some great concert photos

dinneenp

Hi,
I thought I'd create a new thread for this, can lead to people talking about their experiences etc. with gig photography

link

cheers,
Pa.

pete4130

They are all fairly ordinary really with the exception of about 6 or 7 that stand out a little from the others.

mehfesto

Just to keep this thread alive!:

Personally I think Ireland is a very difficult place to be at the top level in concert photography. There is only one major outlet here, Hot Press, whereas in England alone you have the NME, Mojo, Spin, Q etc. etc. This means there are less concert photographers, which means less gets covered for a start. It also means it's harder to go professional - and as I know and many more on here will too, there's only so much you can do without financial support.

Also the lighting in these places is extraordinary. The Academy is arguably the darkest major venue in Northern Europe, The Button Factory has more lights pointed at the crowd than the performers and Whelans have just god-awful things hanging out of the walls.

That said, there is a great bunch of people on the scene at present, producing some fine, fine work given the restrictions. But after a while (for me at least) it all becomes a bit samey. Too many bands don't 'do' anything on-stage. Music photography is all about action - and that's something the Irish Music scene is badly lacking at present - Visual Awareness.

Anyway, enough of a rant. Here are my best music photos. Oh and some B&W ones too.

Innisfallen

pete4130 wrote: »

They are all fairly ordinary really with the exception of about 6 or 7 that stand out a little from the others.

That M83 shot is awful....

mehfesto wrote: »

Personally I think Ireland is a very difficult place to be at the top level in concert photography. There is only one major outlet here, Hot Press, whereas in England alone you have the NME, Mojo, Spin, Q etc. etc. This means there are less concert photographers, which means less gets covered for a start. It also means it's harder to go professional

It's down to the population and demand for magazines here though (and the economic situation when it comes to advertising, as de\Code and AU showed), and in the UK, all those magazines circulation is falling - it's not perfect over there either.

Would help if house jobs were easier to get too...

mehfesto wrote: »

Also the lighting in these places is extraordinary. The Academy is arguably the darkest major venue in Northern Europe, The Button Factory has more lights pointed at the crowd than the performers and Whelans have just god-awful things hanging out of the walls.

My problem with the Academy is that smoke machine, do they ever turn it off? Ya can't see the drummer most of the time (forget about across the stage). Button Factory's light rig looks like it's built for a club, not a gig venue...and don't get me started with those LEDs that the smaller venues have a love of, they kill all contrast.

mehfesto wrote: »

But after a while (for me at least) it all becomes a bit samey. Too many bands don't 'do' anything on-stage. Music photography is all about action - and that's something the Irish Music scene is badly lacking at present - Visual Awareness.

It's going to get samey anyhow - you can only do so much during 3 songs, and no control or idea of what is happening with the lights...

pearljamfan

i like the bubble shot

AnCatDubh

pete4130 wrote: »

They are all fairly ordinary really with the exception of about 6 or 7 that stand out a little from the others.

I think you are correct, and for me after viewing the set it does beg the question of who's shooting good music photography at the moment - the hot press, the nme's, the Q's of the world have all been criticised in the past. Has music photography peaked (before the 80's even) and is everything now just droll same ole, same ole. Or is it just when you put them into a compendium that they all become blurred one into the other.

pete4130

I personally think that cheap consumer digital cameras have got to the point they are able to achieve acceptable exposures in poor light and everyone thinks they are a gig photographer.
With so many people thinking this the whole industry has become saturated with people stupidly willing to work for free (and able to drop their name to get into venues in some cases). The photos end up being mediocre at best and venues/promoters not willing to pay anyone for their work as it all goes on a crap blog or the venues facebook, where it gets a few likes for a day or two and then buried and forgotten forever.

So why would anyone pay regularly for images at gigs anymore. With social media, tagging and sharing they don't need to pay anyone to do a good job anymore. The masses don't really appreciate good gig images anymore.

Social media has somewhat sadly devalued photography in some circumstances.

pearljamfan

AnCatDubh wrote: »

and is everything now just droll same ole, same ole. .

exactly what i think of music , it could have something to do with the bands these days, theres no rock stars anymore.

amdgilmore

There's more good music than ever around. Just not rock music.

melekalikimaka

yup sadly its a mugs game these days with music photography, i went to college to study photography due to a love of music photography, completely gave up on any dreams and doing it as a career very early on, its now a hobby

jonniebgood1

melekalikimaka wrote: »

yup sadly its a mugs game these days with music photography, i went to college to study photography due to a love of music photography, completely gave up on any dreams and doing it as a career very early on, its now a hobby

And this is because it is a 'mugs game'???

Come on- Self pity is not an admirable quality. If photography did not work out as you imagined it is hardly the fault of 'mugs'?

jonniebgood1

pete4130 wrote: »

I personally think that cheap consumer digital cameras have got to the point they are able to achieve acceptable exposures in poor light and everyone thinks they are a gig photographer.
With so many people thinking this the whole industry has become saturated with people stupidly willing to work for free (and able to drop their name to get into venues in some cases). The photos end up being mediocre at best and venues/promoters not willing to pay anyone for their work as it all goes on a crap blog or the venues facebook, where it gets a few likes for a day or two and then buried and forgotten forever.

So why would anyone pay regularly for images at gigs anymore. With social media, tagging and sharing they don't need to pay anyone to do a good job anymore. The masses don't really appreciate good gig images anymore.

Social media has somewhat sadly devalued photography in some circumstances.

More negative (pun intended)

You seem to be taking the view that only a professional photographer can get a decent picture despite the fact that most gigs nowadays have lighting engineers that dedicate themselves to getting everything looking well at a concert. Thus making the photographing easier for everyone. Blaming social media for this is just lazy and quite nonesensical, feel free to expand if its anything more than an ill informed comment.

Photography is what you (the individual person) make of it. If social media harms your enjoyment of this art then it is your own issue and a reflection on yourself rather than photography in general.

jonniebgood1

dinneenp wrote: »

Hi,
I thought I'd create a new thread for this, can lead to people talking about their experiences etc. with gig photography

link

cheers,
Pa.

Some great photos in link OP- 6, 8 & 10 for starters, 30 also captures something raw. Gig photography is hard to nail perfectly and can be frustrating if the right shot does'nt jump out. Some of those in the examples given seemed to have better access which is a big help. I think part of the problem people have is that there is only a split second to get the right shot. Only some people are able to nail this.

pete4130

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

More negative (pun intended)

You seem to be taking the view that only a professional photographer can get a decent picture despite the fact that most gigs nowadays have lighting engineers that dedicate themselves to getting everything looking well at a concert. Thus making the photographing easier for everyone. Blaming social media for this is just lazy and quite nonesensical, feel free to expand if its anything more than an ill informed comment.

Photography is what you (the individual person) make of it. If social media harms your enjoyment of this art then it is your own issue and a reflection on yourself rather than photography in general.

I already explained it in my post. What is it you don't understand?

jonniebgood1

pete4130 wrote: »

I already explained it in my post. What is it you don't understand?

When someone does not agree with you, it does not mean that they "don't understand". If you feel this is the case then you need to re-read my previous posts which were quite clear responses.

pete4130

Have you shot many gigs?

From your posts it doesn't come across that you have ever encountered the sort of lighting you get in these venues.

If/when you have I might consider your input to carry more weight.

Light engineers making a venue look good has absolutely nothing to do with it being easy to shoot, now thats nonsensical!

Like I said, if you've shot many gigs then you'd understand this. Sure bring your flash if its a bit too dark.

jonniebgood1

pete4130 wrote: »

Have you shot many gigs?

From your posts it doesn't come across that you have ever encountered the sort of lighting you get in these venues.

If/when you have I might consider your input to carry more weight.

Light engineers making a venue look good has absolutely nothing to do with it being easy to shoot, now thats nonsensical!

Like I said, if you've shot many gigs then you'd understand this. Sure bring your flash if its a bit too dark.

Wow- A bit of 'look at me' syndrone going on here??? -I have not mentioned anything about me taking photos at gigs (with good reason). Feel free to quote me from where I boasted about my wonderful shots of gigs!
And lighting is important in photography, to suggest it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" in the context of making a photographers life easier is ridiculous. I thought you claimed to be a photographer (maybe I am mixing up with someone else?).

As you are so negative about the photos in the OP link you should really give examples of what you think are good Gig photos to try and keep the thread on topic...

ps3man

From shooting at Bray Summerfest.


The Original Rudeboys by Aindriu MacEoghain, on Flickr

pete4130

I"m not going to bother replying to you about this anymore. It's clear you don't understand what gig lighting is there for.

If you read my post correctly you'll see I pointed out that Lighting Engineers have absolutely nothing to do with making a gig easy to shoot.

Lighting is important. If you go back to my second post in this thread I mention that most entry level cameras are

pete4130 wrote: »

able to achieve acceptable exposures in poor light

. Note my reference to poor lighting in there? I also mention that a lot of people claim they are photographers so you might well be mixing me up with someone else?

To say I was negative is incorrect. I said they weren't great but I there were a few images that stood out.

A good gig photos is one that compliments the band, the music and the feeling and capturing a moment of action, or inaction when it suits.

I'm not here to give you examples or to try to educate you on such things. Thats a journey you have to discover on your own, with your camera, at a gig perhaps?

jonniebgood1

pete4130 wrote: »

Light engineers making a venue look good has absolutely nothing to do with it being easy to shoot, now thats nonsensical!

pete4130 wrote: »

...
Lighting is important. If you go back to my second post in this thread I mention that most entry level cameras are . Note my reference to poor lighting in there? ...

Good man- Your not here to educate me (and unable to provide example of what you consider a good gig shot!)!!!

Forgive my phrasing but, One should remove ones head from ones arse

melekalikimaka

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

And this is because it is a 'mugs game'???

Come on- Self pity is not an admirable quality. If photography did not work out as you imagined it is hardly the fault of 'mugs'?

not photography being a mugs game, concert photography, theres not money in it, especially in ireland, not talking bout promo shoots or planned stuff, live action music photography, is almost impossible to do career wish imo, AAA is probably one of 3 I have ever seen to make it, and the guys work is first class, well deserved, but sadly its an area that has been severely butchered by people taking the 'free pit pass = free shots' idea, and destroying the market.

DotOrg

melekalikimaka wrote: »

AAA is probably one of 3 I have ever seen to make it, and the guys work is first class, well deserved, but sadly its an area that has been severely butchered by people taking the 'free pit pass = free shots' idea, and destroying the market.

thank you

depends what you mean by make it. i definitely don't earn a living from music photography. But it has got me to meet great people, be on some great stages and recording studios around the world

there isn't a 'market' for live music photography any more, and i don't even think there ever was. There is and was, small ammounts of money to be made, but most 'music' photographers make far more money from portraits and artwork photography, and that work is still there if one works hard enough and networks with the right people

jonniebgood1

melekalikimaka wrote: »

not photography being a mugs game, concert photography, theres not money in it, especially in ireland, not talking bout promo shoots or planned stuff, live action music photography, is almost impossible to do career wish imo, AAA is probably one of 3 I have ever seen to make it, and the guys work is first class, well deserved, but sadly its an area that has been severely butchered by people taking the 'free pit pass = free shots' idea, and destroying the market.

Thats fair enough. Almost every concert lately you would be hard pressed to see the band without a dozen camera phones held up in the air recording/ snapping. The thing about people taking pictures of there own may be the personal link to the event, i.e. if they've taken the photo themselves it means something more to them than a better photo by a pro photographer.

DotOrg wrote: »

thank you

depends what you mean by make it. i definitely don't earn a living from music photography. But it has got me to meet great people, be on some great stages and recording studios around the world

there isn't a 'market' for live music photography any more, and i don't even think there ever was. There is and was, small ammounts of money to be made, but most 'music' photographers make far more money from portraits and artwork photography, and that work is still there if one works hard enough and networks with the right people

Any chance of some samples on here (begs!)?

DotOrg

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Any chance of some samples on here (begs!)?

or visit www.facebook.com/aaaphotos

tororosso

Really like that James Brown photo, Dot Org! When and where was that shot?

DotOrg

Oxegen 2005, shooting him dancing around right in front of me one of the highlights of my live shooting

lisatiffany

Nice thread, I shoot about 3 to 4 gigs a week in academy / o2 / button factory and small venues like fibbers too. I run into great lighting one night then terrible lighting the next, you just get used to it and adapt. I was shooting Dragonforce tonight in academy and the first 2 bands were fairly badly lit while the main band themselves were lit perfectly. most music photographers I work with in the pit have problems maneuvering behind the barriers because in most venues its a small space and with academy especially security are on the steps making sure no one crowd surfs in. Being small helps because I get around quicker and find less tricky to get close enough, the big guys I know have an awful time with it.

Smoke machines don't bother me at all because its easy to get around it once you have dealt with it enough times. I only shoot Metal so noise can sometimes be a factor and of course you can get a fairly rowdy crowd sometimes, I've been knocked around at gigs like Slayer and a lot of the hardcore or black metal shows, even behind the barrier it can happen. I do it purely out of my love for photography an for music especially the heavier stuff. I like the o2 the most when it comes to lighting, I've never had any problems in there but its really the smaller venues and their leds that I don't like. I'll admit I don't like camera phones, security had to keep moving camera phones back away from the pit tonight because people kept trying to get around the side and film the bands (filming in portrait mode too ..sheesh) I've had cameras fall on me if someone got a knock, I counted about 30 camera phones tonight. What makes me shake my head is in a venue like the o2, I'd finish up and sit by the side of the pit watching the performance and way down the back I see a constant flash from a camera phone, that must be some flash if its going to reach the stage from there.

I have to disagree with the comment that there is no money in music photography anymore because I sell plenty of shots to magazines and news papers and I know someone who recently moved to london who is making a small fortune off of gig photography. That said he is more than ahead of the game and has a natural talent, is a gentleman in the pit to other photographers (some can be rude and run into you while they dash from side to side) and has spent years perfecting his trade. I think making money from it is directly tied into contacts, its the tour managers and promoters I meet that want to buy certain shots. At the end of the day I give most of them away for free unless its for a dvd extra or something similar, they usually give me access all areas/merchandise and passes for after parties and the like but I wouldn't depend on it to pay the bills and most of the special treatment comes from my years of promoting the Metal scene and the contacts I've made. I don't shoot indie/pop because I've done it before and its boring, it just doesn't have the same energy and buzz that I get from bands like Metallica and Maiden.

I'll stick up an image from Dragonforce over the next few days, got a few gigs to process before then but for now here is Sepultura in the academy, lovely lighting and the band were sound.


Sepultura @ the academy [©Original Image]


The Burning Crows @ the academy (basement) [©Original Image] the lighting in the basement is a lot harsher and the red leds can be a bit of a nightmare, its the best example of good / bad light in a venue. The main stage (Sepultura) has fantastic lighting while the basement is quite similar to most smaller venues in Dublin.

thebaz

my 2 biggest problems with music photography are

1). lack of access to get interesting shots for bigger bands , the first 3 song model is very staged, most bigger bands don't want photographers hanging around for those special moments, you got in the 70 s.

2). The value of a music shot has sunk so low , that with petrol/ transport and time you can nearly loose money these days -
So yeah Mugs game, that hopefully will come back, sometime in the future, for photographers

pete4130

Does that Sepultura one looks soft?

lisatiffany

pete4130 wrote: »

Does that Sepultura one looks soft?

Should do, I'm putting the softer or nosier versions online a lot lately after some music news site started stealing the images and not even giving a credit. It's annoying having to do it but there is a common misconception that once something goes online anywhere then its public domain. I saw the recent thread about the audi shot, it happens to a lot of people and they never even find out. = /

DaireQuinlan

lisatiffany wrote: »

Should do, I'm putting the softer or nosier versions online a lot lately after some music news site started stealing the images and not even giving a credit. It's annoying having to do it but there is a common misconception that once something goes online anywhere then its public domain. I saw the recent thread about the audi shot, it happens to a lot of people and they never even find out. = /

Surely it's a bit counter-productive to put the worse images online ? I could see them as some hypothetical agent interested in purchasing shots or employing a photographer, and dismiss them (and you) out of hand because of the lack of quality of the shots ?

magicbastarder

i think i mentioned it elsewhere, but the best bit of the rammstein gig was when the lead singer got the hose out and started spraying the audience. the several hundred (no exaggeration) phones and cameras disappeared in an instant.
one guy standing beside me managed to record all but probably ten minutes of the gig.

lisatiffany

Not really I already have an agent and only work with Metal or Hardcore bands, it's the bands themselves that ask me to come along so they always end up with the higher res-shots. There are plenty of gigs I shoot that never go online, I don't think I ever put any Slayer ones up or Children of Bodom and I was told not to put up any of Guns n Roses. 9 times out of 10 if someone asks "how much?" I just give them the shots for free, if it become too much of a job I'd lose my love of it. It happened with the film industry and now I don't even go to the cinema anymore, I'd hate it to happen to photography too. I don't think you can put a price on something you really enjoy and I get a lot of enjoyment out of shooting bands, big names or underground groups trying to make themselves known I don't really mind so long as I get some enjoyment out of it.

Splinters

lisatiffany wrote: »

I don't think you can put a price on something you really enjoy

Couldnt disagree more with that.

So would you rather get paid to do something you dont enjoy?

ps3man

Josh Osho by Aindriu MacEoghain, on Flickr

mehfesto

The best music photographer in the world (in my opinion anyway) is Danny North. He's a phenomenon.

http://www.dannynorth.co.uk/

Just a heads up, when you click portraits or live music, the images that pop up are the front page images for sets that contain dozens of more images. Check out the last two years of Glasto photos or the most recent Leeds Festival stuff.

dinneenp

the-50-greatest-music-photographers-right-now

AnCatDubh

dinneenp wrote: »

the-50-greatest-music-photographers-right-now

Before I read some of the comments (which hold no punches) I viewed the 50 and at the end was left with one question - By whose estimation. I think to be fair, many of those listed in the 50 probably have way better material in their portfolios on their web sites than what whomever compiled the list extracted and highlighted on their review.

Splinters

Im not doubting the merits of the 50 photographers mentioned but they could have picked better example shots to showcase them. Some of those shots are plain awful.

DaireQuinlan

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Before I read some of the comments (which hold no punches) I viewed the 50 and at the end was left with one question - By whose estimation. I think to be fair, many of those listed in the 50 probably have way better material in their portfolios on their web sites than what whomever compiled the list extracted and highlighted on their review.

Splinters wrote: »

Im not doubting the merits of the 50 photographers mentioned but they could have picked better example shots to showcase them. Some of those shots are plain awful.

Who cares ? It's just some random guy on some random site on the random web. One of the related links is "50 CELEBRITIES WITH CAMERAS !!!!!!" says it all really.

Splinters

Haha dont worry Daire I wont be losing sleep over it. Its just an area Im very interested in. Im familiar with a few of the guys mentioned, 8 - 10 at most, but not the majority of them. Admitedly some of the sample shots are stunning but some are average at best. Ive seen far better music shots posted on here.

Splinters

.....but I also want to know what celebrities....use cameras.

Yeah ok point taken

dinneenp

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Who cares ? It's just some random guy on some random site on the random web. One of the related links is "50 CELEBRITIES WITH CAMERAS !!!!!!" says it all really.

It is some random guy/people but it's always nice to get links to good photos.

AnCatDubh

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Who cares ? It's just some random guy on some random site on the random web.

What!? Could someone be wrong on the internet. (cue fry meme)

Damn you lying interweb! Anyhow, I stand my ground. Some of the sites of the photographers in question are way more interesting than the samples demonstrating their *ahem* greatness

DaireQuinlan

AnCatDubh wrote: »

What!? Could someone be wrong on the internet. (cue fry meme)

GAH ! It's an XKCD meme ! And only if by 'meme' you mean 'strip' !

dinneenp wrote: »

It is some random guy/people but it's always nice to get links to good photos.

You're right of course. I particularly liked the one of Kristen Bell with the Polaroid pack film camera. http://www.complex.com/art-design/2012/10/50-photos-of-celebrities-with-cameras/kristen-bell . I have one of them. We have so much in common Though of course our new found relationship would get off to a rocky start when I told her, rather patronisingly, that there was no way that camera would focus that close ...

the_doctor199

Can't believe this one isn't #1

Splinters

That one caught my eye alright.....its....very....ehh.....yeah.

dinneenp

Haven't shot at only about 2 gigs (for myself) in Roisín Dubh, awful lighting for photography.

Here's a collage I made from The Frank and Walters at Roisín Dubh