Sunday, March 20, 2011

Steven Frischling on Ice, Part 2!

More ice please!

Remember Steven Frischling's two contradictory stories of the time he claims to have dropped a $5,000 lens from the catwalks of the Lake Placid hockey arena onto the ice below?

The story does not stop there. Two more versions have surfaced and the excitement continues.

In the version we posted earlier, Frischling claimed he was securing the camera to the rig when he was bumped by a photographer walking behind him on the catwalks ("a direct violation of working in the catwalks in Lake Placid"), causing Frischling to drop the camera with lens attached.

Apparently this was not "true." In the following version, the other photographer actually tampered with the getup so he could have that spot! (Does the Frischling victimization ever end?)

6/26/06- Digital Wedding Forum
"Dateline : 1994 - Lake Placid, New York

I was shooting NCAA Final Four Hockey when my remote camera, a Nikon F3hp w/MD-4, and brand new 300f2.8 AF (belonged to the wire service I was shooting for) was tampered with by another photog up in catwalks before the game (2hrs before game time) so he could get his camera into the same position. The whole rig went falling to the ice below.

My F3hp still works to this day (TTL flash, aperture priority and the frame counter are busted), it needed a new prisim, but the 300f2.8 was just totalled.

The other photog had his credentials yanked and luckily I had four bodies with me. Three to use on me, one for a remote."

In the "original" versions, Frischling claims the lens was insured but said "it was a $5,000+ loss" because he was "terrified to make that call." But in the June 2006 story, he claims he indeed made a "very hard" call to the "bureau chief" who had no problem at all that he destroyed the brand new lens they had supposedly shipped to Frischling, age 18!
"I was all of 18 years old and had to make a very hard phone call to the bureau chief and let him know that the brand new (I took it out of the box and the shipping trunk, no one else had touched it) 300f2.8 AF was totalled. Luckily his answer was "it's insured, we'll be fine.""

But wait, there is an even different version from six months earlier! In this case when he had claimed it fell not from the catwalk but from the scoreboard! (It is unknown if there was also tampering.)

11/21/05 - Digital Wedding Forum
"One of my F3 bodies fell from the score board of the Olympic Hockey Arena in Lake Placid, NY. I still use that camera today. Sure the TTL flash does not work (it never worked on the F3 bodies , even when new), the frame counter is stuck on "40" and you can't use aperture priority, and it needed a new prisim, but the camera in manual mode shoots 100%, the MD-4 still shoots ar full speed and my daughter can take it out to shoot and learn the basics (when she isn't using a 10D or 1D)."

Happy Lying!


  1. kinda interesting

  2. I love this site, and check it everyday for the latest lies by Frischling, but I think you might be stretching on some of this stuff.

    We you mention that he didn't make the phone call because he was terrified, that's not necessarily true. What he said was...
    "it was insured, but I was 18 years old and terrified to make the phone call."

    That doesn't say he didn't make the call. It's possible to make the call, and still be terrified.

    Keep up the good work. It's obvious that there is enough lies out there that you don't have to stretch so far.

  3. "Keep up the good work. It's obvious that there is enough lies out there that you don't have to stretch so far"

    I have to agree. This is not your best work. A new reader will come along and read this and then be disappointed and blow off the rest of the site, missing the really good posts like the Twitter ban, phone sex scandal and false tails of heroics.

  4. 8:58. I disagree. Although minor in comparison to some of the things SF had done, he's caught in direct contradictions in this post. It's possible that some people who are new to the site may only see a minor transgression and move on, however, I think that to those to whom this site means anything will dig further and build a more complete picture of what's going on. SF's transgressions are far and wide and don't compress into a single post. My 2 cents.

  5. ^8:58: Perhaps a side bar primer to help those less informed?

  6. "@flyingwithfish
    Flying With Fish
    I gotta is one of those days I really love my job, although it's one of those days I'm not sure how to define what I do :0)"

    that's a good question, what exactly is it that frischling does other than regurgitate press releases and sit on the couch playing with his ipad that he can't afford

  7. @148pm

    I don't know how this guy pays the bills to be honest. It's totally baffling to me.

  8. 7:00 and 8:58,

    Thank you for catching that we mistakenly added the word "too" - he did not say "I was too terrified to make that call" - he said "I was terrified to make that call." This has been corrected.

    However, we do not feel this changes the original point, which was that he claims he did not get the lens replaced. Look again at what he wrote: "The 300f2.8 AF-I was totally destroyed. It was a $5,000+ loss (it was insured, but I was 18 years old and terrified to make the phone call)"

    He writes, "It was a $5,000+ loss." This indicates he swallowed the expense of the destroyed lens, by either paying to replacing it for the wire service or being out this lens the wire service sent him as a present. He did not write, "It would have been a $5,000+ loss but fortunately it was insured."

    So our original point of this blog post stands - this story is yet another contradictory version of events.

    Thank you for your eagle eyes, FishFraud fans.

  9. You're all missing the fun point of this particular story: that a wire service in bankruptcy would send (or even have) a brand new, out-of-the-box 300 2.8 to send to a stringer covering a regional college hockey tourney in 1994. Excuse me while I laugh hysterically.

  10. ^Thank you!

    The only thing that could make this more laughable is the detail that the other photographer who tampered with the rig was actually a leprechaun.

  11. ^3:26: Leprechaun tampering in one story, bumped into him from behind in another - thereby having his credentials yanked? I've never worked an NCAA hockey game nor climbed into the rafters at this particular venue. Can anyone confirm that you could lose your credentials for either of these two offenses? Better yet, does anyone know who this photographer was? Seems odd to me that the guy who had his rig drop to ground didn't have his credentials yanked.

    ^3:19: Would you send a brand new 300 2.8 to an 18 year old stringer? How does an 18 year old get 4 professional digital DSLRs?

  12. ^If any of this had happened, certainly this story would be well-known in sports photography circles. Dropping a $5,000 lens 100 feet onto ice below? Sounds legendary.

    Point two - FYI he didn't say they were digitals...

  13. ^3:44: True - you're right. I will rephrase...

    How does an 18 year gain possession of any 4 cameras (plus lenses) capable of photographing NCAA hockey? I remember paying about $1000 for each of my second tier professional cameras back in the early 80's. When I was 18 I could barely afford $500 and the camera and lenses I got for my assignments in the mid 80's numbered 1 and 1.

  14. how does an 18 year old get 4 cameras? the real question is how does an 18 year old destroy 5 nikon n8008 cameras A YEAR between 1993 and 1996?

    "While admittedly I love my N8008 & N8008s, and from 1993 to 1996 I broke about 5 of them a year shooting what I was shooting and how I shot, I have mellowed quite a bit on the abuse my gear takes (ie: switched to the F3 & F3hp when the $#!+ hits the fan)."

  15. ^4:01: Totally right! Laughable. I remember an old Peanuts cartoon. In the first panel Snoopy describes wrestling a cat weighing 20 lbs. By the last panel the cat weighs 100lbs (or something like that). Fish's stories get worse by the minute.

  16. "While admittedly I love my N8008 & N8008s, and from 1993 to 1996 I broke about 5 of them a year shooting what I was shooting and how I shot"

    He broke 20 professional cameras in four years?? How is this even possible?

  17. I worked for a professional photographer for many years - I promise you his cameras saw much more danger and hardship than Steven Frischling's ever did. His repair record is no where NEAR what Frischling is claiming. In my own use I certainly beat mine up, but even in my wildest imagination I can't see wiping out 5 a year. This is the equivalent of ruining a high grade camera once every 2 1/2 months.

  18. "I have bookends made from dead N8008 bodies, a dead Lieca R6 and F4"

    Steven Frischling, 8/28/98

  19. You have to remember he lives in a fantasy world where he impressed by certain things that make no sense to the rest of us. Like his obsession with damaged equipment/physical injuries - he thinks this makes him look like a hard core professional with tons of street cred. In actuality these claims make him look incompetent at best, fucking moronic at worst.

  20. I'm going to go with fucking incompetent moron

  21. I had my credential revoked in 2001-2002'ish after I "found" myself on the catwalk above the floor at the First Union Center in Philadelphia.

    It was a Villanova vs. UConn game...the Operations people threatened to ban us (myself and another local shooter) permanently...and the 'Nova SID seemed to have it out for me after that little incident.

  22. so have they given up on "Exposing the Bullies"?

  23. I imagine if Frischling when up to install a remote, he probably had permission. But I wonder if you can get canned for bumping into someone? I've shot from catwalks in theaters and not heard any rule about not walking behind someone (told earlier in Frischling's story, he gives this as the reason the other shooter had his credentials taken, the guy bumped into him from behind, a no no, causing the rig to fall and the other shooter losing his credentials). On the face of it, that seems absurd. Again, I've never set up a remote for a hockey game, but in my experience shooting theater catwalks, I can't possibly imagine that one) some professional (presumably) would tamper with someone else's rig and that two) there wasn't plenty of room for two remotes. It sounds absurd.

    Good point 4:57.

  24. ^They never started exposing anything. But it would appear that way. The whole "Chris" thing was a ruse anyway as it seems Dumb & Dumber still think Addison is FishFraud.

  25. he hasn't been on SS either since the 5th. He's managed an average of a little over one and a half postings A DAY between the day he joined June 21 2002 and March 5th 2011. (3195 days, 5464 postings).

  26. I would like to know, in what version of 1994 was an 18 year old wire service photographer running remotes? PocketWizards were still relatively rare then (it was a glorified garage door opener). Yes, people were running hard lines, but those people were more along the lines of Sports Illustrated, not an 18 year old kid stringing for a wire service.

    Also, to be using a film remote in 1994, he probably had to have been using strobes as well. Because to dedicate a body and a brand new 300 f/2.8 to a remote, you would make damn sure that it was going to give you 36 (if he was using the 250 exposure back, he would have mentioned it) really good images. With where film technology was at the time (I don't remember if Fuji 800 had been introduced by then), without strobes, you would have gotten fairly gross looking photos.

    Finally, lets say he did get shipped a brand new 300 from a wire service to shoot college hockey in Lake Placid. If you were 18, and had a brand new 300 in hand, would you relegate it to being a remote camera, or would you use it as your primary lens, and shoot as many frames with it as possible? I bought a 400 when I was in college, and I don't think I ever used it as a remote, despite having a set of PocketWizards Pluses (the blue ones had just been introduced) and a pre-trigger cable. I didn't want to let that lens out of my sight.

  27. 8:45
    apparently he is the king of remotes, although I have never seen a remote picture from him in the past 15 years. in a thread on digital wedding forum he talks about shooting 6 remotes at one time!!!! and FOUR remotes for baseball.

    "I have shot three camera in my lap and six on remotes while shooting NCAA basketball and done four remotes, plus three cameras with me shooting baseball, withpolitics I have had remotes in place 8 or 9 hours prior to an event , outside with ever shifting light, so for where I come from, weddings are a breeze."

    Steven Frischling, 11/15/07 - Digital Wedding Forum

  28. it is almost like he sees people who work for SI or other serious sports photographers that can actually pull off 6 remotes and thinks that just because he saw someone do it that means that he did it.

  29. And why the frack would you loan a new $5000+ AF-I lens to be used on an F3? WHy send the most expensive lens when a manual focus 300/2.8 would be all that is needed. The pojnt about how to trigger it AND knowing you only had 36 exposures is excellent. I would imagine you would have maybe had Quantum radio slaves as the only non-hardwired option in 1994.

  30. "I would imagine you would have maybe had Quantum radio slaves as the only non-hardwired option in 1994."

    Actually, this isn't correct. I was using Elinchrom wireless triggers in 1985 or so. I was also using remote film cameras in catwalks without strobes at all kinds of events with 36 exposures.

    As far as his assertion that someone bumped him in "direct violation of working in the catwalks in Lake Placid," I've never heard of such a rule in my entire career. If that camera fell, it's no one's fault but his. Putting up remotes is very serious business. People can get killed if you're not careful. If he was placing the camera at the time that he allegedly got bumped, then he should have had the strap around his neck until it was locked down and then had it safety cabled after that.

    Having said that, I don't believe a single word that comes out of his mouth. I doubt he was even at the event.

  31. "8:58. I disagree. Although minor in comparison to some of the things SF had done, he's caught in direct contradictions in this post. It's possible that some people who are new to the site may only see a minor transgression and move on, however, I think that to those to whom this site means anything will dig further and build a more complete picture of what's going on. SF's transgressions are far and wide and don't compress into a single post. My 2 cents."

    I'm waiting for the day that this site goes massively viral. To the point that when Fish walks down the street, people are pointing and saying "hey, isn't that Steven Frischling, the lying blogger?" While the contribution from the photography community has been hugely significant, lets not forget the larger goal. FishFraud is not solely for your enjoyment, but to prove a much bigger point. To do so, the content must be appealing to a wider audience.

    Maybe after than happens, Fish will become so famous he can start a new gig, like teaching companies and other bloggers what not to do. Kind of like a reformed hacker becoming an internet security advisor.

  32. 6:25: so have they given up on "Exposing the Bullies"?

    Because you can't call the comments posted above as having been written by "morons."

  33. it seems like some of his most absurd stories come from the Digital Wedding Forum. Yes he had some crazy ones on SS and NPPA but the most bragging seems to be on DWF. Why? I imagine he felt he was "above" shooting weddings and superior to the regular wedding "photogs" and had to constantly remind everyone of this.

    Plus it gave him a brand new forum to spread his fantasy tales, not to mention he was unlikely to run into any photojournalists or sports photographers would call him on his bull crap.

  34. 10:55, don't understand your comment...

  35. ^FF 11:03: Sorry if I was cryptic. SF and company have a history on your blog of calling everyone that disagreed with them "morons" as their only defense. Clearly, recent comments on this blog are not written by morons, but by people who know what they are talking about - and double checking each other's facts. It all comes together as a solid and convincing argument that SF has been making stuff up and that calling people who comment here morons is fruitless, a possible reason we haven't seen much on "Exposing the Bullies."

  36. 10:54: Correct. My point was that every post isn't going to be a home run and make everyone go "wow." People should take the time to read and be informed. I just wanted to suggest that understanding the case against Steven Frischling isn't a sound bite. Although what's interesting to me about this particular post is that what may seem a minor issue, actually isn't when carefully examined, and so I felt the post was a good one.

  37. ^11:33, thanks for explaining further.

    Perhaps the reason S&S haven't continued their new blog is that it wasn't well thought out in the first place, and they are now realizing this?

  38. Sadly, after reading the utter madness of their comments on this blog, I don't think they realize much of anything. But there's always hope. Your optimism is admirable.

  39. ^It's possible they're being giving too much credit. The intelligent, rational thing would be to close that blog, close HIS blog and go get professional help for his lying issues.

    But when has he shown himself capable of intelligent or rational thinking?