Gig Photography

markearley

Evening,

a friend of mine mentioned Boards to me as a place for some honest advice and criticism re: photography. I've been looking to get some decent photos at some of the gigs I've been at lately using my Canon 350D. I've a 18-55mm lens on it and don't know it well... i gotta learn somewhere and given tomorrow night is another good gig I thought I'd ask...

Any advice at all, be it lens, flash, setting etc, would be very welcome.

Thanks in advance,
Mark

http://picasaweb.google.com/earley.mark

Paulw

Flash is generally a no-no.

You want a good fast lens (f/2.8 or better). A good prime lens is generally best, but you certainly want something with the reach to get the image from where ever you are.

Some good gig photographers in here, like RCNPhotos. Just watch out for the one or two negative posters who think their gig photos are the best, and everyone else is crap.

helios

You might find that lens a bit slow for doing gigs, and a flash is deffo a no-no. If you have some spare change, get yourself a 50mm 1.8, can be had for ~€60-70 and it will do much better in low light.

markearley

thanks a lot guys

RCNPhotos

You'l hear this from everyone I'm sure but a 50mm f/1.8 is essential pretty much, great lens, not that pricey at all. UV filter for it too. had a security guard stamp on mine once, all that broke was the filter.

TelePaul

Paulw wrote: »

Flash is generally a no-no.

You want a good fast lens (f/2.8 or better). A good prime lens is generally best, but you certainly want something with the reach to get the image from where ever you are.

Some good gig photographers in here, like RCNPhotos. Just watch out for the one or two negative posters who think their gig photos are the best, and everyone else is crap.

Yeha RCNs stuff is cool, he has a good website too if memory serves.

jamieh

Hey all,

Mods feel free to delete as it's slightly off topic.

I have a Nikon D80 and I'm not well up on photography at all. I'm using the Nikon lens that came with the camera.

I read on this thread that an f/1.8 lens is very handy at gigs. I had a look online at a Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D lens.

In what kind of situations could this lens be used apart from gigs?

TelePaul

jamieh wrote: »

Hey all,

Mods feel free to delete as it's slightly off topic.

I have a Nikon D80 and I'm not well up on photography at all. I'm using the Nikon lens that came with the camera.

I read on this thread that an f/1.8 lens is very handy at gigs. I had a look online at a Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D lens.

In what kind of situations could this lens be used apart from gigs?

Excellent for portraits due to the shallow depth of field. Low lighting conditions.

RCNPhotos

Yeah their so handy, used mine tonight shooting a climber who was giving a big talk at my work. Light was ****e but the 1.8 made it alllll better. And dof is nice too.

melekalikimaka

i'd also reccommend the 50mm 1.8, its very good, also post processing is quite important, and shoot raw

iamnothim

i already know this will spark debate but... i've shot my fair share of gigs (see - http://www.flickr.com/photos/daramunnis/collections/72157600133238872/) and wouldn't neccesarily say that shooting in RAW is a good idea. I know I never have anyway. I find I use continuous shooting far too much to be able to sacrife frames for RAW. I know there are advantages to it, but for me they just dont outweigh the downsides.

Other than that, I agree with what everyone else has said. Get a 50 f/1.8, Turn off your flash, get as close to the band as you can, contact the band or promoter and try organise a pit pass if the venue has a pit. Also, post some of your photos here...

markearley

thanks to all who posted the 50mm f1.8 is on the shopping list. just wish id ad it last night...

went to a gig in Roisin Dubhs, Galway - Dan Deacon - www.myspace.com/dandeacon - and it was the most interactive, uplifting, amusing gig ive been to in ages. he plays from a table in the centre of the crowd, using some simple lights - a flashing green skull, strobe and a lightbulb passed into the crowd etc, and would be incredible to photograph (if you arent enjoying the tunes).

not everyones cup of tea music-wise but the photos would be worth the entrance fee without a doubt. he's playing Whelans Sunday night, dont misss it...

Mark

Cabaal

although you've added it to your shopping list, another vote for the 50mm f1.8
bloody good lens and well worth the money

iamnothim

hey, i've just been hired to shoot the same guy in whelans tonight. i'll be shooting mainly on a 50 f/1.4 but will bring the 1.8 and get some with it to so you can make some comparisons...

Cabaal

iamnothim wrote: »

hey, i've just been hired to shoot the same guy in whelans tonight. i'll be shooting mainly on a 50 f/1.4 but will bring the 1.8 and get some with it to so you can make some comparisons...

You gota love boards.ie users for being helpful

iamnothim

what a bizarre gig! didn't even get to use the 50mm at all. I was back with the wide lens and a big bright flash for the entire show. not something I ever do, but the guy insisted on lighting the entire show via 1 60w incandescant bulb so I had no choice!

daedalus2097

I've been at a couple of gigs like that too - the light just isn't enough for the 50 f/1.8, even with the ISO pushed all the way up. I've used flash a fair bit because of this, but with a weak flash you'll still get the atmosphere from the stage lighting and not wash out everything bar the band member closest to you. Was at a gig there recently where all the stage lighting was just *behind* the two singers at the front, so without the flash I got great shots of the drummer and bassist, and silhouettes of the singers. There's only so much you can do with that before you need a flash.

Placebo

sorry to bump this but i havent got acquainted to my 40d yet, very busy.
Neither have i received my 50mm f1.8 lense.

So i have a 17-85mm, im aiming to be at the front. So id like some DOF photos, so assuming i just use manual focus and lowest aperture, which is 4.6

As for Autofocus snaps, what iso would people recommend, i can go up to 1600 and it really does compensate for the crappy 4.6 aperture and i havent noticed any noise really with it ?

thanks

acquiescefc

depends where the gig is and what light there is. If its the Hub forget it. Lighting is crap on left side as you look.

Dont stick the camera in the band members face like some people do. Its so annoying, some of us actually pay to get in...rant over

Placebo

band members pay to get in ?
its not the hub its in andrew lane theatre, not really going for flashy shots, want some atmosphere so hoping light is good.

iamnothim

I borrowed the 17-85 IS to shoot a Christy Moore show recently, thinking the IS would help - but to be honest, unless there's buckets of light, the f/5.6 just wont be enough without a flash.

My advise, highest ISO you have (3200 on the 40d i think), lowest aperture (f/4), keep autofocus on, get close to the band and try and stick to wide angle shots where low shutter speed wont be as obvious.

If you don't want to annoy punters like the above just keep low and try not to use flash.

sheesh

iamnothim wrote: »

i already know this will spark debate but... i've shot my fair share of gigs (see - http://www.flickr.com/photos/daramunnis/collections/72157600133238872/) and wouldn't neccesarily say that shooting in RAW is a good idea. I know I never have anyway. I find I use continuous shooting far too much to be able to sacrife frames for RAW. I know there are advantages to it, but for me they just dont outweigh the downsides.

Other than that, I agree with what everyone else has said. Get a 50 f/1.8, Turn off your flash, get as close to the band as you can, contact the band or promoter and try organise a pit pass if the venue has a pit. Also, post some of your photos here...

your right of course that raw slows down the frame rate But if you can only afford a f/1.8 lens and it is still too dark shooting in raw is a good way to be able to rescue it afterwards. especially in the darker dingeyer places.
your pics are really good btw

Eirebear

TBH i find myself shooting RAW for everything except sports now.
There is so much more control over what you can do afterwards with it.

iamnothim

i was never able to rescue all that much from a RAW file myself that I couldn't get from the jpeg. then again, it's been a long time since I've tried. Is Lightroom good at that? There's a lot of positive reviews of Lightroom, but I've never even used it - must have a look

Eirebear

iamnothim wrote: »

i was never able to rescue all that much from a RAW file myself that I couldn't get from the jpeg. then again, it's been a long time since I've tried. Is Lightroom good at that? There's a lot of positive reviews of Lightroom, but I've never even used it - must have a look

Ive only recently started using Lightroom, and i find it excellent.

Im still trying to get used to the actual flow of the programme...ive not really used it after a major shoot yet, but so far its great.

At the end of the day, "rescuing a shot" is always subjective in photography, if its not a good shot to start with, then the chances are its not going to be a good shot ever.

What shooting RAW does give you is the benefit of being able to underexpose a fair bit in order to maintain a useable shutter speed, and then bring it out using your RAW editor.

iamnothim

correct me if I'm wrong now, but is that not the equivalent of shooting at a higher ISO than your camera allows? Is noise not a massive problem. Also - what are the differences between pushing the exposure of a jpeg and pushing the exposure of a RAW file?

Think I'll have to give this RAW stuff another shot at a few shows

Eirebear

iamnothim wrote: »

correct me if I'm wrong now, but is that not the equivalent of shooting at a higher ISO than your camera allows? Is noise not a massive problem. Also - what are the differences between pushing the exposure of a jpeg and pushing the exposure of a RAW file?

Think I'll have to give this RAW stuff another shot at a few shows

TBH im not entirely sure on the technical aspects of it, so someone can correct me if this is wrong.

I assume that it is to do with the fact that a Jpeg has alread been compressed...meaning that you lose information before you even get it off the camera.
When you shoot Raw however this doesnt happen, meaning that when you then go and digitally enhance the exposure you suffer less from noise issues as the information is there for the programme to use.

In my experience anyway, you suffer at lot less from noise issues with RAW than you do with Jpeg.....but thats just my experience, i may be completely off target with this one!

RCNPhotos

The way this was explained to me was Raw is the equivalant of a negative, JPEG, slide film/trannie. You just have more latitude over adjusting your rxposure after with RAW as well as simple things like changing the white balance to warm up a shot if you don't do it while you're shooting.

Also you can convert to TIFF for printing after. Since TIFF is a lossless compression you'l get a better looking print as when your compress to JPEG you lose a lot of information. You'l retain more colour info with TIFF then a very compressed JPEG. You can print bigger from a TIFF.

Was at a lab today and they recommended as a general rule, 1 and a half megs per inch, or in that region. Which you'l get with a TIFF.

Iamnothin, what do you shoot with? Do you not find 3200 to be incredably grainy? I've only ever shot over 800 on a few very rare occasions.

sheesh

iamnothim wrote: »

correct me if I'm wrong now, but is that not the equivalent of shooting at a higher ISO than your camera allows? Is noise not a massive problem. Also - what are the differences between pushing the exposure of a jpeg and pushing the exposure of a RAW file?

Think I'll have to give this RAW stuff another shot at a few shows

donno read some where that it gives you and extra 1/2 a stop remember I have done this and to me it seemed to be better than is I was adjusting the levels in photoshop on a jpeg.

Like I'm not talking about pushing it that much just that extra bit. in a Jpeg you would get a lightening of the blacks that did not seem to appear in the raw.

iamnothim

RCNPhotos wrote: »

Iamnothin, what do you shoot with? Do you not find 3200 to be incredably grainy? I've only ever shot over 800 on a few very rare occasions.

I've an ageing canon 400d so usually I shoot at either 800 or 1600, both of which can get quite grainy. I nearly always employ some class of noise reduction in photoshop. Next gig I'm lined up for is the village at the weekend for 2fm - I'll give RAW another shot at it and see if it gets me anywhere.

I gave the Lightroom 2.0 beta a quick look last night - some handy features, but I don't think the organisation of albums and compilations tops iPhoto at all. At the moment I'm using iPhoto for organisation and display, and photoshop for any proper edits. Photoshop and iPhoto tie together quite well, think I'll stick with that method for a while.

Thirdfox

In places where they allow flash it can be great for photography...

here's a rear-sync'ed flash photo at a cabaret where I was asked to take photos of:


this means that the lens can be a crappy 18-55 kit lens and still look good.

another example:


I'm sure they probably don't allow flash photography in the larger gigs but it really is a godsend for if you can use it.

iamnothim

no offense to your photos, but i always try and stay away from flash. sure, it can create some interesting effects with slow sync and the likes, but i find non flash photos capture the lightshow and natural ambience of a performance much better. On top of that, you're blinding the performers and you're intruding on the light show if there is one.

thebaz

never really done a concert before doing one soon , getting access no flash , will deffo bring the 50 mm , as i love it , would the 18 -200 VR be usable ?
Camera is d50 (still !) -- so ISO above 400 is poor .

Thanks for any advice.

melekalikimaka

iamnothim wrote: »

no offense to your photos, but i always try and stay away from flash. sure, it can create some interesting effects with slow sync and the likes, but i find non flash photos capture the lightshow and natural ambience of a performance much better

with a flash ya can freezethemoment while getting alonger shutter speed... that enhances the lighting effects without causing motion blur, somethingnear impossible even with sub 2.8 lens. If used right you'll get amazing shots.

xshayx

I think using flash depends on the venue...some dont have a "light show" and just have the lights which are already in the bands faces, so a flash isnt gonna cause them much more grief and doesnt really effect the punters either.

deaddonkey

Thirdfox wrote: »

cool shot

(i have a new crush)

melekalikimaka

Thirdfox wrote: »

my ex is in that album, well creepy, how random

thebaz

melekalikimaka wrote: »

with a flash ya can freezethemoment while getting alonger shutter speed... that enhances the lighting effects without causing motion blur, somethingnear impossible even with sub 2.8 lens. If used right you'll get amazing shots.

Mele - do you still have the d 50, if so what lens do you use for biggish gigs , and how high do you set the iso on it?

melekalikimaka

thebaz wrote: »

Mele - do you still have the d 50, if so what lens do you use for biggish gigs , and how high do you set the iso on it?

50mm 1.8, usually iso to the max and noise ninja the hell after

thebaz

melekalikimaka wrote: »

50mm 1.8, usually iso to the max and noise ninja the hell after

would the standard 18 - 200 lens be any use ?

do you find it ok at f 1.8 , i rarely go below 2 --
cheers -- should have caught your lecture , way back

melekalikimaka

thebaz wrote: »

would the standard 18 - 200 lens be any use ?

do you find it ok at f 1.8 , i rarely go below 2 --
cheers -- should have caught your lecture , way back

i like it as low as possible tbh, alot of gigs are so poorly lit i need as low a ap as possible