My first go shooting a gig

jonneymendoza

Got the opportunity to shoot a gig last week at short notice.

here are the results.

I need some very harsh CC in terms of composition, PP etc. I want to improve. I found the metering and lighting challenging and some of the images i had to do convert to B/W as the purple strobe lights killed half of my shots!

1
Cynikal Gig -146.jpg by jonneymendoza, on Flickr

2
Cynikal Gig -83.jpg by jonneymendoza, on Flickr

3
Cynikal Gig -50.jpg by jonneymendoza, on Flickr

4
Cynikal Gig -281.jpg by jonneymendoza, on Flickr

5
Cynikal Gig -221.jpg by jonneymendoza, on Flickr

6
Cynikal Gig -88.jpg by jonneymendoza, on Flickr

full set here

Cynikal Headline show 2014 - a set on Flickr

Effects

I'd remove the watermark for a start.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

I think the shots are awesome. Well done

To be honest, I would also remove the watermark. The watermark can be removed by a third party, if you are worried of somebody stealing your work. If you are looking to get your name out there, maybe pop it in to one of the corners and make it a little smaller?

Alltherage

I wouldn't be so quick to remove the watermark. Very few instances of people looking to "borrow" a shot have involved huge amounts of editing skill. Most watermark removal tends to be done by either dropping a solid fill over or just cropping the image. They do detract from the images though especially the second where it's just sitting in the middle of all that negative space.

As to the actual images, 1 and 4 aren't grabbing my attention there's nothing about those two that makes me want to know whose photography I'm looking at. The others are strong images though.

jonneymendoza

if i remove the watermark or put it in the corner it is easy to steal/crop

Farmlife

But the band have them up on their Facebook page without the watermark, did they edit them out?

Effects

jonneymendoza wrote: »

if i remove the watermark or put it in the corner it is easy to steal/crop

If you leave the watermark there then they look crap. If they crop it out and steal the photo you can send them an invoice for usage. What do you think they are worth anyway?

OldGoat

Watermarking is a subject worthy of it's own thread rather then having it as the focus of this one. Interesting new interview on Lynda.com about copyrighting including the use of watermarks.

Meanwhile...
#1. I think the composition is unbalanced. There is way too much dead space behind the singer.
#2. My favourite of the bunch. Not a typical gig shot. A tad bit more breathing space along the top would not hurt.
#3. Burn the legs out. The meat of the photograph is the mike and the guitar but the legs are drawing me away from it.
#4. Singer looks constipated. I can't take it seriously as a band/music shot because all I see is someone having a poo. Sorry.
#5. Nice work on the BW conversion but it's a photograph of a hand and a mike with the singer lost behind it.
#6. I like it, it tells me a story. If you were in a studio I'd be looking for a bit more light on the face and a bit less on the arms but for a gig shot you caught a moment and processed it nicely.

I'd say that #1 and #3 are weak. I'd be delighted with myself if I'd managed to catch any of the others. I'm not a gig shooter and so feel free to disregard anything I said as tosh.

Sir Gallagher

#3 i think has the makings of a great shot. I like the light shining through the guitar, but the composition is unfortunate. It would have been better if you'd have got the top part of his body in frame.

I'll echo Old Goat's sentiments on #4.

#6 is a good shot although it does suffer from some noise issues. What gear were you using as a matter of interest?

Also, to the people whinging about the watermarks, get a grip, it's not as if he's going to print them this way he's just looking for some c&c, we all get the message of the images. I'm laughing at the person who went to the trouble of going to the bands facebook page to see if the images were watermarked...seriously fcking hell.

AnCatDubh

#6 best followed by #2 imho.

I like the grain in #6 and it suits the b/w conversion. #2 is a happy purdy lady, caught in natural pose. Well taken. What's not to love.

Comments on #3 above are valid imho.

You appear to have the technicalities of taking shots in such conditions that the gig presented to you (there or thereabouts) though i'd guess that your gear may have struggled a little in some (i've no idea what you shoot with so I could be completely wrong). Then again that can be a style - some call it blur, others call it style. Appeciation can be in the eye of the beholder.

Ok, so what are you lacking. First gig? Then imho and only at a guess, confidence. It can't be bought but makes the world of difference.

Well done for getting out there.

jonneymendoza

Thanks for all the kind responses! Lots to digest and learn. Be as harsh as possible as that is the best way to learn

The kit i used were my canon 5d3 and two lenses: 35 sigma 1.4 and the 70-200 f2.8.

What was challenging for me was the metering and the focus.

Half of my sots got ruined because of the metering and the use of the purple strobe lights whilst there was some shots that even the 5d3 AF missed.

Low light + moving subjects is quite a challenge for any camera!

thebaz

jonneymendoza wrote: »

Thanks for all the kind responses! Lots to digest and learn. Be as harsh as possible as that is the best way to learn

ok - the last is by far the best - sometimes at a gig you only get one good shot , sometimes you don't even get that one - so well done on that one - but, I wouldn't bother posting the rest which are average - to me they are over produced , mush prefer music images to be rawer - others prefer the style you use , so its just my opinion, in fact music mags and the industry prefer the less raw style , its just my preference - the other shots lack emotion/excitement too, ther a bit bland - but, as I say if you get one good shot from a set you have done well - always think less is best, just post the best

MarkN

Fair play on putting your shots up to be critiqued for starters, not an easy thing to do.

When you say you struggled with metering do you mean the light was just too low?

jonneymendoza

too harsh the light was. It did not help that the subject was wearing all black as well. i probably should have reduced the exposure composition by a stop or two manually.

the purple strobe also was way harsh in some shots that i had to turn them black and white

thedub80

i would remove watermark, you can copyright your images within photoshop by going to File>File info and fill the info in and save it. otherwise not bad images