rockcity posted:

Sorry for my long absence. I had some computer issues and have had a lack of access to really all of my photos for a couple of weeks. I'm finishing up a sizeable contact list that should be done by the end of the week or so and I'm going to put a gallery of my ozzfest photos up soon on the sound surveillance site as well. In the meantime, I've been doing a lot of toying around with one of my Andrew WK shots that I took back at Warped Tour in August going for a really cinematic look. I'm fairly pleased with what resulted from a fairly normal looking portrait.


Thoughts?

Squirtl posted:

so i'm currently attending Savannah College of Art and Design for photography and this is what i really want to get into. Any tips on how to get into a magazines like Rolling Stones or Billboard or Paste?

MMD3 posted:

My first tip would be don't waste your money trying to pursue concert photography if you're at an amazing school like SCAD. Shooting for Rolling Stone is as much about being in the right city and knowing the right people as anything. I don't know about Billboard or Paste but I can't imagine they pay very well.

This isn't an industry you can ever expect to make a living in so you're better off focusing on studio photography or some other pursuit while you're in college.

psylent posted:

First show I've shot in about 6 months. I don't get out much any more:
....
A band from Melbourne called Alpine. They were pretty decent. It seems like I was loving me some portrait orientation this evening.

Machines posted:

How do people shoot without using flash? I tried to use the natural light but everything just came out too dark. Anywhere here is some shots from a gig I was at the other night:

MMD3 posted:

Really frustrated by my framing of this one but he only pointed for like a second.

HPL posted:

Crop it tighter so his back is against the right side of the frame.

MMD3 posted:

good call! will give that a go when I get home.

HPL posted:

I do that all the time, especially with bands that move around a lot. Taking the time to do a little cropping here and there can really tighten up a photo set. One trick I use is that for jump shots, I crop as much of the top of the photo as possible so the subject is at the top of the frame. It makes it look like they're jumping way higher than if they're in the middle of the frame.

MMD3 posted:

I have this stigma about changing the aspect ratio when I crop that I really need to get over... I usually do a decent amount of cropping but I rushed through editing these. I cropped this one to an odd size but wish I would have shot it in landscape or backed up a bit further.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/justinkent/5178592099/in/set-72157625392635496/

MMD3 posted:

AtomicManiac posted:

If that is one of the worst lit venues in town then I'm jealous. One of the worst ones here has like 4 or 5 100 watt bulbs aimed at the stage, and some track lighting on the stage. Another venue has two flood colored flood lights, one on each side of the stage. Another venue has Christmas lights behind where the band plays and that's it. A venue that just closed had Christmas lights around the stage and that was it. It kind of makes it difficult.

AtomicManiac posted:

Another venue has two flood colored flood lights

pwn posted:

What colour is "Flood"?

quote:

I worked out some time ago that shooting live music photos is no way to make a living. Concert photos are a dime a dozen. Most shows have at least ten accredited photographers shooting them, not to mention the dozens of people photographing from the crowd.

Everyone is getting very similar photos. We all use pretty much the same cameras and lenses. The show we shoot tours around the country with the same staging night after night. Every week hundreds and thousands of adequately professional photos of an artists performance are produced.

There’s lots of supply but where’s the demand?

Magazines, newspapers and websites might run your photos, but don’t expect to make money from it.

You might get $20 if you’re shooting for street press. You might make a wee bit more if your shot makes it to one of the few local monthly music mags. If you’re shooting for a website you’ll likely get nothing. If you’re shooting for an agency you’ll likely make peanuts unless something out of the ordinary happens at the show. The daily papers don’t usually use a photo with their reviews and if they do it’ll be shot by a staffer or pulled from a wire service.


The fact is when i look around a photo pit these days i can tell most people aren’t getting paid for it. They’re shooting for fun. It’s a hobby they have after they knock off their day job. They get a ticket to a show, shoot quite reasonable shots on their digital SLR the day job bought, and supply the photos to a website or paper that doesn’t pay them for their work. The photographers payment is a ticket to the show and the kudos they get when publishing the shots and getting comments like “Great capture!” or “I wish i had your job!”.

And who am i to begrudge these people? That was me. That’s how i learned my craft. I used to shoot hundreds of shows for little reimbursement. But not anymore. Ego boosting web comments aren’t enough to sustain me.

The pictures you see here were paid for by brands who paid to put on a music event to bring positive publicity to their brands.

Like the artists who receive a healthy paycheck to play corporate or branded events, i’m quite willing to do the same to photograph them. Sure, I feel a little icky when making sure i frame branding into shots, when my instincts would be to crop it out. But that discomfort is short lived. The cash that pays for my rent and camera gear makes up for that.

This is not a rant to implore people not to shoot for free or lambast publications that don’t pay. That horse has well and truly bolted. But thankfully there’s still the odd job that’ll pay fairly, and if it means shooting some logos and drinks and mobile phones to go with the performance shots then i’m all for it.