|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:25 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:My shots came out real crappy, because I felt all self conscious and didn't push myself, for fear of getting lumped in with the blinding crew. gently caress it. Go buy an old Graflex 4x5 press camera or something. You'll win that dick-waving contest in no time flat. Believe it or not, I actually saw some woman using one at a show once. That was cool as hell. I wish I could have seen the photos she came up with. Part of the reason I started shooting concerts on film is because it gave my photos a different look to make them stand out from everyone else's. It also made it so that I didn't have to worry about red lighting anymore and noise became a plus rather than a minus because people dig film grain.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2009 20:53
|
|
|
Zurich posted:Yeah I meant pretty much shooting from the middle of the pit at a metal gig. I did that while shooting SNFU. I used an AF film camera and a 50mm prime. http://www.flickr.com/photos/31391300@N04/sets/72157620989730175/
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2009 16:08
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:The other question is How do you deal with bands you don't like? I say this as a musician, I've met plenty of uncreative douche-bags that I had to be pleasant around, because we're "Friends" with them. There's also bands out there whose music is just god-awful. Do you guys just up the charge or pass on them? As was said "Lots of people have cameras/lots of people have guitars". I figure it's a bit trickier for me because you can't just be like "No you guys suck lol" because it reflects poorly on my band and could hurt our opportunities to get gigs. As a photographer, I'd rather have a bad-sounding band that's more fun than a barrel of monkeys on stage than a bunch of great musicians that just stand there. That's part of the reason I'm not huge on photographing acoustic shows. Great sound but man, three photos and you're done. As long as the band is a bunch of decent folks that are easy to work with, I don't care how bad they sound on stage. Besides, you can use the old cop-out "Eh, they're okay, but they're not really my cup of tea".
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2009 21:47
|
|
|
rockcity posted:Helps if you've seen them before too. Some of my best live shots are of bands that I've gotten to know over the years and that I've shot a dozen times over and they'll look my way and give me a nod when they're going to jump or something so I know how to time it. Like this shot. Yeah, getting to know the bands helps a lot. If you tell them how cool jumping shots or whatever are and how much people dig them, they'll probably tell you straight up "yeah, well we usually like to jump around during the chorus of (insert song name here) a lot" or something like that if they have a fairly established stage show. The way I work is that if it's crowded and there's no pit, I usually cycle through my lenses for each shooting position I settle in to. I don't want to have to work my way around the crowd and then have to work all the way around it again with a different lens. For a photo pit situation, I work the other way around. Usually I start out with my 50mm (30mm on crop) because that's my money lens and no matter what the lights are like, I'll get something useable out of it. If the lights are good enough, I'll switch to my f/2.8 zooms after or stay on fast primes if the lights are crappy. If you're shooting a local small show, give the band a song or two to warm up before starting to shoot. You generally don't get the best photos right from the start. Usually the light/sound guy also takes about half a song or so to finish fiddling around with the sound levels and get down to operating the lights and about a full song before the lights settle down to regular patterns. SoundMonkey could probably fill us in more on that aspect of the show. Also, get to know your sound guys so that you'll know what to expect as soon as you walk into the venue. Different sound guys have different lighting styles. There are one or two sound guys around here that I know will put on a good show so when I walk in and see them messing around behind the board I know I'm in good hands. HPL fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Jul 22, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2009 19:22
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:Making the leap from local shows to bigger venues is a rather big one. Check on the web to see if there are any local music blogs or zines that need photogs. Believe it or not, I see a lot of blog photographers in pits. With the way that traditional print media is shifting to online-only, the distinction between news media and blogs is becoming very, very blurry.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2009 19:34
|
|
|
I went to a show last night and spent most of it messing around with exposure lock and what not. When it worked, it worked very well and the camera got some awesome exposures of the musicians against backlights instead of underexposing the musicians or overexposing when they were spotlit against dark backgrounds. Anyways, I could go over the lessons learned, but Canon thoughtfully wrote up an article on the matter: http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2547 The article is great in that it explains a lot of the small details that may trip people up. For instance, one key detail for me that I found out here is that in the default setting, AE lock with the shutter button only happens when metering in evaluative mode. The meter stays live unless you specifically press the AE lock button. I got tripped up on that because I switched to spot metering and kept wondering why the meter wouldn't hold like it usually did. The only downside is that on my camera (40D), it only meters on the center point and not the active AF point so AE lock involves a lot of metering and recomposing. This isn't so bad but it can be tough when you're trying to meter off the face of a moving subject with a wider lens where the subject is much smaller in the viewfinder. It's also tough because if you're using another AF point, it's hard to see exactly where the center point is when metering dark subjects because it won't illuminate with the AF button so you're guessing and hoping a bit trying to place a dark square on darkness. I've been doing this for landscapes and still life for ages, but this is the first time I've really experimented with it for concert shots. HPL fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jul 31, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2009 17:37
|
|
|
rockcity posted:Yeah, even with the AE lock, I just don't like trusting the camera to make my decisions for me at a show. There's just too much variation in the light sources between direction, power and position for me to let the camera figure it out. I'd rather just shoot manual and trust my gut on it. For the most part I end up with far better results, especially if the light is mildly consistent in power. I usually run manual mode when I'm using a flash. Otherwise I find that the lights change too rapidly to fiddle around with settings. If it's total blinky-flashy situation as often happens at metal shows, I'll go manual mode because there's just no helping otherwise. I did find myself falling back to manual occasionally because the meter was giving me strange readings like 1/1000 at f/2.8 which as anyone here knows is pretty much impossible at a small venue concert.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2009 18:20
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I was at a show last week in a smallish club and I had a hell of a time because they used a fog machine. The fog would refract the light all weird and I couldn't figure out how to meter for it. A lot of it was either blown out, or no definition of the performer amidst the fog. The important thing about foggy photos is how you post-process them. The fog removes a lot of contrast so you have to bring it back so that your photos don't look washed-out. One quick fix is to try an auto-contrast in Photoshop and then do a level adjustment to bring up the blacks and darks (left side and middle markers on the level adjustment histogram). If there are lights behind the performer, position yourself so the performer acts as a gobo with the lights which works best if the performer likes to hit crazy poses. If all else fails, learn to time the bulk of your shots during the period when the fog has dissapated the most before the fog machines launches a new volley. If you're using flash at a foggy gig, I would recommend that you get a radio remote so you can position the flash to hit the subject from a different angle from your camera. The closer the flash is to the axis of the lens, the more light will bounce off the fog and come right back at you and look like crap, sort of along the lines of why you don't use your high beams when driving in fog. Using flash diffusers like a whale tail or lightsphere may help too but basically get the flash as far away from the lens as you can.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2009 20:00
|
|
|
Some photos from Thursday night. Temporarily back on the digital wagon because it's too damned hot to sit around and develop and scan film.  A shot of fellow goon Awesomesauce's band Kill Matilda. No, that's not him in the photo:  Rest of set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/31391300@N04/sets/72157621907666542/
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2009 08:55
|
|
|
And that is why I shoot mostly indie shows these days.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2009 09:06
|
|
|
rockcity posted:I think the reason people don't like flash and blur photos is that a lot of them tend to look similar and a lot of photographers ride that completely as their style. I use it here and there, but for the most part I don't touch my flash at shows. I think that's the thing. Don't do an entire show in that style. It's great in small doses and done well. It's also becoming a cliche for club shots. And you don't need L-glass to turn out concert photos. I barely use any actual Canon lenses myself and one of the two that I do use is the cheap plastic 50 and the other is a cheap 135mm f/2.8. Everything else is Sigma, Tamron or Tokina.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2009 19:44
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:I guess I'm just not used to shooting major shows. I'm used to small shows with really lovely lighting. I usually shoot slow-sync + wide angle but i'm trying to branch out the style I shoot. Small shows with lovely lighting are the majority of what I shoot. Eventually you learn to live with fast primes and high ISOs. I almost never shoot below 1600. Going through your photostream, I think one problem with your concert photos is sloppy composition. You're not framing your subjects well often cutting them off in odd ways when there's plenty of room left over in the frame. You've even got a photo where you cut the head off of the main subject. Why? As for your light trail photos, I think you might want to work on those a bit too. The best light trail work makes it so the light trails frame the subject or move with the subject to enhance the sense of motion. In some of your photos, you're making light trails smack in the middle of the photo with no particular connection to the subject. They're just there, cluttering up the frame. If you don't have a Sigma 30mm f/1.4, I'd seriously suggest you get that or something similar. Either that or you need to get way closer to your subjects with the wide angle. Wide angles work best with concerts when you use them to really stretch perspective and make things seem more extreme than they really are and the way to do that is to get right up close and comfy so that the subjects fill the frame right to the edges. If you have to opt between showing more floor or showing more ceiling, showing more floor will often yield the more dramatic photo, especially in a smaller venue. I have a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 but I really don't use it much unless it's at a tight venue where I'm practically bumping the musicians with my lens hood. For anything else, a 17-50 or something similar is generally wide enough unless I'm going for a photo of the whole band at once.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2009 20:33
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:I suppose I need to reevaluate the way I shoot shows. I really look up to my cousin in terms of show photography so I'll see what he has to say in regards as to what to do. Really, a lot of it comes down to grinding it out and getting experience. The more you shoot, the more comfortable and familiar you'll be with it. To be honest, what really gave me a kick in the butt photographically was shooting on film. After that my keeper rate soared, overall photo quality improved and I learned to adapt and apply post processing techniques that I learned from doing black and white to my digital colour photos. The more experienced you get, the more you'll be able to pick out problems like microphone stands, stage lights directly behind the performer, odd shadows, etc. and learn how to either avoid them, minimise them or use them to your advantage and do it all on the fly. Even to this day, there are still shows where I go out and try something different and it turns out to be a horrible car wreck, but it's okay because I (hopefully) learned something. The key is to not do your learning on a client's dime.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2009 22:16
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:I have a film camera (two actually) but I find that I am not using them as much as I should. I am toying with the idea of getting some wicked high speed film (1600 or 3200) slapping on my 50 f/1.8 and going to shoot a show. You don't need fast film. Use 400 film and run it at 1600 or 3200.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2009 03:46
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:(Though just because you can push HP5+ to 3200 doesn't mean fast rated films are obsolete) No, they're not. But they're expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2009 04:36
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:"Hey dude so there is apperently one stipulation to taking pics of unearth. They wanna have free access to the photos to use for any promotional use. Is that cool with you? Definately a great way to pat your resume." Haha. Photo credits are always the first thing to get dumped by the wayside. Have you ever seen a photo credit on a poster or press kit? "We'll make sure you get credit" is the concert photographer equivalent of "The cheque is in the mail".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2009 16:39
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:*edit* while some people may think it's a bad idea, I'm going to do it as it would be a way to break into the whole "industry" because word does have a way of getting around...assuming that my photos don't come out like total crap that is. To be honest, I don't put a whole lot of emphasis on marketing my concert shots. I use them more as a way to drum up promo work. There are just way too many photographers in this town taking photos at shows.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2009 18:26
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:Now price: I am totally mystified by price here. The last promo shoot I had I charged 30 because it was a local band that wasn't going to use the photos for anything by myspace (and they broke up shortly afterwards). For what she is asking: holy poo poo. Full editorial and merch use of my photos in both print and web media. This is probably the biggest loving thing I have been asked to do. So two shoots plus ownership rights? I would probably ask at least $500-$1000. It's a lot easier to negotiate down than up. You're looking at the better part of a day for shooting and then however long for post-processing. You're basically doing the band version of a wedding shoot.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2009 21:53
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:I e-mailed her back to see if I couldn't get more information from her, most importantly where she heard of me from. I haven't really done all that many shoots, though I guess word does travel around. Goggle turns up one band on Static Eye, and that's pretty much the band's own label. The rights thing is a biggie because if they get all the rights to the photos, then once you're done with them and they're paid for, that's all you're getting. If you retain the rights, then there's room for future negotiation for further useage. That's why you charge way more for photos+rights. If they go griping about money, tell them that you can lower the price if they give up on the rights issue.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2009 22:18
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:I'd suggest you tell them that you tell them you charge $300/session, a session can be up to x hours (establish from the get-go) and includes post-work (important to clarify with them that you spend time editing the photos, a lot of people have the misconception that you just take them and are done). That will give them the option to do one session or two sessions to save time. You do realise that in the end your estimate is the same as mine, right? The rep is asking for two photo sessions (show and candid/promo) plus rights. You're just saying it in a wordier fashion.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2009 00:15
|
|
|
Your creativity is good, but the exposure is off. The musicians are all unidentifiable white blotches in the first and sort of unidentifiable in the second. Unless this is a reincarnation of the Average White Band, you might want to work on recovering highlights in those photos. I do like the way the shadows frame the first one.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2009 03:33
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:Think of it this way: You can charge $1,000 and be the guy that "Charges way too loving much" (even if they do take you up on it, they'll look elsewhere next time; but more likely you'll never hear from them again) or you could be the guy that "Is pricey, but worth every penny". Which do you think is going to get you more work long-term? Be realistic about this, and ask yourself this: Would you pay $200 per person for someone to take pictures of your family? Would you even pay $100? The same applies to any band. Most of the time the money is coming out of the musicians pockets. This is no exception, the label is likely just a front to make the band seem more professional, or it's a girlfriend/sibling/parent that just wants to be involved and supportive. Have you even bothered to read the thread? We've been saying he should charge that much because they want full rights. If the band is so broke, they shouldn't be so pushy on details like that. Let's turn it around: Say this band ends up being the underground hit of the year and they end up making millions of dollars and his photo becomes the icon of a generation. If he charges $200 for the photo shoot plus full rights, he'll end up looking like the biggest chump in the world. If he doesn't give full rights, he has a chance at royalties or licensing or useage fees.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2009 10:03
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:if they end up becoming the biggest underground hit of the year they're going to be having another promo shoot done a week after they're playing shows to more than 200 people and they'll start using those photos. All it takes is one great photo to last the ages. There are a lot of photos of Che Guevara out there, but people only remember one. Well two if you're a Leica geek.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2009 15:55
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:I'm not annoyed at my friend or his brother's band but Unearth is pulling some weird poo poo. Pictures to be used for a world wide DVD release given to you for free? Yeah, walk away unless your childhood dream has been to do a concert shoot of Unearth. You'll be putting in several hours of labour for nothing, not even a case of beer or whatever. There will be other opportunities along the line. Seriously, hook up with a local publication, whether print or online. That'll help you cut through a lot of the BS and you'll actually get your stuff published and credited properly.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2009 20:40
|
|
|
MMD3 posted:or tell them you'll give them free photos if they're giving their dvd's away for free. Or post it in the "Concert Photography" group on Flickr. The folks there love tearing that poo poo apart plus a lot of really good concert photographers post there.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2009 03:56
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:On the subject of pit shooting, try shooting from the sides. It's louder, but 90% of the time pits open up in the middle of the room so you avoid those, plus you can *usually* sneak to the front on the sides, and being at an angle helps eliminate microphone eating, and allows you to get easier drummer shots. Why aren't you wearing ear plugs?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2009 05:19
|
|
|
rockcity posted:I HIGHLY recommend these. They're not all that expensive, they're re-useable, comfortable, and have no sound quality loss. Those are the Etymotic ER-20s. They make things sound really good, but I honestly can't recommend them for really loud shows or shows where you have to work near the speakers or amps. They're better than nothing but they just don't have enough sound dampening in them. One time I was stuck at a very crowded venue in front of the bass amp which was turned up way too much and even with the ER-20s, my hearing still got hosed up for a couple of days. You're better off going to an industrial supply store and buying a whole box of foam ear plugs with at least 32dB of noise reduction. Cram a whole bunch of them in your camera bag and keep some in the glove compartment of your car in case you run out or forget or don't have your camera gear with you. And if you see people with their fingers in their ears at concerts, give them a pair too and spread the love around.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2009 19:05
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Presumably there's a custom function to disable the canon flashes from actually firing so you can use them as very expensive AF lamp. There is and I wish I could map it to a button like that stupid useless print button so I don't have to go through menus to turn the flash on and off. If you want a cheap AF assist and don't want to drop big dollars on a nice flash or ST-E2, go buy an old cheap flash with an AF assist lamp like the 200E and disable the flash from firing. I got a 200E for $7. The only downside is that the AF lamp on those older flashes only cover the middle focus point, but that's not a huge thing since it's beter than not focusing at all. If someone is giving you grief about having a flash on your camera, you can put electrical tape over the flash head so you can show them that there's nothing to worry about.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2009 16:05
|
|
|
Jumps and hair tosses! Yay!  
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2009 20:36
|
|
|
KickStand posted:Do you mind if I ask what kind of setup your using? Canon 40D, Metz 58AF flash, various lenses.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2009 00:17
|
|
|
rockcity posted:Seriously, if I were slayer I'd have beaten him with my metal chains if he made us look this boring. To be fair, just about all of Slayer's promo shots have been like that regardless of photographer.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2009 18:18
|
|
|
If you read the accompanying article, he had about three minutes to do the shots, so you're not exactly going to be getting the most personal of shots in that time. And like I said, Slayer has a fine history of "standing there" promo shots. If I were to find fault with his promo shots, I would say that it's that he often puts subjects too far to the edge with ultra wide angle lenses and group shots so the people on the sides of the group end up being very distorted. He would probably be better served by using a narrower lens and backing up if space is available. HPL fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Aug 26, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2009 15:18
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:On the subject of Ear Plugs: Hearing is one of those areas where you don't want to be pulling macho bullshit. You should be wearing ear plugs even if the music isn't absolutely blasting loud because once your hearing is gone, it's gone and your quality of life will suffer, especially if you end up with stuff like tinnitus. That's why a lot of long-time musicians regret not wearing ear plugs. Often smaller venues are worse for hearing damage than larger ones because you will be much closer to the speakers and generally the music isn't mixed as well so it may be overly harsh and damaging. If you ever leave the venue, get in your car and find that you have to turn up the stereo from the level it was when you got out of the car in the first place, you should have worn ear plugs.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2009 21:30
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Just finished scanning a batch of photos I took of a friend's band the other night, my first attempt at doing concert photography. Shot with Tmax P3200... I'm thinking it's time to hunt down a faster lens, though, my 50mm f2 was struggling in this light. It looks like the lighting was pretty bad if you were running at 3200 with an f/2 lens and still getting results like that. What shutter speeds were you using? Really, a faster lens would get you the same results, just clearer because you'd still get wicked blown-out highlights and dark shadows with that kind of lighting. I don't have any problem with using flash myself when the lighting is really bad. I figure that if the good lord intended me to never, ever use flash, he'd never, ever give me crappy lighting.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2009 17:49
|
|
|
pwn posted:Post Processing. One thing I do frequently with band photography is open the levels-adjusted "final" photo in Photoshop, duplicate the original layer, then Noise Ninja the original layer. I leave the duplicate alone and convert it to B&W, then blend it with the bottom layer, usually Overlay or Soft Light, depending on what kind of photo it is. I usually adjust the opacity of the layer too, since 100% is almost always too harsh an effect. This lets me keep a lot of the detail of the image, since the ugly digital noise looks better after B&W conversion. If you nail your exposure properly, noise will be much less of a factor. Also, little things like bumping up the bottom end in levels adjustment can hide a lot of noise too. Stage fog can lead to a lot of noise just like taking photos of clouds gives you lots of noise because it's such a fine gradient. If you increase the contrast between the subject and the background, that will make a lot of the background noise go away and make the photo punchier. Realistically, unless you're making an intentional style choice, you shouldn't have to fall back to B&W if you play your cards right. You'd be surprised at how little noise everyone else other than yourself notices in your photos. Sometimes I'll have a photo that I think is a mess of noise but no one else notices or cares, even after I point it out. A good photo is still a good photo in the end. I usually try to do as little post processing as I can get away with. Not for any artistic "straight out of the camera" type reasons, more because I want to be as efficient as possible and I don't want to get bogged down on small stuff, especially when I'm on a deadline.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2009 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:25 |
|
|
More stuff. A local venue recently renovated and re-opened under the name "Venue". How original. They now have a fancy pants LED board behind the stage that plays Winamp-style visualizations and scrolls the band name while the band plays. It's bright enough to gently caress up any sort of automatic metering so you have to shoot manual. They also installed a bunch of LED stage lights which do a great job of making post-production miserable:   Gallery: http://www.mikechow.com/Concerts-2009/Red-City-BreakoutFighting-for/9683611_u5bEw#654162480_3Y4DZ A couple of shots from a show a couple of weeks ago featuring Fake Shark - Real Zombie and Ninjaspy. If either band comes around your stretch of the woods, definitely check them out. Shot on Ilford Delta 400 at 1600:   Gallery: http://www.mikechow.com/Concerts-2009/NinjaspyFake-Shark-Real/9640507_mgsDT#650157050_gKHHV
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2009 01:25
|
|