|
I'll hop in with some stuff to add later (at work right now), but for now all I can tell you is that for those of you worrying about getting into promo work, don't worry. It's not nearly as nerve-wracking as you might think it is. If you've been shooting shows for a while, you already have a sense of what looks good and what bands dig, and the bands dig how you make things look or they wouldn't ask you. Just take that and do it in a more formalized setting. As for the studio equipment, I have three 285HVs with radio triggers, stands, umbrellas blah blah blah but really it's about what's between the ears, not the camera in your hands. If you're being asked to do promos, you're probably veteran enough to know how to work with horrible light and make it look decent, so anything above that is gravy. Honestly, I find that the biggest thing is to learn the individual band members' names for promo sessions because you'll have far greater control over the session the more you can communicate with each of them. I'm terrible with names so I'm really bad that way, but I notice a huge difference when I do and don't remember their names.
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2009 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
Some of my more recent work: http://abortmag.com/?p=5509 It was a team effort between me and another photog. If you're wondering which photos are mine, let's just say about 2/3 of them are if you count the credits.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2009 06:20
|
|
|
rockcity posted:Shot 3 shows this past week, two of Craig Owens and then the Taste of Chaos tour. I'll toss up some of the better shots from the shows later tonight. How were the lights for TOC? I'm shooting that next week.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2009 15:31
|
|
|
rockcity posted:Bring a flash if the venue will let you use it. I shot Pierce the Veil without it and it was fine, but both Bring Me the Horizon and Thursday had ZERO front light. There's tons of rear lighting, but none on their faces. And of course my flash batteries died like one song into BMTH. Son of a whore. Yeah, I saw Todd Owyoung's photos from TOC and I wasn't too impressed with the lights and he's using a D3 with good lenses. I'm hoping they'll let us use flash but it's Live Nation so I'm pretty sure they won't.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2009 21:05
|
|
|
TOC was nasty for lighting. The opener was okay because it was the local band and the lighting guy didn't really give a drat and mostly left the lights on constant. Cancer Bats was a gong show. Dark as hell, flashing backlights, musicians running around like scalded monkeys. Pierce the Veil was okay. Most of the lighting was on the lead singer. Couldn't get a good photo of "MOTHER FUCKERS" because I was in the photo pit at the time. Visually, Four Year Strong stood out the most for me. They had the matching varsity jackets and beards, the big lit-up FYS signs and knew how to hit and hold the poses just long enough while still moving like demons. Bring Me the Horizon and Thursday were pretty much the same from a photo standpoint. Thrashy, jumpy singer in the middle of darkly-lit, mostly static musicians. If anyone else is shooting the rest of the TOC tour, one huge hint is to get in your lead singer shots between songs. The lead singers were tough to capture in motion, but they like to talk a lot while making and holding grand gestures and the lights are usually brighter during those breaks so take advantage and make hay while the sun shines. Also, be prepared to get shots of the singers climbing into the crowd. Almost every band did that. Hell, BMTH's singer basically spent the better part of a song lost in the crowd. All you could see was his microphone cord trailing off the stage. HPL fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Apr 2, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2009 18:02
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Speaking of this though, have any of you guys shot warped tour before? I'm currently going through the process of getting my photo pass and was wondering if anyone had experience with it/tips about it. All I can say is bring lots of storage. TOC had six bands and they were loose with the song limits so I shot a ton of photos, around twice as much as a regular concert. Also, can we get Todd and Chris Owyoung's web sites up in the OP? They are awesome concert photographers and their web sites are full of tons of useful information. Other sites have good photography information, but theirs deal specifically with concert and promo shooting. Todd: http://ishootshows.com Chris: http://www.onelouderphoto.com The Flickr "Concert Photography" group is useful too: http://www.flickr.com/groups/concertshots/ HPL fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Apr 2, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2009 18:09
|
|
|
How do you keep the lighting so even? I find there's ALWAYS one guy in the group with skin so white it's blow-out city when lighting for the group as a whole. Maybe I need to start doing promos for Reggae bands or something.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2009 18:21
|
|
|
rockcity posted:Second, get ready for typically bland lighting. Outdoor shows are fun because it's a crapload easier to get a decent exposure, however, it's also a crapload easier to come away with REALLY generic photos. Take you time and look for good angles and good poses, this is easily the best tip I can give you. This is where wide-angle lenses come into play. You can get some really dramatic photos with wide-angles if you can get right up close to the stage what with the skewed perspective and all that come with using lenses like that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2009 22:48
|
|
|
Love your choice of settings. Some of the photos are overprocessed, but I know that's the client's preference, not yours. I could swear I saw the inside of that clock tower in someone's PAD photo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2009 01:34
|
|
|
Zoowick posted:I use the tower every so often, I'm sure I've poster tower pics there before. If I could find one nit to pick, I guess it would be that the backgrounds are too busy on some of the photos and the band almost gets lost or the viewer gets distracted by them. Make no mistake though, they're kickass photos that just about any band would love to have.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2009 05:54
|
|
|
I find I'm getting better lighting at the small clubs than I am at the larger venues these days. What's up with all the backlighting and flashy lights these days?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2009 17:54
|
|
|
Flashiness is a pain in the rear end because it screws up autofocus when it goes dark.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2009 19:30
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:How do you people with obviously more talent than me get your loving cameras to focus where you want? They only way I've hit focus with any kind of reliability is by using single point continuous and then framing whichever point stuck to people's face, but it's awkward, and it leads to more crops than I'd like. I can't use single shot (the mode people use to focus then recompose) since artists tend to gesticulate and move about to the patrons' delight. Hmmm. Overlooked this question. I usually do what you're doing and pick points. Are you using a full-frame or crop camera? Picking points is actually better on crop cameras because the sensor grid covers more of the frame whereas on full-frame they're concentrated around the middle in a smaller bunch. And an IR illuminator wouldn't really help you. It would help you if you're shooting in conditions dark enough that the camera won't autofocus at all, but if the problem is focusing on the wrong point, no, it won't help.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2009 01:51
|
|
|
Zoowick posted:I shot my first live show last night and hated it. Definitely not my thing. I was contacted last minute and asked if I wanted to shoot so I gave it a try. The opening act was "The big take over" So exactly what about it did you not like? I'm just curious as a guy that started in concerts and is expanding into portraits whereas you're the opposite. Was it the lack of control over the environment? Your shots turned out about as good as anyone could ask for. And yeah, now you see why we're all baffled when you say that you shoot JPG all the time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2009 15:31
|
|
|
Zoowick posted:The lack of control. I feel uncomfortable in that kind of environment as well. I'm not much of a schmoozer so I end up in a lot of awkward conversations. I just felt like I couldn't be my normal artistic self, to much going on. I think the thing is that at a concert, you're more capturing and documenting something instead of creating something from the ground up. A lot of the creativity comes from interpretation, like which lens you use, which angle you shoot and which moment you choose to freeze since there's not much else you can control. Sometimes it can be incredibly frustrating if the lights are poor, the band just stands there doing nothing while they're playing, there are tons of microphone stands in the way and it's difficult to move around because there are so many people or there are so many restrictions put on when and where you can shoot. Other times it feels like the shots are just coming to you instead of the other way around. You might want to try shooting at a smaller, more intimate venue. The atmosphere will be much more casual and you'll most likely have more fun. I find I have more fun shooting at small clubs because I don't have to deal with paperwork, media reps, barriers blah blah blah and instead I can just get down to taking photos. Shooting at larger venues just feels like drudge work with all the BS you have to go through. Yeah, I get photos of bigger names and get more press, but it's not as much of a creative outlet as it is a trade. A good thing to do is strike up a conversation with the band. Once they find out how good a photographer you are, you'll find the band starts playing it up for you more on stage and you get those great shots that really show the personality of the band.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2009 17:56
|
|
|
Tincans posted:I think I'm doing this right I like the first one the best. The smug smile just screams: "drat right I'm the loving King!" evil_bunnY posted:Still processing, but wanted to get it off my chest: gently caress ELETRONICA BANDS. Yeah, whole group shots are almost impossible. It helps big time if you can get around to the side of the stage though:  
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2009 20:53
|
|
|
Nihiliste posted:So how do you people address colour metering at concerts? You'd think this would come up in most guides, but it doesn't. I kind of throw white balance out the window with concerts. The lights are constantly changing colour and intensity, so what's the point? I leave it on auto and sort it out later if it needs sorting at all. As for actual metering, definitely shoot in raw. If you've got a blown-out highlight with a purple light for instance, try desaturating that colour of purple. You can recover a surprising amount of detail by playing around with specific colour saturation. If your camera has a feature that makes blown-out areas blink when viewing the preview, turn that on so you'll instantly see what's working and what isn't. It's okay if you've blown-out a light behind the performer or whatever, just as long as the important things like facial features are still good to go. Basically get the photos are bright as you can without going over the edge. Bright photos with good contrast work the best if you need to do noise reduction in post. Scream Machine posted:Respecting security can be tough as some places have extremely huge assholes working. And sometimes you're more afraid of the bartender than you are of the dudes with the huge arms keeping eye on the venue. I guess I've been lucky at the venues I shoot at. I show them the utmost respect and they show it right back. Generally, the calibre of security follows the calibre of clientele. If it's a club that caters to posers and idiots, you're going to get security that treats people like dicks. If it's a more laid-back club where people know how to behave, security is much more cool about things.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2009 19:42
|
|
|
shudder posted:Now that you say that I agree. How can you do singular artists promo shots? You're not really selling personality with your photos. The poses and expressions are neutral. The settings are generic and bland. Your full length and torso shots might as well be head shots since there's so little going on. If I'm a record company executive, I'm thinking: "drat, this guy is boring." Try some of the tricks you might try with concert photography. Think back to what elements made your best concert shots your best concert shots and apply that to the promo shots. Did you talk to the artist beforehand to see if they themselves had any ideas kicking around that they might like to try? I find that's helpful in getting the ball rolling.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2009 15:51
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted: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? Haha. Yeah, this. Do one proper promo session once and you'll see why it costs what it does. The actual photo taking is only one portion of the equation. Photographers actually work dirt cheap compared to other trades. If we charged similar to what plumbers or electricians charged, you'd be talking thousands of dollars instead of hundreds.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2009 15:41
|
|
|
JohnnyC posted:I know photographers, I work with photographers, I'm friends with photographers and I've talked with photographers about their business. I also manage my band. You cannot possibly convince me that shooting promo shots for my band is more of a money sink for you than it is for me. Well, let's see, a few hours to research locations and ideas and prepare for the shoot, gas to drive to and from the shoot, approximately 2 to 4 hours for the shoot itself, 4 to 10 hours to make ugly faces look pretty in post and finish everything off nicely and make sure it's to the clients' liking, equipment costs, insurance, etc. so in the end $200 is more of a token of appreciation than anything else. Besides, you're going to be using the photos to (theoretically) make money, so if your band is worth a drat, the photos should easily pay for themselves in gigs and PR. Also consider that if you have four guys in a band, that's like $50 each, which is like a few drinks at a snotty club except the photos last longer. I used to scoff at wedding photographers charging thousands of dollars but then once I started doing actual research into it, I started to see where it was all going. HPL fucked around with this message at 21:35 on May 26, 2009 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2009 21:32
|
|
|
JohnnyC posted:It sounds like you're thinking of shoots on a completely different scale than I am and that most bands are. Here's your average band's scenario. They aren't signed to a label. They all have day jobs. They work really hard for a turnout of maybe - maybe - thirty consistent attendees at each one of their shows. Their band is an enormous sinkhole of time and money, the latter of which they may never see a return for. See, that's where we're differing. I'm talking about bands that regularly fill clubs at $10-$15 a pop. I agree that bands on the level you're talking about can get by without fancy photos, but if you're serious and looking at making the jump up and get signed, you've got to look somewhat professional and put together a slick press kit and photos are a big part of that. Bands get lots of mileage out of good photos. They get used for show posters all the time, web pages, CDs, shirts and other stuff. As a photographer, I expect myself to deliver the best product I can within reason if I am charging the client and the last thing I would do is go on autopilot, crank out two or three generic photos and HDR them. Maybe if I were doing it for free for fun or just as an impromptu shoot after a show then maybe I'd fall back on the old cliches. HPL fucked around with this message at 23:53 on May 26, 2009 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2009 23:48
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, I was wondering what the bare minimum investment would be to get up and running with concert photography. I ended going with film because of the cheap equipment. Here's what I came up with: Equipment: Canon EOS A2E body: $80 Canon 50mm f/1.8: $100 2CR5 battery: $9 (Seriously, what the hell?) Sub total: $189 Film gear: Bulk roll of HP5+: $53 Bulk loader and 20 cartridges: $60 Kodak Xtol developer: $9 x 2 Stop bath: $6 Fixer: $10 Developing tank with two reels: $20 Graduated cylinder: $10 Negative sleeves: $20 Epson V500 scanner: $200 Sub total: $397 Total: $586 So there you have it. You can get a kick-rear end full-frame, low-light setup capable of running comfortably at EI3200 for less than the price of a used 40D body alone. The only downsides are that you won't be able to shoot hundreds of photos per show, fast cheap film is usually only black and white and it takes time to develop and scan the film. Also, there will be a continual investment in darkroom chemicals and film.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2009 00:50
|
|
|
shudder posted:HPL, I've seen TONS of shots from you and LOVE your film stuff. Where do you guys go and order your chemicals for the film? I believe freestyle has some, but just curious as to where you guys go. (sorry if this is a bit of a tangent) I get my liquid chemicals (stop bath, fixer) from the local stores because in Canada there are crazy surcharges for shipping liquid chemicals. That's one reason why I like Xtol because it's a powder so there aren't any hassles with shipping and I can get it from anywhere (usually Henry's) and it keeps for ages as a powder. The problem is that when you're pushing film like crazy, you use stock undiluted developer with Xtol, so you burn through it pretty quickly. If you're finding that you're getting decent results at 800 or 1600, then HC-110 might be okay and one bottle of HC-110 lasts for ages because you dilute it so much. Definitely bring the film camera along for messing around. It takes a few tries before you get things just the way you like them both on the shooting end and the developing end. I find that for concerts, it helps to develop a half stop or one stop faster than what you shot at, like using the 3200 data for 1600. Again, it's all in the experimentation because there are a lot of variables unique to your setup, where you shoot and how you shoot and develop.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2009 01:52
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The problem with low budget digital is that it's not going to look quite as good at ISO3200. Plus 50mm on crop digital kind of sucks when you're right next to the performers. 50mm on full-frame/film is sweet though.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2009 15:40
|
|
|
BigKOfJustice posted:"You'll get exposure, you'll get paid on the next gig" The funny thing is that they'll usually either as for watermark-free photos or crop out the watermark and then by the time the photo ends up in a press kit or poster, there's no credit anyway.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2009 20:23
|
|
|
Yeah I read books. posted:I'm going to the summer slaughter tour in atlanta later today and I'm wondering if I should take my 5D2...I'm kind of worried about it getting smashed the gently caress up, but on the other hand I really want some retarded shots of metal bands. Also I don't even know if the venue (masquerade) will let me bring it in. Does anyone have any advice or want to talk me out of it? As long as there's a photo pit at the front of the stage with security, you should be fine. Contact the show promoter if you want a photo pass. I would definitely advise you to at least try to get a photo pass because most mid-level and up shows are more strict about SLRs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2009 17:47
|
|
|
Yeah I read books. posted:The band. The venue only has a phone number for mon-fri The venue doesn't control photo access, it's the promotion company like Live Nation or House of Blues. Judging by the web site, the tour seems to be put on by Sumerian Records so you may want to talk to someone there. The easiest route though would be to pay your dues, crank out a bunch of concert shoots of local indie bands in small clubs and see if a small local magazine or newspaper will help you out for photos for a show review.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2009 18:16
|
|
|
You're actually kind of limited in your options since you're going today. Usually proper photo credentials need at least a few weeks to go through the proper channels. Unless you personally know someone either in the bands or tour management, you're not going to get pit access on such short notice. Bring a point and shoot camera. Security at venues don't care anymore about point and shoots since everyone has one these days. If it's an outdoor concert in the daytime, you could even take a disposable film camera. You could bring your 5D2 and the worst that would happen is they'll make you check it at the coat check or take it back to your car. The downside is that even if you do get to bring it in, you might it smashed, get drinks spilled on it or you won't be able to get decent photos anyway because you'll either be too far away or you'll be trying to shoot over everyone elses heads. Really, you're probably better off bringing a small camera for shits and giggles and just enjoying the show instead of worrying about gear.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2009 18:33
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
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
|
|