Flash Photogrpaphy at gigs?

King Eric

In the numerous threads here about gig photography, there is some great advice given about shooting them. Everyone agrees on the 50mm 1.8, RAW vs JPEG is always debated but it annoys me a little when i see using flash at gigs being always totally blasted as a big no no.

This is something i completely disagree with, flash is another tool that photgraphers have and used in a controlled way and can give some great results.

have a look at graham smiths stuff

http://www.grahamsmithphotography.com/

andrew kendal, steve guillick etc.

Fair enough in some venues and gigs its not allowed, and sometimes its completely inappropriate at a real quiet and intimate gig.

There are venues when your best chance of getting decent shots is using flash,either in combination with the house lights or on its own. sometimes its your only chance to capture the energy or movemnet of the gig

im not saying that you need to use flash for every gig, or that its the first thing you should reach for, but it is a tool there that can be brilliant to have to use if neccesary or if you want to add extra spice or interest to a photo

as regards the annoyance to the bands, its something im very conscious of and have asked bands after gigs if they minded, everyone ive asked has said they hadnt noticed them going off, that it didnt bother them at all or that it added to the gig for them.

have a look at the photos at the following link, they have been all taken using flash either as the main light or as an addition to the stage lights

the following link

im not a big fan of the deer in the headlight flash effect but theres so many more possibilities for flash at gigs than that

Rojo

Al has some DEADLY photos he got when using flash. Really, reallly cool shots!

Hugh_C

King Eric wrote: »

as regards the annoyance to the bands, its something im very conscious of

Feck that; if I've paid (often through the nose) to go to a gig, the last thing I want is some jumped-up eejit blinding me with their flash and I will make my displeasure known to them. Annoyance to the punter is absolutely of more importance than to the band who mostly want as much publicity as they can get whereas the punter wants to maintain his/her night vision. I'm down with flashers at gigs. Personally. Go get yourself a f/1.2 ...

DotOrg

King Eric wrote: »

have a look at the photos at the following link, they have been all taken using flash either as the main light or as an addition to the stage lights

the following link

most of endas shots there aren't using flash and I know he uses an 85mm f1.8 lens at lots of gigs which is perfect for not having to use flash with

I rarely use flash because in most cases it takes the atmosphere that was there away as the stage looks totally different lit from flash that it actualy does when lit by stage lights.

Graham Smith does it well as he post processes very well and has developed a very distinct style.

If done right it can work really well, but in the vast majority of cases, flash at gigs is used really terribly

iamnothim

Hugh_C wrote: »

Personally. Go get yourself a f/1.2 ...

That's not great advice. f/1.2 is massively too soft nearly all purposes.

DotOrg wrote: »

most of endas shots there aren't using flash and I know he uses an 85mm f1.8 lens at lots of gigs which is perfect for not having to use flash with

Ha james... I'm pretty sure King Eric is enda doran, though correct me if I'm wrong. Last time I was talking to him, he was all about the 85mm f/1.8 too.

Admittedly, a lot of the photos brought up in this thread are great shots. Graham smith has some really fantastic ones in there. I think my distain for flash photography all comes down to the absolute abundance of semi-pro's with better gear than me who arrive at gigs and just continuously blast the stage with their 580ex's on full power. I've seen a lot of the shots, their usually not very good. A fast lens and a little bit of creativity go a long way. All that said though, as King Eric said, if used as a tool rather than a mainstay - flash can produce some very interesting shots.

deaddonkey

bump, for my own personal interests

v. interesting thread, i'm a fan of enda's stuff.

RCNPhotos

Yeah King Eric is Enda (sorry if I've blown your cover man )

As for Hugh giving out, what about all the people ther with their point and shoots, will you make your displeasure known to them.

Also, you're "down with the flashers at gigs"??? What does that mean???

Myself I don't use flash, since mainly it's not allowed alot of the time, but also being honest, I wouldn't be confident enough to use it for fear of the "rabbit in the headlights" look. But I owuld like to do some more smaller places in order to practice. Really like Graham Smith's stuff.

Hugh_C

RCNPhotos wrote: »

what about all the people ther with their point and shoots, will you make your displeasure known to them.

Yeah, even more so.

unreggd

If you're "down with somethin" you support it

Heres a site showin the difference in full on, bounced and diffused flash

I agree flash can take away from the atmospere of a gig, but a lot of venues, esp in Dublin have dismal lighting, so somethin extra is necessary

King Eric

Yes I am me

King Eric = Enda Doran

I do love my 85mm 1.8, such a lovely lens, even wiht L lens hanging around im still reaching for it all the time

all of the photos at that link bar one have flash in some way or another, (one of the ones of Mark Greaney in Fibbers) which appears twice

"I rarely use flash because in most cases it takes the atmosphere that was there away as the stage looks totally different lit from flash that it actualy does when lit by stage lights."

I dont think this is totally true, as when you look at a stage, your eyes compress the dynamic range of the scene. When you take a photo of the scene the levels of light are much more spread out and the back ground is a million times brighter than the subject etc. so what you end up photographing (without evening it out a little with flash) is completely diferent than what your eyes see.

Or what if there is so little light that you cant actually capture that athmosphere or action. Its nice to get clean nice, non grainey shots from the hub/fibbers/eamonndorans

"If done right it can work really well, but in the vast majority of cases, flash at gigs is used really terribly"

I agree with this, I think the doing it right bit is down to controlling the light, how much there is and where it comes from. Getting it off the camera if at all possible.

DotOrg

King Eric wrote: »

Y
"If done right it can work really well, but in the vast majority of cases, flash at gigs is used really terribly"

I agree with this, I think the doing it right bit is down to controlling the light, how much there is and where it comes from. Getting it off the camera if at all possible.

i normally give the advice of not to use flash as most gig questions are from people with not a lot of experience and i think it's better they learn how to work without flash before adding in flash as an additional tool rather than relying on it.

With the low light abilities of the Nikon D3 and the fact that in a couple of years all dSLR's will have similar low light performance, there will be no need to use flash because of dark venues.

I'm sure you agree that normally when you see flash used at gigs, it's done in completely the wrong way rather than balancing the fill in effect of a well used flash

Thirdfox

But a D3 costs 5000 euro... a flash costs 170 (Nikon SB-600). Also not everyone wants to lug a brick around.

I personally love rear-sync flash for these situations - you can capture the energy and movement of the performers if done right.

melekalikimaka

Thirdfox wrote: »

But a D3 costs 5000 euro... a flash costs 170 (Nikon SB-600). Also not everyone wants to lug a brick around.

I personally love rear-sync flash for these situations - you can capture the energy and movement of the performers if done right.

thats the problem

DotOrg

Thirdfox wrote: »

But a D3 costs 5000 euro... a flash costs 170 (Nikon SB-600). Also not everyone wants to lug a brick around.

I personally love rear-sync flash for these situations - you can capture the energy and movement of the performers if done right.

but in two or three years at most, the entry level dSLR's (the Canon 650D) will be able to shoot noise free images at 12000iso

my main problem is people who shoot bands like they are rabbits in headlights. off camera flash or rear curtain sync with slow shutter speeds can work but the vast majority of people at gigs with cameras don't use those techniques.

Thirdfox

Hmm but I would suspect that gig photographers who know their equipment would be able to figure out what works for them - if they're getting horrible images from on-camera direct frontal flash they'll want to do something about it. Unless you're talking about the compact carrying audience who just want a memory of the event.

I think it'll take a bit more (4-5) years before we get pro standards in our budget cams - by then Bayer might be a thing of the past (indeed photography may have evolved beyond recognition... at least gigs will probably remain the same )

melekalikimaka

live shows will be the future of music...hopefully keeping gig photography profitable

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7251211.stm

iamnothim

melekalikimaka wrote: »

profitable

Haha, that'll be the day!

melekalikimaka

iamnothim wrote: »

Haha, that'll be the day!

a man can dream can't he