|
jackpot posted:What are you doing / who are you working for that would get you media passes? I'm just wondering how that sort of thing is usually done. This won't work for everyone, but if you're a college student, hook up with the campus media. I've been able to shoot a lot of fairly big names-Kanye West, Foo Fighters, Smashing Pumpkins, to name a few-from the press pits just because of the clout involved with being with college media. And I don't even go to a big school. Chances are you're not going to get paid, but it's a good way to start out. This thread is a huge boon to me. I've been shooting concerts for about two years now, mostly as a hobby but also for the campus paper. I'm starting to attract people wanting to pay me and the whole idea is hard to grasp. I'll definitely be taking some of the advice in this thread. Here's some of my favorites that I've shot:    
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2009 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
jackpot posted:f/1.8? Great, why not just hand me the kit lens? The EF 85mm f/1.8 is a must for live concert photography on a budget. I'm sure having the flexibility of knowing you can go down to f/1.2 would be nice, but I wouldn't consider trading up unless I found it for absurdly cheap. It's probably the lens I use most, especially in situations where I'm in the crowd. Here's a couple of 85mm Death Cab shots from earlier in the month, just because:  
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2009 14:14
|
|
|
A couple of suggestions: It's difficult with MCs, but try to catch moments when the mic isn't in his face. Or, if you can, get at an angle where you can shoot in profile so that the mic doesn't obstruct as much. You could also probably stand to shoot at a faster shutter speed, it looks like you have the ISO and aperture to compensate, so long as you don't mind the grain.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2009 04:28
|
|
|
Any of you guys get to shoot Bonnaroo last weekend? I was there with a fancy (and heavy) 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens and wound up with some good shots. I didn't have a photo pass though, so I was restricted a bit in someways and given freedom in others. In case any of you were considering shooting a music festival, here's a breakdown on what's good and bad about each situation: Media Pass (no photo access) At Bonnaroo, a media pass gets you certain perks. You can bring a SLR camera into the main festival grounds, you get access to the media area for interviews, you get some amenities in that area like free bottled water, electricity and wi-fi, you get limited side-stage access which while close, doesn't mean you'll be able to see very well. This may be different at the music festival you're going to. If you want to shoot a band you're going to have to get to the front like any regular person--get there early and make your way to the front or be a dick and shove your way to the front. If you have an intimidating looking lens, sometimes people will move out of the way for you without you asking. Your best bet is to get there early though. Because you don't have a photo pass, you likely didn't sign any photo wavers and aren't hampered by the same restrictions. You can shoot the entire show, regardless of your gear's quality if it's anything like Bonnaroo. However, as a result, you'll be able to shoot far fewer shows and you won't be able to move very much. You also will likely have a much harder time shooting artists on the main stages, unless you have a lens that is absurdly long. I didn't shoot any bands on either main stage at Bonnaroo, it was too much effort. Photo Pass Photo passes at festivals work more or less like photo passes at regular shows. You get 3 songs in the photo pit, no flash and you're led in and out by a representative of the festival. You'll have to get there at a determined time to get your shots. Depending on the artists performing, you'll also have additional restrictions. Bruce Springsteen only allowed a fraction of the already small pool of approved photographers to shoot his performance, for instance. Nine Inch Nails, The Mars Volta and Beastie Boys had similar additional release contracts. So, you don't have to fight the crowds, you can shoot more bands overall if you keep a tight schedule and you have much more freedom to move in the photo pit. However, you also have to contend with the other photographers. Depending on how popular the artist is, you could be stumbling over as many as 30 photographers. And since you're ushered out after 3 songs, you might miss better photoworthy moments later in the set. For instance, Elvis Costello made a surprise appearance during Jenny Lewis's set about 6 songs in. But that's something you contend with anyway. Overall, I'm not disappointed about "just" getting a media pass. I wasn't able to shoot some of the bands I would have loved to have shot like Yeah Yeah Yeahs, but I was able to get some good shots of some of the more accessible acts like Jenny Lewis, Elvis Costello and Public Enemy. With all that said, here's some shots from this weekend:    
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2009 06:03
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I have an opportunity to shoot Neil Young at the Ryman next week, but his management requires that photographers shoot with "silent cameras." Does anyone know what the hell they're talking about? My 30D isn't "silent," but I've never felt awkward shooting a concert with it because the speakers drown out the click of the shutter. Has anyone else come up against an extra rule like that? Is his management going to be waiting in the wings with a dB meter, waiting to bounce my sorry rear end if the click registers? It kinda blows my mind that they're getting so picky in a gig where I'm only going to be allowed to shoot 2 songs.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2010 21:08
|
|
|
rockcity posted:I have never once heard of that. I have no idea why they'd have a rule like that. Who is going to hear the shutter click, maybe a handful of people, if that? So that means you'd have to use a point and shoot with no mechanical shutter? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Who did you go through for the pass and who is telling you this? I highly doubt they'd ever follow up on this. Tour managers would be nowhere near where you're shooting from meaning only venue security would be near you and they're not going to care. I'm going through my editor, who's going through the concert publicist, who's going through "management," which I assume is the tour manager. The publicist directly quoted the photo guidelines from management: "For still photographers coming to shoot the show, please tell them that they need to bring silent cameras to shoot the first 2 songs, no flash. It is a low sound level show, and the click of some cameras can be heard during the performance. Let the press photographers know that it is a low light level show so they should bring equipment to deal with those conditions." The best I can figure is that he's playing solo and acoustic. It's conceivable that he might go without a microphone, considering how out-of-this-world the Ryman's acoustics are. I have a hard time believing that anyone's going to be disturbed by the shutter clicks, but wouldn't be disturbed by the photographers scurrying back and forth (the Ryman doesn't have a photo pit, you just go to the front of the stage and shoot around the front row). I guess the worst thing that can happen is that I get bounced before the first song is over because of camera noise. If they're going to get that anal though, I'm surprised they don't just go the Bob Dylan route and say no to any and all photos.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2010 05:26
|
|
|
Lightning Bolt sounds like a hell of a band to shoot. My first paying freelance gig was shooting Monotonix, which was tricky to say the least. They set up on the floor too, but they're all over the place so there's often no light at all. I wound up with a lot of weirdly framed shots like this, since I only have prime lenses:
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2010 08:44
|
|
|
HPL posted:The Tokina 11-16 is a godsend for up-close mayhem. I shot this set with the Tokina at a packed house party: Nice one: http://www.mikechow.com/Concerts-2010/Ham-WailinLife-Against/11526605_BUN4C#811429167_vdUwM I've been looking for a good close-up solution for house parties and smaller warehouse shows. I used a borrowed Canon 10-22 for a little while, but I wasn't really satisfied with the results. I think I absolutely need to be able to drop down to f/2.8, since the Canon tops out at f/3.5. Were you just using a regular on-camera bounce flash for lighting?
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2010 02:27
|
|
|
Update on the "silent camera" thing. It wound up not mattering since security didn't even know about the rule. And if they did, they didn't care. Unfortunately, Neil Young's management decided to make all of the photographers shoot from the soundboard at the back of the balcony at the last minute and I didn't have the right gear to do the show justice. I wish shooting big name artists wasn't such a pain in the rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 09:50
|
|
|
Any of you guys shooting Bonnaroo this weekend? I'm going with the local alt. weekly. I didn't get a photo pass (mostly because I didn't push for one like the idiot I am), but it'll be a good time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2010 06:20
|
|
|
Back from Bonnaroo. I wound up getting a photo wristband afterall (and, eventually, an artist pass). Here's a Flaming Lips photo that I'm sure everyone has in their portfolios at this point:
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2010 02:45
|
|
|
Eeek posted:What song is that at? Is it your first 3? Everyone has that; been meaning to ask. Wayne basically starts the show with it these days. The band comes out and starts playing an intro, then some crew members blow up the bubble with Wayne inside it, he does his thing for a minute or two, then rolls back in to finish the intro and launch into the first real song. Viper_3000 posted:I went, I didn't take pictures though. Camp was a 45 minute hike from centeroo and I didn't feel like arguing with security to let me in with my SLR. I wouldn't have gotten any usable band shots anyway, as I don't have a zoom...just my 50mm prime. Also, we totally live in the same city. Yeah, I hear that. I was in general last year and shot, it was a huge pain to cart around my camera and lenses. I rented a 70-200 IS lens too, so it was even heavier because of that. Being in guest camping this year helped a lot, but it's still rough. Especially when the heat index hits over 100 like it did this weekend.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2010 07:59
|
|
|
Ric posted:I was reluctant to go as high as 800! It's the highest ISO at which I've ever got usable results. I have NoiseNinja but I find it flattens features too much; maybe I'm not familiar enough with it. It's a judgment call. At shows where it's so dark that f/1.2 is still getting you basically nothing, you're going to have to bump the ISO up. But I wholeheartedly disagree with the sentiment that you should never shoot on 800. I like to use 800 as a baseline and adjust from there. I almost never shoot at 1600 because the grain is so bad that it becomes distracting, and when you have to process that much, you're going to lose something from the photo (that flatness that you're taking about). Then again, you could say the same thing about severely underexposed photos.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2010 18:08
|
|
|
I, Butthole posted:What camera are you shooting on that 800 or 1600 ISO is a bad thing? Especially at f/1.2? I generally shoot 4000ISO at f/4 on a full frame camera, and my results are great for high quality high dpi 12x18" prints. Canon 30D. 800 is fine. I can even get away with 1200 sometimes, but 1600 or 3200 produces grain that's distracting. Especially in wide aperture shots since the grain is more pronounced in the bokeh. I'd love to upgrade to a fancy full frame camera, but I can't afford a $2500 camera body.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2010 18:08
|
|
|
 Ty Segall @ The End by LanceCo, on Flickr This was a couple months ago, but I've been going through recent sets and marking new favorites as portfolio material. I'd say I timed this one pretty well (or, rather, got incredibly lucky  ).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2010 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
Sometimes, all I want to do is quit my day job and follow The Flaming Lips on tour with my camera.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2011 23:01
|
|