|
TacosDeGato posted:I was having some trouble with grain and lighting, but hey live and learn. 
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2009 13:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
TacosDeGato posted:I was having some trouble with grain and lighting, but hey live and learn. This is our plight, our fight...
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2009 14:41
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:This is our plight, our fight... Do what I do. Shoot film and then people consider grain a feature, not a problem. I haven't touched Noise Ninja in ages.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2009 15:52
|
|
|
How dickish are smaller venues about kicking out people with their dSLRs? I'm thinking about going to some place like Bottom of the HIll in SF on a weekday night, and taking pics for practice. Am I going to get booted the moment I bust out my D50 or do those places typically not care as much?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2009 18:49
|
|
|
None of the ones I've been to care. YMMV.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2009 18:50
|
|
|
I have yet to come across a small venue that gave a drat other than checking your bag to make sure you're not bringing in guns or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2009 18:54
|
|
|
Iron Squid posted:How dickish are smaller venues about kicking out people with their dSLRs? I've never been hassled by a smaller venue for taking pictures in Nashville. I don't think a representative of the venue has ever told me to stop shooting, it's always private security hired to enforce a photography clause in the artist's contract. The people who work for smaller venues have bigger things to worry about than whether or not somebody's taking pictures with a "professional" camera. They probably welcome it and see it as effortless promotion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2009 18:57
|
|
|
Yeah I can't imagine Bottom of the Hill caring that much. I've stood in front of the stage with my P&S (with flash!) before, and no one has said anything about it. Probably because they'd have to kick out half the audience if they banned photography. So is starting off at smaller venues a good way to get a concert portfolio, and then using those pics to get some kinda press pass to bigger concerts, a good way to go about things?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2009 19:50
|
|
|
Iron Squid posted:So is starting off at smaller venues a good way to get a concert portfolio, and then using those pics to get some kinda press pass to bigger concerts, a good way to go about things? Definitely start out at smaller venues. You'll learn how to work with difficult lighting so that bigger venues will be a breeze and you'll be able to build up a portfolio and generate some buzz. It's also a lot more fun to shoot at small venues because it's not so regulated and if you're not on assignment, you can cut loose and have a few drinks and all that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2009 21:05
|
|
|
Iron Squid posted:How dickish are smaller venues about kicking out people with their dSLRs? I brought a couple of small prints (to pin on their walls etc) to the small venues in the city I live in, and now they just let me me in whenever I feel like. Most of are really chillax, and as mentioned before they just love the free promotion. Iron Squid posted:So is starting off at smaller venues a good way to get a concert portfolio, and then using those pics to get some kinda press pass to bigger concerts, a good way to go about things? evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jun 23, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2009 23:33
|
|
|
So I went to Bottom of the Hill last night. I think I did alright considering it was my first time. I was super self-conscious at first. Would all the hipsters in their plaid button-down shirts and black-rimmed glasses judge me? Did my t-shirt have the proper amount of irony? After a few songs, though, I stopped caring and started shooting. There were a lot more people there than I expected, and I really didn't want to dash in front of a whole bunch of people to take pics. So I stood about ten feet from the stage and took pics. My 50mm f/1.8 prime worked alright, with the ISO at 800 or 1600. This is the shot I liked the most. Its from some small indie band called the Mumlers. A tip of the hat to the Tsar for helping me reduce the noise and the magenta-tint in post.  I think I'm going to go back on Tuesday where there's less people so I can get a better position. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2009 19:10
|
|
|
I know it's been said a few times in this thread, but here is my story. Back in October, I had a press pass to the Mt Dew Tour in Orlando. Not a ramp pass, but close. I took a ton of pictures and asked the local newspaper if they wanted them. I also explained that I found photography way too late in life to every make it back to school and could they please give me advice to work towards joining them. They allowed me to be a contributor- meaning I would go shoot events but I could not say I represented them. I went to a ton of stuff- dog shows, kids sports, local plays and a ton of concerts. This was all done on my own and I choose places that the newspaper photographers would not be at. After a lot stuff I asked for my work to be reviewed. This last week I signed a contract to be a photographer with them. I am an independent contractor representing them. I'll go and shoot the crowd usually outside before the show. These are places where you cannot bring a camera, much less an SLR. Then I shoot the concert from the stage. Which is fine with me. As well, I live in a NFL city. So same thing- shoot crowd and then go to the sidelines and shoot. Come on August. So, my advice is ask the newspaper in your area. Have some work to show them. Be persistent, but not aggressive. And understand that you will be told no a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2009 23:50
|
|
|
How much are you getting paid?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2009 20:27
|
|
|
An event fee, plus 50% of profit on photo sales. Not a lot of money but it will cover gas and wear and tear on equipment. Let's just say I will keep my day job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2009 13:18
|
|
|
I went to a concert the other day (to watch, not to shoot), and was a little perplexed watching the photographers there. For some reason, they had omnibounces on their flashes, but pointed straight up, in bounce position -- and they didn't adjust for portrait orientation. The ceiling was ungodly high and black... why were they doing this? I mean, I know having an omnibounce technically increases the size of the light source by like .000000001%, but it's not like it's any different than direct flash if there's nothing to bounce off of. What were they trying to do?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2009 15:51
|
|
|
dakana posted:I went to a concert the other day (to watch, not to shoot), and was a little perplexed watching the photographers there. For some reason, they had omnibounces on their flashes, but pointed straight up, in bounce position -- and they didn't adjust for portrait orientation. The ceiling was ungodly high and black... why were they doing this? I mean, I know having an omnibounce technically increases the size of the light source by like .000000001%, but it's not like it's any different than direct flash if there's nothing to bounce off of. What were they trying to do? Was the flash going off? Maybe they were just using the AF-assist lamps on the flash to get better focus. Or they could be crazy. An events person with my college shoots everything with an omnibounced flash tilted 70 degrees up, indoors or out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2009 22:18
|
|
|
I hate to be "that guy with the flash" but I've got a gig coming up and I just know the lighting is going to be shite. I have an 50mm f1.8 that I want to use, but it's manual focus (thanks Mr Nikon D60, I love your lack of an AF servo!) and in my previous experience, in darkened room it's hard to get a good focus reference when judging it by eye. They might look OK on the lcd preview screen but then you notice the only thing in focus is the microphone once it's on your PC. Looks like i'll be using my kit 18-55mm f4.5-5.6, with a sb-600 to assist me.. What's the safest way, ie least intrusive, to bounce a flash in a club/bar.. off the roof?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2009 02:45
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Looks like i'll be using my kit 18-55mm f4.5-5.6, with a sb-600 to assist me.. What's the safest way, ie least intrusive, to bounce a flash in a club/bar.. off the roof?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2009 09:50
|
|
|
Wooo go pitch black darkness, no flash and slow (or relatively fast manual) lenses :gah: It was my friend's band's first gig (first photo), one of a couple of bands that another friend was putting on as a charity benefit, so I did some freebies (also I am terrible and would never charge for photos yet) On the back of this I've been asked to do like 4 more gigs in the next few weeks, not going to charge people (or might do if they want big copies or something, I dunno), but doing some freebies for CD covers & flyers in the local scene worked out well for my design work; I figured doing a couple of free photography gigs isn't the end of the world. It is a hobby I guess.    Rest of the set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jongold//sets/72157620961744005 Need a flash bigtime though, maybe I could get one with some profit over the summer
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 16:42
|
|
|
Zurich posted:On the back of this I've been asked to do like 4 more gigs in the next few weeks, not going to charge people (or might do if they want big copies or something, I dunno), but doing some freebies for CD covers & flyers in the local scene worked out well for my design work; I figured doing a couple of free photography gigs isn't the end of the world. It is a hobby I guess. Don't sell yourself short. You're better than half the concert photographers in my town.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 16:48
|
|
|
HPL posted:Don't sell yourself short. You're better than half the concert photographers in my town. I've literally only shot one gig before, live stuff is such a mixed bag especially with my kit that I wouldn't want to charge people and then not come back with anything useable. When I was getting into 'freelance' design a couple of years ago especially for friends' bands and clubs I'd say like 'I'll charge you £50 (which is nothing); if you don't like it then don't pay me' which is a crap business strategy (and I'd never do that today), but it helped me gain confidence because there's nothing I hate more than the thought of a client paying you and you coming back with garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 17:05
|
|
|
HPL posted:Don't sell yourself short. You're better than half the concert photographers in my town.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 17:19
|
|
|
Zurich posted:Thanks Great stuff as everyone else has said. What lenses are you using, especially in the link above?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2009 18:19
|
|
|
No. 9 posted:Great stuff as everyone else has said. What lenses are you using, especially in the link above? In the photos above it's just 30D + 18-55 kit lens (no IS  ), in a couple of the photos in the set I used a Pentax-SMC-Hakumar 55mm f2 likethis for example. But mainly the kit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2009 11:35
|
|
|
Is anyone looking to shoot Warped Tour this summer?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2009 17:27
|
|
|
Yup, but I'm still waiting to hear back from the agency getting my pass, they are pretty slow about everything :\
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2009 17:53
|
|
|
Alabama Matt posted:Is anyone looking to shoot Warped Tour this summer? Yeah, I plan to hop on the tour for a few days actually at the end of the month.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2009 17:55
|
|
|
You know what Friday means, right? Shiny new business card day, of course! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2009 17:23
|
|
|
I finally put most of my stuff online in one place a couple of weeks ago, so you fuckers go have a look and poo poo on my stuff please.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2009 20:53
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I finally put most of my stuff online in one place a couple of weeks ago, so you fuckers go have a look and poo poo on my stuff please. How are you finding SmugMug? I have all my stuff on Flickr right now, but I find that people who are unfamiliar with Flickr are having a hard time navigating around the sets and collections.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2009 21:40
|
|
|
The social stuff is retarded since they're so much farther from critical mass than flickr (but I don't care about that really), the gallery stuff works great. It's such an improvement over MySpace or Picasaweb, which is what I used before. You can have your main page output a stream if you like, but I don't do that since I upload poo poo in batches, unlike more talented people who can actually produce decent stuff every day. But most importantly, Jeffrey Friedl's LR2 plugin is loving amazing and you should throw money at him. Putting a new gallery online is like 4 clicks once you've made a preset, and that takes 5 minutes. I'd be glad to answer any question you have, but the best is probably to give it a try, they have a 14 day free trial. Also, comments on my loving pictures instead of more questions 
evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Jul 13, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2009 21:51
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The social stuff is retarded since they're so much farther from critical mass than flickr (but I don't care about that really), the gallery stuff works great. It's such an improvement over MySpace or Picasaweb, which is what I used before. I'd probably be using it in parallel with Flickr. I'd keep a "best of" gallery on Flickr since a lot of traffic goes through there and then I'd keep the bulk of my stuff on SmugMug and use that as my main web page since it seems to be so much easier to navigate for first timers. You seem to really like taking tilted photos and photos with lots of space above heads. Not many close-ups either. People go batshit over close-ups. You do a good job of keeping what looks like potentially nasty lighting under control. There are a couple where dialing back the red channel just a hair would bring out a ton of lost detail. HPL fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Jul 13, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2009 22:06
|
|
|
Smug: yes that'd work, but you've got to wonder whether flickr is so limiting for your purpose. But again, one thing Smug does well is help you make the transition from "here's a place to put my picture" to "you can buy my $300 prints here". Honestly I don't get how flickr is so hard to navigate, I just like the Smug options/support better. They really watch the mail like loving hawks. Tilt: yes, I've been trying to turn it (heh) down lately, but that can make for very boring shots when artists aren't doing anything else to make the shot interesting. Deadspace: that's really down to the D90 not having AF points far enough in the corners, so when I stick the furthest corner point in someone's eye, I end up with wasted space on top. I think I've gotten so used to it I'm not quite willing enough to crop that poo poo away. Lack or close-ups is 2 things, really, my longest lens is 50mm (I crave longer, but that means either a 85mm that fringes like a bitch, or dropping a grand and a half on a good 70-200), and also I'm clueless about making them interesting. When I posted this shot in PAD or something people just were babbies about it being too close. But I like it, and you say try it, so I shall. Thanks a lot for the input, it's really nice having another pair of eyes on my stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2009 22:35
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Tilt: yes, I've been trying to turn it (heh) down lately, but that can make for very boring shots when artists aren't doing anything else to make the shot interesting. Yeah, I know the pain of photographing boring artists. The key thing is to generate a set of photos with as many angles and expressions as possible. Go wide, go narrow, go high angle, go low angle, etc. I hate it when I see galleries where you get these stretches of four or five photos of the exact same pose and angle with only very minor differences. You're good at avoiding that. I used to have the same issues with deadspace as you back when I used to pick AF points almost all the time. Once I started shooting on film I learned to focus and recompose a lot better with the center AF point since the film SLRs don't have nearly as fancy AF systems. Even when picking AF points, a little focus and recompose helps immensely. A brute force method of doing it is to use bursts and take photos while recomposing. Basically strafe from the focus point to where you want to be. Ugly, and it would probably make a photo school teacher's head burst, but you end up with useable results. That shot you posted isn't technically good by regular photography standards, but it's fine by concert photography standards because it's dynamic, up close and personal. Yes it could have been done better, but you take what you can get during a concert. One cheaper alternative lens to try is a 135mm lens. It's long enough that you can get good close-ups while shooting from about 15 feet away which means you can take photos from a different angle than just shooting from underneath like usual. If you shoot close-ups with a telephoto from further back in the room, your shots will have more of a personal look to them because the artist will be looking almost straight at the camera if you're right in front of them. You just have to watch out for the "microphone eating" photos from that angle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2009 22:48
|
|
|
I'm good friends with a band that i'll be shooting next week. Have many people played around with having a wireless flash situated behind the band while shooting from the front? Wonder if it's worth looking at.
Cyberbob fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Jul 14, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2009 01:05
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:I'm good friends with a band that i'll be shooting next week. Have many people played around with having a wireless flash situated behind the band while shooting from the front? Wonder if it's worth looking at. It's risky. They'll be moving around so you'll end up with a lot of photos of blinding flash.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2009 01:15
|
|
|
It can be used for some fun effects;    
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2009 04:40
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:It can be used for some fun effects; I don't think he was talking about promos. Backlighting would be much more of an obvious thing for portraits, but for actual concerts, you're better off going with flashes to the side, front or angled side front. More of a sure thing. It's hard to use people as flash gobos when it's dark and they're jumping around. Maybe for an acoustic singer-songwriter it might work with great effect, but for a regular band I wouldn't bother. And yes, I did find that out the hard way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2009 04:53
|
|
|
Fair enough. I don't have an AF low light lens, so i was looking for ways of using a flash creatively, trying to avoid the "that annoying guy with the flash" stereotype.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2009 10:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Fair enough. I don't have an AF low light lens, so i was looking for ways of using a flash creatively, trying to avoid the "that annoying guy with the flash" stereotype. Then you're just the annoying guy with the flash on stage that the crowd hates. Realistically, it's doable, but it's probably something you want to do just for fun if you already have tons of other shots of the band, or maybe you're touring with them or something. You have to really be aware of where the flash is at all time when you're shooting. I've shot bands with flashing lights and it ends up being pretty tough because you constantly have to be moving around to position the camera, the band member, and the flash all at the right spots or your shot ends up way off. On another note, I got my approval to go on Warped Tour for the July 24th-26th shows so I'll be at the Orlando, Miami, and St. Pete shows if anyone is there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2009 12:38
|
|