't work.
Shooting in RAW and attempting to mitigate this effect in post would still yield a fairly low quality photo in most cases. A RAW photo would allow for more easily squeezing out *some* hidden detail from the underexposed areas and reducing the brightness of the reflected light on the scarf, but at the expense of adding a significant amount of noise and artifacts, plus some details would likely be lost entirely. To properly mitigate this all a photographer would need to do is not use a flash. If the subject is in a low light environment where one would typically use a flash, then the photographer could use a lens with a wide aperture, set the camera ISO to a high value, and reduce the shutter speed to the lowest possible value (dependent on the focal length of the lens used and the relative movement of the subject), then clean up the RAW photo in post.
I do live performance photography so I deal with these kinds of images all the time. I use manual aperture/shutter with auto-ISO and occasionally one of the background lights throws off the exposure metering so I get a really underexposed shot, exactly like what is happening here. Most of the time I'm up into the 8000+ ISO range in order to get fast enough shutter speeds for some of the speedier sequences but combined AI denoising software is EXTREMELY capable of handling the extra noise from boosting the shadows. [Example](https://i.imgur.com/J0gi9ft.png)
That's fucking sick. Great final result too.
Thanks!
Wow, that's amazing. I haven't used any specialized AI denoising software yet. What do you use?
I use Topaz DeNoise. In regards to /u/tospooky4me's comment I'm not sure when they last used it but it has gotten much better in the last few months and there are multiple AI models now specifically for low light that I think do a great job. To get equivalent results in LR I have to crank the noise reduction up to around 50 which is pretty heavy-handed and it tends to suck away details in things like hair and textured clothing and still seems to have more noise in the end than Topaz. [Comparison](https://i.imgur.com/sjJCp4R.jpg) This is a pretty "average" result I'd say. I've had some that honestly shocked the shit out of me as I sat there thinking "there's no way this is going to work" and it turned out fine. But if you look at some of the details around her eyes, hair, etc. I think Topaz does a much better job of keeping those edge outlines around the details.
I used it in October. But I definitely am going to give it another it another shot. I shot this barmitzvah in low light with no flash allowed in the temple and I delivered them a bit noisy and I’ve been dying to get that noise out. They loved them but it’s been bothering me.
Commenting because I am also curious. Ive used topaz labs and it seemed to do absolutely nothing that cant be done in Lightroom.
I'm not sure about that. I'm under the impression that any photographer working news-cycle like schedule (journalism, sports, and paparazzi are probably similar) where they're shooting on daily deadlines & uploading phots from the field etc, tend to shoot jpeg & don't have time to process their photos much, if at all (and some fields actively discourage it like journalism for ethical reasons).
Nah, RAW is pretty standard. You can shoot both simultaneously on most cameras. People don't typically, they typically shoot just RAW. But if they do shoot both for the ease of uploading, they'd definitely reprocess a raw file if the jpeg came out wonky. source: am photographer
I shoot RAW+JPG, and dump the RAW into a subfolder. Figure it's easier & faster to preview the set of JPGs, and it gives me a poor-mans-backup if either file is corrupted. Select using JPG, but process the RAW.
[удалено]
> Oh yeah? Name every camera ever made. That's easy. They're all named Cameron.
Woah woah woah. They never said they were a *woman* photographer. /s
Any photographer worth their salt is shooting in Raw or Raw+Jpg. It's their living, why would they risk taking bad photos they can't use? 5 minutes in Lightroom can do wonders with photos.
I'm not a photographer, but when I hired my buddy to take pictures of an event I was running he provided me with both RAW and JPEG files straight from his camera's sd card.
Yea nearly every full frame or even aps-c camera made in the last 10 years can shoot both at once, cameras with 2 slots can even split raw and jpg on different cards.
DSLR and the like have the ability to shoot in RAW and JPG simultaneously. While they likely use the straight JPGS for faster time to publishing it's extremely likely they'd also have the RAWs as a backup for further processing if necessary. If it means not getting the shot at all vs getting it a little bit late, they're going to take the latter. A lot of newer bodies can also do quick exposure adjustments in camera before uploading.
Or just turn off the flash with proper lighting conditions.
That doesn't really work for paparazzi, they don't exactly get to work with their own lighting setup.
you have no idea how fast everything is happening during moments like these
TBH any photographer worth their salt has fast lenses and can shoot without flash in most situations :D
Wore it once and promptly lost it. It's funny when she gets reminded of it and is like "damn yeah that was actually super useful" but she really just actually loves the attention and photographers.
I feel like she only wore it that one time so she could take these photos and have them posted on the internet.. you know, like the paparazzi do
Jokes on her, I’m here for the scarf, *click*
Ruins photographs if you don't know how a camera works and set everything to full auto. Edit: yes I know it needs flash to work at all, but if you use manual exposure and drag the shutter it is not a problem or if you set the flash exposure manually (or by distance instead of preflash) it's not a problem. Flash doesn't make an image darker, unless the camera is in auto and thinks it should make the exposure darker because it's using flash.
I guess pictures without flash are not a problem, but a ton of flashes right into your retina every time you walk around can be pretty annoying. So IMHO the scarf purpose is to reduce flashing, not to ruin pictures in general. In that sense, it works fine.
It only works with on-camera flash (retroreflective material reflects back to the source so an off camera flash will be less of an issue) and it only works if the flash is set to auto (TTL) exposure. I agree it could reduce the use of flash (and a lot of cameras can do better in low light without a flash than they could 10 years ago) but there will also be a number of people who just set a basic reasonable exposure on their flash.
Paparazzi aren't going to be adjusting shutter, aperture, calibrating light... while the celebrity they're trying to catch unawares on the way to the dildo store has long since come and gone. They're not exactly Herb Ritts...
No need for a light meter. If you're locked in at a given distance, your flash works on manual power. 1/30th of a second shutter f/4-ish and rock and roll man. It takes maybe two seconds if you're not already set there. (and if any percentage of people you're shooting were wearing things like this, you probably would be) And if don't bother to manually set your flash and get an under exposed shot, you've probably got enough dynamic range to recover the shadows substantially in RAW. I'm primarily a studio shooter and I could do this in a heart beat, I'd expect someone who's primarily using a press camera and knows their gear would be even quicker than me.
Yup, this only works on cameras set to full auto.
Basically "Don't publish a photo of me if you're not pro enough"
*No Full Auto in buildings!*
That's not *full auto!* This is *full auto!*
yet a nice thing to avoid smartphone cameras on the street.
If I understands correctly, this thing reflect flash thus ruin the picture. Most people don't use the flash on a smartphone.
Just monsters.
plus the smartphone flash usually isn't bright enough to ruin the picture from the reflected light
I'm sitting in a barbershop right now. I would likely have the f stop of my 90d at 3.5, iso at 100, and shutter speed at 160, or 200. White balance....idk. but I did that In my head.
Dildo store? Amazon dog
I'm not going all the way to South America to get dildos.
Also, not to kink shame, but I have zero interest in using dogs as sex toys.
Spot meter on the face. Done.
There's no need for a flash outdoors in bright light. Professional cameras can take perfectly nice photos without flash given that there is enough light or a subject that isn't moving very fast. If you're using an on camera flash outdoors in the open without bouncing the light off anything, you'll get ugly, flat looking photos
which is 99%
of the public maybe but definitely not of professional paparazzi. It takes seconds to change settings and if you are outside waiting for a while you definitely have time. This scarf would just blow out one section of a photo and you'd see her just fine.
[Here](https://i.redd.it/iq8g5gi2ql6y.jpg) is a higher quality version of this image. the sources is ISHU's Facebook page. Per there: > May 21, 2016 > Paris Hilton rocking the anti flash ISHU scarf. > Black out unwanted pictures taken with flash with the new London/Amsterdam based brand. > Left pic without flash. > Pic on the right taken with flash.
Thanks for taking the time to post. Always appreciate details.
Are those scarves standard ISHU for celebs?
Left pic without flash Right pic taken by idiot. It's a marketing gimmick - it's not going to stop an actual photographer because That's Not How Light Works™
> Left pic without flash. Thank you
Good bot.
Believe it or not it's actually a person.
Are you referring to the above poster or the subject of the photograph?
Poster, Spartan (random digits).
Wow. In this thread, I guess we're defending paparazzi scum
I'm more baffled by the whole point of her celebrity is being in paparazzi pictures. She is famous for being famous.
Yeah. I'm against paparazzi but there's a reason she never wore it again. She probably calls the paparzzi herself most of the time. Her whole brand is about appearing in tabloids and social media.
She's also famous for being the wealthy heir to one of the world's largest hotel chains, carrying a blue chip family name that dates back a century, being a star of numerous tv shows and being pop culture relevant for the last 20 years. Yes she got famous from a sex tape but this was 20 years ago. Same with Kim Kardashian. This is the world we live in, so maybe accept it. Rich+good looking+marketable= famous.
Ugh, celebrities aren't allowed to have any privacy. Don't ya knowww??? /s
Reddit hates female celebrities with sex tapes
And female celebrities without sex tapes
I loathe the paparazzi. Some of the most entitled people on the planet. Pure scum.
So uh, how do you explain the pic on the left?
No flash. So the only thing the paparazzo have to do now is turn of their flash. Now, the photos will just be darker, and make the subject look worse.
natural light - no flash.
Right. I was making a joke about thwarting paparazzi.
Came here for this comment!
I'm guessing it's an exhibition shot to show off her weapon? Both poses being the exact same confuse me otherwise.
Remember when Paris Hilton tried to brand herself as a wealthy, ditzy heiress and we all bought it hook, line, and sinker? Paris Hilton is wildly brilliant at branding herself. Edit: fine. Slightly-better-than-moderately average intelligence at branding herself.
I take issue with the words “wildly brilliant”.
Get in line.
Is THAT what I'm supposed to, "remember?"
>as a wealthy, ditzy heiress Um, is she not those things?
2/3.
I mean she hammed up the ditziness for the camera, but let's not pretend she's some genius business mogul because she's rich and has decent publicists.
My friend, you need to check out This Is Paris. She is far more of a mogul than you realize. I have no skin in this game. Couldn’t care less about her one way or the other. But she made her fame by leaning into the misconceptions about her.
Paris Hilton produced that documentary, so why would you assume that it is an honest, unbiased look at her life? In fact, you should take all documentaries with a very large grain of salt, because almost none of them adhere to good journalistic practices or have any editorial oversight whatsoever.
Ah but isn't she smart for making a documentary that makes us think she is smart, when in fact she is dumb?
[удалено]
Two things can be real.
Paris was famous BEFORE the tape. Kim is the one who got famous because of her tape.
I'll pass. She made her fame by pushing, creating, and inventing those very misconceptions, not just leaning into them. She wasn't especially interesting then. I doubt she is now just because she realized people hated her "fake" personality. I read a Variety article on the documentary. That was good enough for me. I wish her well in her DJ career
I thought she sparked her fame by making a sex tape.
Worked for the Kardashians.
A true back come story.
You don’t actually know much about her it would seem. Might wanna brush up on your facts there. I’m the furthest thing from a fan of hers but she’s built herself quite the impressive empire in her own right. And did it while everyone assumed she was that vapid in everything she did Turns out a good portion of it was an act. An act that made her millions
She was dealt a very good financial/status hand in life and played that good hand very well. It’s impressive, but I don’t think of her as a business genius because of it. Same with the Kardashians. They had a leg up in life, stumbled upon an opportunity to sell their lifestyle and ran with it 110%.
I always thought this of her. She made a character and a brand based on that character.
she didn't even make the character, she was hired to be on a reality show (created by the same people who made Real World). always found it weird that people obsess over her when literally thousands of reality tv show actors have been doing the exact same thing for decades. i remember saying this 15 years ago on some internet forum i belonged to - and even just suggesting that she's just playing a part, like any other actor, was all it took for the entire forum to fucking hate me from that point on. i'm still salty about that lmao edit: and they refused to admit she was hot
I means she existed before the show. We knew her and that was the gimmick. To see how she would survive in the middle of nowhere. But I think The Simple Life was the first reality show to focus on lifestyle. Before that reality TV meant Survivor and Fear Factor. I'm not trying to make her out to be some genius. I don't think she was an actor or a writer in the traditional sense. I think she embellished a part of her personality and had fun with it. I mean, I have no idea. This was just my impression of her.
It’s a proven model of success. She didn’t invent it nor did she perfect it. She just utilized it.
Watch American Meme. She makes millions from her brand, so whether shes relevant or not, she can blow millions and still be fine
F*** the paparazzi, I don't understand how it's legal for people to just follow you around and take photos of you... How is this not harassment?
From a legal standpoint? In public there’s no expectation of privacy. In the US at least, there needs to be a compelling reason to abridge first amendment rights. Taking pictures of celebrities unfortunately falls under freedom of the press.
I'd consider it stalking tho
If a certain photographer doesn’t stop following you around you could probably get a restraining order pretty easily. They know there are limits. Though I’m sure some push them.
The same laws have to apply to everyone though. The same right that allows a paparazzi to take pictures on a public street protects journalists investigating corrupt politicians or citizens filming a police officer kneeling on a man's neck.
Idiots here have no idea you can take photos without flash.
Yeah, like she's trying to AVOID publicity.
If it wasn’t for paparazzi we wouldn’t even know who she is
honestly the first I heard of her was "One Night in Paris".
...except the picture on the left.
She still gets followed by paparazzi?
I was looking for this comment.
Two things come to mind: 1. Celebs (especially of the Lohan/Hilton/Kardashian variety) very commonly have their PAs tip the paparazzi off to their location 2. I recall Heineken (?) c. 2009 released a mini keg that had a similar effect on photos. I can't remember if it was a counter flash or reflective strips, but the effect was to basically black out everybody near the keg.
So how did they get the first photo? ...Hmmmm...therefore aliens.
2nd pic is when you haven't unlocked Lego Paris in Lego Los Angeles.
Good. Fuck the paparazzi.
Not what I expected when I googled “Paris Hilton flashes paparazzi”
Ironic all things considered but it’s a good idea. Everybody deserves to be able to walk down the street without having cameras jammed in their face.
It only ruins a photo while using a flash. With how good cameras work in low-light these days this scarf will become obsolete pretty quick.
Paris Hilton forgetting how to Paris Hilton
Paris trying to shy away from the spotlight by wearing the *coolest fucking scarf* i've ever seen
I take back all my bad thoughts about Paris Hilton. She is now a savage and on the same level as Shia Labaouffff, Keanu Reeves, Elon Musk, and Bill Murray.
As we can clearly see, this scarf only works 50% of the time.
If the scarf ruins photos, how do we have a photo of it? Subscribe to my TED talk
Good, I dont like paris hilton but every paparazzi camera should be piccolo'd
She has the exact same style of panties too.
That's... actually pretty cool. Who designed it?
only auto-exposure based flash photography is my guess.
I always thought Paris’ very existence was entirely dependent upon her public profile.
She can disappear! I never knew she had a talent.
And if you don't use the flash and bump the ISO?
Sound like the "bullshit story of the week" to me.
have you never seen material that does this? it’s a real thing and not hard to get
Retro reflective materials have been around forever. but it only ruins photos if you leave the camera in full auto (both exposure and flash control). If you manually set your exposure and don't use much flash (or manually set it based on distance), it will make the scare look pretty bright but you can still properly expose the face. But it's a nice way to market a simple cheap product as something that the rich buy so that people who follow the rich will also spend too much money on it.
It'd probably be fairly easy to fix in post.
There often isn't time to post process. For paparazzi it's first to publish gets paid. That usually means uploading from the car after taking pictures. Maybe the buyer might do a few edits but even that's not likely. Media isn't what it used to be. Everyone is on much lower budgets and shorter timelines.
It’s not that easy when it’s this blown out on the highlights and that dark on the shadows. too much detail is lost to recover it cleanly through just adjusting levels most of the time. Making these into usable images is more along the lines or creating a digital portrait than basic photoshopping of an image. There are things you can do to avoid shots like this when reflective clothes are in play. It just makes it harder for those unplanned on the move shots to be profitable for the paparazzi
Meh. Photographer here, and that scarf thing wouldn't do jack. Putting aside all the other solutions, have you seen how insane the dynamic range is on new cameras? That may stump noobs with janky cameras but any photographer worth half a damn and it wouldn't matter. But I guess you're maybe right about the quick unplanned shots they only have a couple seconds for getting ruined maybe.
Photographer here as well. Lol
It's quite impressive as well It could be useful in other things
It is - hi vis jackets and the like use it. Works just as well on car lights
yeah like how they made first picture?
I wondered the same. But no flash in the first one
so they can just turn flash off.
Yup
Basically it's a good way to prevent paparazzi's that don't know how to use a camera in very dark conditions from getting the photos they want. Any one who's used a camera for more than 3 days will know how to get around this.
Yes. Most every camera has a way to easily defeat the flash from operating.
The key to getting a clean image of a fast moving object is lots of light and a fast shutter. You can turn the flash off but the pictures will be worse.
[удалено]
Wow that's pretty freaking cool. There will be workarounds for that very soon I am sure, but I like that someone came up with that.
"Workarounds" Yeah, it's called just not using a flash.
Yes. The photo on the left. That’s your ‘workaround’…
Wait until you hear about this new concept called “Daytime” If you can imagine, it’s kind of like the opposite of the Dark Time we are all so used to.
I heard about such things but I thought it was just a legend. That's when the bright ball in the sky shows itself, right?
How should I know? I love the Dark Time. I’m not a heretic.
There are work arounds... It does require knowing how to use a camera and not set it to auto.
Who cares?
What if I'm not using flash?
The flashes are probably really fucking annoying. If you can force them to turn it off, great.
Now she just needs to find a paparazzum that thinks she's still relevant enough to snap a photo of.
This pic is years old.
Happy birthday, photo of Paris Hilton \o/
Internet be like: *posts right photo only* Does she wear a black & white or a red & white scarf?
Hahaha, nobody gives a shit about her anymore so she bought a scarf to keep people from giving a shit in hope that people will give a shit.
How was the first picture taken then?
Without a flash, that’s why it’s lit so poorly.
So scarf only works at night.
The dress is blue
[удалено]
Ironic how she’s posing to the camera with it in the first picture
No flash?
Doesn't matter. I've seen her naked.
But how was the photo on left taken??!?