|
Not autolevels, just played with tint, contrast, brightness, exposure, black levels, warmth and so on. Of course shooting in RAW always helps  I'll have to check out autolevels now.
|
#
?
May 20, 2009 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
I have tried using auto levels in the past and it didn't do anything. While I would love to assume I am such a pro I already perfectly corrected it, this is not the case. Is there a trick to using it, do you have to flatten your image first or something? Can you apply it as an adjustment layer? edit: my mistake, I was thinking of the auto contrast and auto tone feature, not auto levels which is available as a levels adjustment layer in cs4. However I just tried it out on some unedited concert photos with strong red stage lighting and it didn't change a thing. snowman fucked around with this message at 23:12 on May 21, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2009 23:07
|
|
|
a recent favorite of mine;
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2009 05:33
|
|
|
Anyone else ever have a problem with hired security at a larger venue? By hired I mean 3rd party security hired by the venue to supplement house security. Even as a teenager I've despised them. I had a situation tonight where I thought I was going to get kicked out over a hired shirt not explaining something completely and trying to put it all on me. Then the dude had the balls to come by and flash his light on me a few times to "make sure". Anyways, here's a picture of Slug from Atmosphere looking like a hungry baby robin. 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2009 08:11
|
|
|
I find that stating what you know you're allowed to do then asking them to check with the security manager works best.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2009 09:54
|
|
|
Scream Machine posted:Anyone else ever have a problem with hired security at a larger venue? By hired I mean 3rd party security hired by the venue to supplement house security. Even as a teenager I've despised them. I had a situation tonight where I thought I was going to get kicked out over a hired shirt not explaining something completely and trying to put it all on me. Then the dude had the balls to come by and flash his light on me a few times to "make sure". I saw them in Seattle a few weeks back. Wow, what a show. Atmosphere was awesome.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2009 13:19
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I find that stating what you know you're allowed to do then asking them to check with the security manager works best. No doubt. But 95% of all shows have the same rules going on to the point where if there is something going on that a photog needs to stop doing (per the request of the performers) you should probably explain that instead of just telling him to put his camera away. Yeah it's your job, you're in the zone, but that's also how your security company has gotten a bad name over the years because you guys don't know how to handle people. You're not keeping watch at a frat party, talk to me like I'm sober. This was all over the shirt not telling me that Atmosphere requested that photogs get 3 songs. Period. How hard is that?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2009 16:08
|
|
|
Scream Machine posted:No doubt. But 95% of all shows have the same rules going on to the point where if there is something going on that a photog needs to stop doing (per the request of the performers) you should probably explain that instead of just telling him to put his camera away. Yeah it's your job, you're in the zone, but that's also how your security company has gotten a bad name over the years because you guys don't know how to handle people. You're not keeping watch at a frat party, talk to me like I'm sober. Pretty much every concert for larger bands is 3 songs only. I can't tell you how many times I have heard the phrase "3 songs, no flash". It's just a given. The only times I've been able to shoot more than 3 songs are if I personally know the band and they've given security permission to let me stay in the barricade.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2009 17:40
|
|
|
rockcity posted:Pretty much every concert for larger bands is 3 songs only. I can't tell you how many times I have heard the phrase "3 songs, no flash". It's just a given. The only times I've been able to shoot more than 3 songs are if I personally know the band and they've given security permission to let me stay in the barricade. Here's the thing, I was outside the pit. I switched to my tele and sat at a table to get some level shots and when I took a step forward from my seat he appeared. I've never heard of anyone having this problem before and I've personally seen photogs shoot from all over the venue with no problem. Now that I think about it, it's funny that a guy with a tele gets so much heat while nothing is done about the 40 dudes on the dance floor throwing flash at the performers with their Kodaks.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2009 18:16
|
|
|
Honestly I much prefer smaller venues. The light's poo poo, but you can have a beer and a smoke with all the performers, shoot all you want, then shoot the poo poo afterwards, show them your pics, get a free loving CD when you promise to mail them some pics for their myspace or whatever the gently caress, then be on your way. As soon as I got into bigger venues it started feeling like a job. Suddenly you can't flash, you can only shoot 3 songs, and you're at least a meter below stage level. Thanks but no thanks. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 19:45 on May 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2009 19:43
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Honestly I much prefer smaller venues. The light's poo poo, but you can have a beer and a smoke with all the performers, shoot all you want, then shoot the poo poo afterwards, show them your pics, get a free loving CD when you promise to mail them some pics for their myspace or whatever the gently caress, then be on your way. I completely concur with everything you said. Small clubs are way more fun to shoot, plus the bands actually give a poo poo about your photos since they don't have a million billion people shooting their shows. Big venue shoots defninitely feel like more of a grind.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2009 19:53
|
|
|
Scream Machine posted:Now that I think about it, it's funny that a guy with a tele gets so much heat while nothing is done about the 40 dudes on the dance floor throwing flash at the performers with their Kodaks.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2009 20:08
|
|
|
Ha, I wish I got paid for writing/photography. The other guy in the pit last night, however, happens to be moderately established. I believe he's the live music photographer for the local Village Voice outfit and he's been in Spin and so forth. He was shooting with some massive lens with two small strobes on the edge of the stage (you couldn't tell they were going off unless you were looking right at them so I guess security didn't care) and here I am with my A200 and an old Minolta 50mm feeling rather amateurish. I guess if you wanted to be a real rear end in a top hat you could always get one of those prosumer PSs that Sigma or Lecia make and keep going. I know I could go without my kit lens in my sling bag and tuck one of those in there.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2009 20:33
|
|
|
Scream Machine posted:I guess if you wanted to be a real rear end in a top hat you could always get one of those prosumer PSs that Sigma or Lecia make and keep going. I know I could go without my kit lens in my sling bag and tuck one of those in there.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2009 21:22
|
|
|
A couple good ones from the show I went to tonight. I want an external flash in the worst way. Built in flash + ISO 1600 = Not my idea of a fun. 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2009 11:00
|
|
|
Couple from last week:   Not as sharp as I'd like, but I think they turned out ok.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2009 17:03
|
|
|
I guess this would count as my second concert shot now, 'tis fun!    
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2009 20:06
|
|
|
Flower Power posted:I guess this would count as my second concert shot now, 'tis fun!
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2009 02:55
|
|
|
Thanks a lot! Surprisingly very very little. I think half of these are pretty much straight out of the camera. The only things I did do to whatever was altered was a bit of a contrast boost and I cloned away random different coloured small lights that distracted from the image. I'm starting to think I should try and get hooked up with something paid rather than for fun for these, haha.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2009 08:46
|
|
|
Shot a concert in digital for the first time in a while after shooting nothing but film for a month or so. It's kind of weird. When shooting in digital, it's more of a process of throwing stuff at a wall and seeing what sticks whereas with film it's more a matter of trying to actually pick out memorable moments. Overall, I get better photos with digital simply because there are more photos to choose from, but I think shooting film has probably made me better at being more selective and careful about what I shoot in digital. I find I'm framing my shots better after getting used to film where every shot has to count as opposed to trying out stuff for the heck of it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2009 09:11
|
|
|
Scream Machine posted:Here's the thing, I was outside the pit. I switched to my tele and sat at a table to get some level shots and when I took a step forward from my seat he appeared. I've never heard of anyone having this problem before and I've personally seen photogs shoot from all over the venue with no problem. Now that I think about it, it's funny that a guy with a tele gets so much heat while nothing is done about the 40 dudes on the dance floor throwing flash at the performers with their Kodaks. Did you sign a photo release waiver? If you did, they can enforce that however they like. Usually "three songs" means total, not "three songs and then you can shoot outside of the barricades as much as you want." I know security shut me down like that when I shot Foo Fighters and I tried to get a few more shots when they moved down to a second, smaller stage. But in a festival setting, security has bigger concerns than whether or not you're taking pictures, so it really depends. One good rule of event/concert photography is that you will never win an argument with security. So usually it just ain't worth it, even if you think you've got extenuating circumstances. They don't care about point and shoots because it's free promotion for them with zero chance of the "photographer" making a profit off their photos. It's a roundabout opportunity for fan involvement.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2009 09:46
|
|
|
IndieRockLance posted:Did you sign a photo release waiver? If you did, they can enforce that however they like. Usually "three songs" means total, not "three songs and then you can shoot outside of the barricades as much as you want." I know security shut me down like that when I shot Foo Fighters and I tried to get a few more shots when they moved down to a second, smaller stage. But in a festival setting, security has bigger concerns than whether or not you're taking pictures, so it really depends. Didn't sign a waiver, just showed my ID at the box office to get my pass and ticket and I was good to go. So whatever, I guess. I've done shows there with a camera in hand the whole night without security saying anything. Maybe it was because I shoot Sony and with my prime lens it looks like I just have some weird P&S? Either way, I'm over the situation. I'll just have to be more careful in the future.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2009 15:47
|
|
|
Scream Machine posted:Didn't sign a waiver, just showed my ID at the box office to get my pass and ticket and I was good to go. So whatever, I guess. I've done shows there with a camera in hand the whole night without security saying anything. Maybe it was because I shoot Sony and with my prime lens it looks like I just have some weird P&S? Yeah, shooting outside of the barricade really comes down to the security at the venue. Some places it's 3 songs in the barricade and then you're done, doesn't matter if it's outside or not. I find that's the case at larger venues, specifically arenas, but even some small venues I've shot at are like that. A lot of the time they don't care about the people shooting with small p&s cameras because they know they don't really know what they're doing and that they're not for professional use. Regardless, I find it's best to get to know the security if you're at that venue even just a few times. Say hi, chat with them before the bands go on. It helps. Often it'll score you some free bottles of water too.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2009 00:52
|
|
|
rockcity posted:Regardless, I find it's best to get to know the security if you're at that venue even just a few times. Say hi, chat with them before the bands go on. It helps. Often it'll score you some free bottles of water too. The thing to remember is that security is also there to protect you and bail you out if poo poo gets out of hand with the crowd, so definitely get on good terms with them. Also, some shots from the weekend:   
HPL fucked around with this message at 04:58 on May 25, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2009 02:13
|
|
|
Nothing wrong with the pictures, but the post is kinda... bland? It might just be that I'm used to see film stuff from you though.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2009 07:55
|
|
|
Remember on a professional level these days the only thing that separates you from every other smuck in the crowd with a camera is the celeb or musician looking into your barrel. Make sure you get that if you are "the" camera guy for them that night. There's a huge difference and why so many celebs wear glasses in public so no one can claim the photo their own.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2009 20:09
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Nothing wrong with the pictures, but the post is kinda... bland? Funny, I get that reaction a lot, and not just from the forums. Everyone is tripping goofballs over the black and white stuff whereas the colour stuff is more like: "oh, that's nice".
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2009 20:43
|
|
|
I think what happens is that people see the same angles over and over again and so a well done shot can lose it's appeal. Has anyone shot live with the Tamron 28-75 f2.8? I'm in a toss up between that or the Sigma 30 f1.4 as the next lens in my live kit. I already have a Minolta 50 f1.8 but it feels a little tight on a crop sensor body so the 30 would be wider and a bit faster. A medium zoom would definitely have its advantage in larger venues with professional lights but I still lost the aperture speed.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2009 21:03
|
|
|
Scream Machine posted:Has anyone shot live with the Tamron 28-75 f2.8? I'm in a toss up between that or the Sigma 30 f1.4 as the next lens in my live kit. I already have a Minolta 50 f1.8 but it feels a little tight on a crop sensor body so the 30 would be wider and a bit faster. A medium zoom would definitely have its advantage in larger venues with professional lights but I still lost the aperture speed. I have. If you're doing stage front work in a smaller venue, it's a little long and I would recommend the 17-50 over that. For a larger venue, it's not so bad. Keep in mind that there's a huge difference between f/1.8 and f/2.8 in low light conditions. The shape of the stage makes a difference too. Shallow, wide stages are better served with wider lenses because you'll more likely be shooting right smack in front of the artist whereas with deeper stages, you'll want something longer because the non-singing musicians tend to hang back more on those types of stages plus the drummer is farther away as well. Of course, if you're shooting full-frame or film (which you're not), the 28-75 is a must-have in the same way that the 17-50 is for crops.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2009 21:26
|
|
|
HPL posted:Funny, I get that reaction a lot, and not just from the forums. Everyone is tripping goofballs over the black and white stuff whereas the colour stuff is more like: "oh, that's nice". Try it out if you please >8) It's silly, but I think your shots have that typical canon feel to them. Nothing really striking except that unending sharpness. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 23:30 on May 25, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2009 23:27
|
|
|
Just wanted to stop in and share some of my work: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24715866@N02/collections/72157607309604530/ I'm learning all the time, haven't made any money, not really interested in that yet. Soon I might do though. Sometimes I'll go to a gig and gently caress it up completely and I hate that. I've learnt to get my "money shots" early on and then start doing the experimentation. I'm shooting an all night festival at a local bar on the 31st so I should have some good shots from that for you to peruse and critique. Things I know I suck at: 1) Aperture settings and proper depth of field. 2) Lighting (although now I've learnt exposure lock properly that's helping) 2 in particular is caused by my crappy lenses but I can't afford to get anything better than constant 2.8 apertures so I'm stuck for now. Also my 400D only does ISO 1600. Things I think I'm ok at: 1) Decent amount of post-processing 2) Good composition - I think I know what makes a good photo, and I enjoy going through the shots afterwards and picking out interesting ones.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2009 23:45
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The thing is that you could just efex your color stuff into looking like film. But I'm trying for that "Nikon" look!  I'm actually working on some film I shot at a different show on Friday, so it'll be interesting to see the reaction to that. EDIT: Argh. A bunch of the photos are out of focus because I was using my Pentax MX! 
HPL fucked around with this message at 03:14 on May 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 03:11
|
|
|
HPL posted:I have. If you're doing stage front work in a smaller venue, it's a little long and I would recommend the 17-50 over that. For a larger venue, it's not so bad. Keep in mind that there's a huge difference between f/1.8 and f/2.8 in low light conditions. The shape of the stage makes a difference too. Shallow, wide stages are better served with wider lenses because you'll more likely be shooting right smack in front of the artist whereas with deeper stages, you'll want something longer because the non-singing musicians tend to hang back more on those types of stages plus the drummer is farther away as well. the 50mm felt too close at one of the largest venues in the area and the lighting is professional, even on the rare nights when they let local bands play. So shooting at 2.8 is a reality for me. At any of the smaller venues the 50 works fine, but I've only got 3 songs to get something good and the 50 just wasn't give me the angles I needed. Also, the Sony A700 has worse ISO performance than a D70s so I've got that to deal with as well. 1600 is usable but 3200 looks like a dirty polaroid. It's bad when one of your favorites of the show was taken from the bar with a 100-200 f/4 wide open. 
Scream Machine fucked around with this message at 04:58 on May 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 04:55
|
|
|
Scream Machine posted:It's bad when one of your favorites of the show was taken from the bar with a 100-200 f/4 wide open. It definitely looks like you've got enough light for an f/2.8 lens. I would still recommend the 17-50 if you're finding that your 50mm is way too long for pit work. The 28-75 will do you, but if you're in the pit and a musician is practically on top of you, you'll need the 17 more than you'll need the 28. Active musicians also photograph better with wider lenses because you're less prone to lopping off limbs when composing on the fly while the musician is thrashing around. The 17 is also just wide enough to give a little perspective skew for dramatic effects when close up. HPL fucked around with this message at 05:14 on May 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 05:12
|
|
|
Took this shot at the last show. Its my sisters band. Gives me time to screw around a little bit. Couldn't get close for any REAL good shots but I wanted to see what I could do with my f-stop at 2.8 Missed the focus on my brother in law on the right but overall its not too bad. The one shot I got that had them all in frame and in focus I had somebodies head pop up in the center and took up half the shot  Click here for the full 1199x495 image.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 05:22
|
|
|
thehustler posted:2 in particular is caused by my crappy lenses but I can't afford to get anything better than constant 2.8 apertures so I'm stuck for now. HPL posted:But I'm trying for that "Nikon" look! HPL posted:EDIT: Argh. A bunch of the photos are out of focus because I was using my Pentax MX! KickStand posted:The one shot I got that had them all in frame and in focus I had somebodies head pop up in the center and took up half the shot evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 08:14 on May 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 07:55
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You should really get a normal prime. Oh, I do have a 50mm 1.8 prime and it's amazing, I just find it annoying to have to change things over and I don't have a second body available. I think a 50mm is a little too zoomed in also. I will see if I can get a wider angle prime.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 08:03
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Oh, I do have a 50mm 1.8 prime and it's amazing, I just find it annoying to have to change things over and I don't have a second body available. I think a 50mm is a little too zoomed in also. I will see if I can get a wider angle prime.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 08:16
|
|
|
From the perspective of someone who's not only in a band but also reviews bands and does the layout for a campus newspaper, can I please recommend not going crazy with the processing if the band doesn't ask for it specifically? Don't surprise them with it and then watch their reactions like you just did an Extreme Home Makeover for them. Of course they'll act surprised and pleased - they've never seen anything like it before. They've never looked like this! It's crazy! That response is from the novelty of it and completely unrelated to the aesthetic quality of the photo. These bands are going to be older than their early twenties someday. Don't make them look back on pictures from their salad days and then put them somewhere that the kids can't get at them. In fact, if they ask you to hyper-process the photos, just lie and say you did! They probably won't know the difference! Instead of processing a photo to death and giving it to a band, just take a competent photo that makes the band look interesting. That way, you've not only taken a decent picture, but you've given the band a supreme advantage. Think of it from their perspective - they get this and then it has to go on their website, on their one-sheet and hopefully in any articles that get written about them. If they have a cool picture, it's going to wind up printed and referenced and disseminated like any of their other media. And here's the other thing about prioritizing interesting photos over heavy processing - there are a lot of bands out there, and almost all of them have some manner of press photos. Do you realize how many of those press photos are four guys brooding in an urban environment? Don't stand them up against a brick wall. Don't sit them down on a staircase. Don't ever, ever let them brood. Would you normally take a picture of a brick wall or of a staircase? What's a legitimately interesting environment for a person? What can you do for this band that you haven't ever actually seen? If you're charging hundreds of dollars for this (which is highway robbery, by the way, but I won't even get into that here), they better goddamn well get their money's worth, and it's your job to ensure that they do.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 10:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 21:34 |
|
|
JohnnyC posted:If you're charging hundreds of dollars for this (which is highway robbery, by the way, but I won't even get into that here) your post was cool until that, but that sentence just shows that you don't value photography or understand why people should have to pay what they do. band photography is essentially portrait work for commercial use, so why shouldn't the pricing be set as such? I actually make the least amount of money from band work, but it is what I enjoy doing the most so I'm ok with that. as far as interesting photos I'll agree; my rule of thumb now is that for every shoot I have at least one theme/concept for the band as well as the standard press shots. They usually love it and it works out great, though I have had a few bands that just want the standard boring shots, in which case theres not much you can do really, especially if they're just going to stand there and look at the camera with blank faces. Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 13:38 on May 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2009 13:30
|
|