Forced Validity

Discuss general topics dealing with the hobby.
User avatar
WOODMO
Site Admin
Posts: 7089
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 12:46 pm
Location: Long Island, New York

Re: Forced Validity

Post by WOODMO » December 20th, 2016, 10:16 pm

Orton nailed it. We all have our own rules and what we value. Ben is happy with that and even if we all think it's between trash and mediocre. Only his opinion matters in this case


User avatar
heelorton79
Marked Out Master
Posts: 1325
Joined: July 13th, 2013, 11:19 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Forced Validity

Post by heelorton79 » December 20th, 2016, 10:18 pm

class316 wrote:I agree with :pauuuse: consent does not matter as we are not having sex with the celebrity.

Initially I looked at the photo op and thought it better than that of Joresky. The pose is just better than the selfie he got. However, I then read that he apparently used photoshop to make it look more valid. Given that info I reverse my initial stance.

and I don't get that comment that you made and Dana did previously. The only time where consent is needed is when you are attempting to have sex with someone? That's preposterous! Why don't you try taking something at your job without paying for it. When you get fired, tell him you didn't need his consent.

User avatar
WOODMO
Site Admin
Posts: 7089
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 12:46 pm
Location: Long Island, New York

Re: Forced Validity

Post by WOODMO » December 20th, 2016, 10:21 pm

I made the sexual comparison largely as a joke. I stand by as long as both parties are looking actual consent isn't needed for me to count it. Though fixing eyes on photo bombs? That's too far I think

User avatar
heelorton79
Marked Out Master
Posts: 1325
Joined: July 13th, 2013, 11:19 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Forced Validity

Post by heelorton79 » December 20th, 2016, 10:25 pm

WOODMO wrote:I made the sexual comparison largely as a joke. I stand by as long as both parties are looking actual consent isn't needed for me to count it. Though fixing eyes on photo bombs? That's too far I think
Well, although I think consent is important, you did bring up a good point about the gray areas. So, I will clarify my stance. I think there should at least be an "awareness" on the celebs part, that the photo op is in fact taking place.

User avatar
WOODMO
Site Admin
Posts: 7089
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 12:46 pm
Location: Long Island, New York

Re: Forced Validity

Post by WOODMO » December 20th, 2016, 10:27 pm

heelorton79 wrote:
WOODMO wrote:I made the sexual comparison largely as a joke. I stand by as long as both parties are looking actual consent isn't needed for me to count it. Though fixing eyes on photo bombs? That's too far I think
Well, although I think consent is important, you did bring up a good point about the gray areas. So, I will clarify my stance. I think there should at least be an "awareness" on the celebs part, that the photo op is in fact taking place.
That's fair and I'll agree. I've neve been lurking in the background on anything I've forced. I'm right there next to them trying and interacting :lol:


jorgerr96
Full Fledged Mark
Posts: 176
Joined: February 13th, 2015, 12:32 am
Location: Texas/Mexico

Re: Forced Validity

Post by jorgerr96 » December 20th, 2016, 10:28 pm

WOODMO wrote:
jorgerr96 wrote:
class316 wrote:I agree with :pauuuse: consent does not matter as we are not having sex with the celebrity.

Initially I looked at the photo op and thought it better than that of Joresky. The pose is just better than the selfie he got. However, I then read that he apparently used photoshop to make it look more valid. Given that info I reverse my initial stance.
would you be okay with someone just approaching you for no reason and then take a selfie with you?
Just wondering
I wouldn't. But if I was rich and famous I'd understand that's the shitty weird part of an otherwise great existence
True, I can agree there. If you are a public figure I think it's a given that you will experience a lot of moments like that and it's better to behave than start a scene there.

User avatar
Greg2600
Moderator
Posts: 4478
Joined: November 13th, 2012, 9:00 pm
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: Forced Validity

Post by Greg2600 » December 20th, 2016, 11:12 pm

Problem is like I said, he didn't try to make it look candid, for one, and for two, it's a pap shot all over the internet. So modifying it not wise because everyone can see the original!
The Paunch Stevenson Show pop culture podcast : http://www.paunchstevenson.com

User avatar
class316
Marked Out Historian
Posts: 5606
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 1:49 pm

Re: Forced Validity

Post by class316 » December 21st, 2016, 9:30 am

For those that argue there was no interaction and he didn't know Ben was there, those claims are false. He did interact with Ben telling him "no" (as Ben stated). And he knew Ben was there and was ignoring him. You could argue he had interaction with him as much as Woodmo had with John Goodman or Nathan Lane.

Here is a shot where I attempt a Goldie Hawn pap shot after she denied me

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7697/2669 ... 9ed4_b.jpg

But then she broke down and I got a consented shot

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7557/2676 ... e092_b.jpg

Honestly I think I like the non consented shot better.

If I were a celeb would I like being lurked like that? Probably not but it comes with the territory of being a celebrity. In any job there are going to be aspects you don't like. I'm sure celebs don't like us having their FF#s and other private info either. So to say one aspect of combo hunting is creepy when you partake in other aspects that are just as creppy is just hypocritical.

And I agree with Woodmo in two aspects.

Consent is not needed for photo op validity. Consent certainly increases the odds of validity but you can have validity without consent. Woodmo's John Goodman is another good example of that (sure the picture is horrid quality but it's valid)

I've said it before that people can enjoy invalidity if they want to. Be it an invalidly signed item, an invalid photo op with a celeb, or a photo op with someone they enjoy who is not actually a valid celebrity. So if Ben enjoys his invalid/photoshopped shot, let him enjoy his shot. That's all that truly matters, valid or not.

And I repeat, not having to do with this scenario but in general, give me a valid photo op that is the most creepy of all the creepy over having no photo op whatsoever.
Follow me on twitter https://twitter.com/celebmeets
:hcit:
View my celebrity report Blog http://celebmeets.blogspot.com/

User avatar
WOODMO
Site Admin
Posts: 7089
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 12:46 pm
Location: Long Island, New York

Re: Forced Validity

Post by WOODMO » December 21st, 2016, 10:02 am

class316 wrote:For those that argue there was no interaction and he didn't know Ben was there, those claims are false. He did interact with Ben telling him "no" (as Ben stated). And he knew Ben was there and was ignoring him. You could argue he had interaction with him as much as Woodmo had with John Goodman or Nathan Lane.

Consent is not needed for photo op validity. Consent certainly increases the odds of validity but you can have validity without consent. Woodmo's John Goodman is another good example of that (sure the picture is horrid quality but it's valid).
Now again, this is all about what each person feels and thinks. I am not bashing the McCartney shot or claiming mine are better to anyone but me.

I just can't get over the photo bomb placement by the guy being rejected or ignored. It isn't quite the same as when the celebrity is in the back, like Jackson was in your photo. He is the element trying to be "with" McCartney and he is just in the background. It starts to open up the window to "how far in the background is OK?" like what is the foot limit? I mean, it isn't much better than the Ringo rail shot, which I wouldn't personally count.

Was his interaction on par with my interaction with Goodman and Lane, in terms of words uttered and actual back and forth dialogue? It may have been, I wasn't there, but there are a few differences that jump out at me.

1- The camera was in my hand, and my hand was in front of their face. They knew what I was doing and that I was doing it. They had the chance to avoid it, not look, cover their face, etc and they did not.

2- With this, it was a paparazzi just taking photos of a scene, and he even had to fix the eyes after the fact, so the paparazzi didn't even catch him looking. It is sort of manufactured on a few levels since he not only didn't consent, but he also didn't look or know in that moment that Ben was trying to get the shot.

3- I am next to them interacting as the photos were captured. This one is crisper and cleaner, but I would personally take my diminished quality with Goodman over this with the placement of the fan. There is no right or wrong, just each person's opinion.

User avatar
class316
Marked Out Historian
Posts: 5606
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 1:49 pm

Re: Forced Validity

Post by class316 » December 21st, 2016, 10:13 am

WOODMO wrote: Now again, this is all about what each person feels and thinks. I am not bashing the McCartney shot or claiming mine are better to anyone but me.

I just can't get over the photo bomb placement by the guy being rejected or ignored. It isn't quite the same as when the celebrity is in the back, like Jackson was in your photo. He is the element trying to be "with" McCartney and he is just in the background. It starts to open up the window to "how far in the background is OK?" like what is the foot limit? I mean, it isn't much better than the Ringo rail shot, which I wouldn't personally count.

Was his interaction on par with my interaction with Goodman and Lane, in terms of words uttered and actual back and forth dialogue? It may have been, I wasn't there, but there are a few differences that jump out at me.

1- The camera was in my hand, and my hand was in front of their face. They knew what I was doing and that I was doing it. They had the chance to avoid it, not look, cover their face, etc and they did not.

2- With this, it was a paparazzi just taking photos of a scene, and he even had to fix the eyes after the fact, so the paparazzi didn't even catch him looking. It is sort of manufactured on a few levels since he not only didn't consent, but he also didn't look or know in that moment that Ben was trying to get the shot.

3- I am next to them interacting as the photos were captured. This one is crisper and cleaner, but I would personally take my diminished quality with Goodman over this with the placement of the fan. There is no right or wrong, just each person's opinion.
IF the pap had captured Paul looking at the camera, I would say that's superior to your Goodman by a million fold due to quality (and even trumps Joresky's Paul shot). I would say it's even far superior to my blurry Joe Walsh shot which Joe consented to.

But as it stands, I pretty much agree with you.
Follow me on twitter https://twitter.com/celebmeets
:hcit:
View my celebrity report Blog http://celebmeets.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Greg2600
Moderator
Posts: 4478
Joined: November 13th, 2012, 9:00 pm
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: Forced Validity

Post by Greg2600 » December 21st, 2016, 10:25 am

Look I think we'd all LOVE to be photographed within vicinity of Paul McCartney, whether valid or not! It's a friggin' Beatle after all. It just looks phony to me (yes I know it technically is), but he could have played it off differently. You're allowed to stand next to him, even if he's ignoring you. Then again, this was a guy who ran after Will Ferrell trying to force one with Will screaming "You're not listening!!!!!" at him! Always fun.
The Paunch Stevenson Show pop culture podcast : http://www.paunchstevenson.com

User avatar
WOODMO
Site Admin
Posts: 7089
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 12:46 pm
Location: Long Island, New York

Re: Forced Validity

Post by WOODMO » December 21st, 2016, 10:30 am

Greg2600 wrote:Look I think we'd all LOVE to be photographed within vicinity of Paul McCartney, whether valid or not! It's a friggin' Beatle after all. It just looks phony to me (yes I know it technically is), but he could have played it off differently. You're allowed to stand next to him, even if he's ignoring you. Then again, this was a guy who ran after Will Ferrell trying to force one with Will screaming "You're not listening!!!!!" at him! Always fun.
I saw the Ferrell incident!!

Yeah, honestly as you said earlier, he never should have fixed the eyes with the originals floating around like this. Though for the most part, the sentiment where it was posted is a lot better than many here view it. Either they're being kinder because he is around to respond, or we just have more pickiness.

This hobby has become shackled by rules, that people can't just be happy with a candid photo in the vicinity. That "doesn't count" to the judgmental masses who have a point scoring system, which makes someone feel like they have to fix eyes, to jump through these imaginary hoops. If you are in the same frame with someone, it is technically a photo with them. I would have posted the unedited version if I got it, especially knowing originals would hit the net, and I just would have been happy with that.

User avatar
Greg2600
Moderator
Posts: 4478
Joined: November 13th, 2012, 9:00 pm
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: Forced Validity

Post by Greg2600 » December 21st, 2016, 10:35 am

As someone who knows him, I think he did it partially in a satirical way. He wasn't trying to hoodwink, but went more like me, "Oh this old jerk won't take a photo, I'll show him!!" I personally just would have made a more "sheepish" expression rather than Mayor McCheese, I think that spoiled the authenticity.
The Paunch Stevenson Show pop culture podcast : http://www.paunchstevenson.com

User avatar
class316
Marked Out Historian
Posts: 5606
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 1:49 pm

Re: Forced Validity

Post by class316 » December 21st, 2016, 10:41 am

To be fair he didn't deny it was photoshopped. He actually admitted it.
Follow me on twitter https://twitter.com/celebmeets
:hcit:
View my celebrity report Blog http://celebmeets.blogspot.com/

User avatar
WOODMO
Site Admin
Posts: 7089
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 12:46 pm
Location: Long Island, New York

Re: Forced Validity

Post by WOODMO » December 21st, 2016, 10:43 am

That is a good point


Post Reply