HelP!! What lens is best for gig photography??!

haha you must have charmed your way in, usually the burly security won't let you in with a pass!
don't know about canon flashes as i'm a nikon guy, but yeah get yourself an external flash with a titling/rotating head.

otherwise with your in-body flash, just be a bit creative... make a diffuser out of tracing paper, masking tape, white gaffer tape... all those will soften the harshness of the flash. or before i had the flashgun i'd just hover my hand a few inches in front of the flash to soften the light reaching the stage :)
 
all that does is block light, so you're effectively shooting 1/2 a stop to a stop less light, nothing is defused the light source is still the same size, so its still harsh light..

the only time i would ever think about breaking out flash is at a metal night where even the fastest glass won't freeze the guys going kamikaze on stage and its an acceptable thing to do..
 
Bobtographer said:
all that does is block light, so you're effectively shooting 1/2 a stop to a stop less light, nothing is defused the light source is still the same size, so its still harsh light..

the only time i would ever think about breaking out flash is at a metal night where even the fastest glass won't freeze the guys going kamikaze on stage and its an acceptable thing to do..
Click to expand...

I used some tracing paper taped on my external flash and got some (what I think are) cracking results :)


4509115832_df8db46d2e.jpg


http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=219161
 
It really depends how far away you'll be said:
Bought one of these lenses last week for local gig - hadn't realised how poor the lighting would be & the above is very true.

£110 for a 50mm f1.8 wish I had gone for the 50mm f1.4 with AF for £230 now :shake:
Click to expand...
 
Foxysnapper said:
It really depends how far away you'll be said:
Bought one of these lenses last week for local gig - hadn't realised how poor the lighting would be & the above is very true.

£110 for a 50mm f1.8 wish I had gone for the 50mm f1.4 with AF for £230 now :shake:
Click to expand...

You paid £110?! They're mega cheap at £75... which was why I bought one.

You got a link to the pics? Interested to see how they turned out :)
Click to expand...
 
Rub it in why don't you?? ;) I was buying the lens in a hurry for a gig that night..

I found focussing a real issue in the dark venue but if you take enough shots..

Here are some taken last week with a 50mm F1.8 with flash & edited using Gimp..

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nigelr

Good luck with your shoot, but above all enjoy it (y)
 
Bobtographer said:
i dont see soft defused light, all i see is mixed light, the camera hasn't given you much in the way of light in that image anyway.. you can see the harsh shadow on the back wall..
Click to expand...

Tiny stage, tiny dark room(which is why you can see the shadow as he was standing so close to it), the stage lighting was pretty harsh or even dare I say bad..... so I thought I did pretty alright considering!

To add, it's a hobby I enjoy doing and the band where pretty pleased. I'm not looking for perfection.
 
Foxysnapper said:
It really depends how far away you'll be said:
Bought one of these lenses last week for local gig - hadn't realised how poor the lighting would be & the above is very true.

£110 for a 50mm f1.8 wish I had gone for the 50mm f1.4 with AF for £230 now :shake:
Click to expand...

both these lens would nail the shot, but the 1.4 will give you speed in very low light conditions, and some of these musicians move very fast.


Merc
Click to expand...
 
Peach said:
http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/99/l_a4a5c763a8629d454ce365ad8c9f9163.jpg


not sure if this works, this drummer is so fast!
Click to expand...


Don't worry about blurring our sticks or hands, it gives action to the shot and looks kinda cool.

I'm guessing your used to blagging your way backstage by now, if not get to it, just be confident and make yourself a photographer badge (laminate it and include a clip) it helps.

Most smaller bands are happy to let someone on the side of the stage as long as they stay out of the way and let them have some of the resulting pics.

PS if you haven't one, get a deviant art account, it looks more professional when you show your work to bands etc.
 
so, newbie to the forum here, and don't even know who's around to answer.

I've been shooting at some medium size venues this year, and have been working with a 40d with a 50mm f1.8 primarily, with a 350d and 85mm f1.8 as my 2nd command.

As i had a run of gigs this week, i've rented a canon 24-70 f2.8 lens (seeing as its £1000 and i can't justify that!) and i've shot a couple of gigs with it and wondering if i'm doing something wrong here.

I was dubious as to whether i could get decent shots at f2.8 as most of the time i shoot at f1.8 - the focussing has never been a problem and who i'm shooting for has never had any issue. I realise the shots will not be as sharp in terms of DOF, but in order to get a non dingy shot - thats what i work at, and i like to avoid going any higher than 800

the lighting at the 2 gigs has not been super bright, but its no dingy pub lighting by any means. Anyway, i'm wondering if i'm doing something wrong because even at over 1000 i'm not getting particulary light shots and they dont look particulary crisp either. With a £1000 lens i was expecting to be blown away, fall in love with the lens and not give it back. All i feel now is that to get more useable shots i would need to invest in a 5d mark II.

Does anyone have any advice? I'm shooting 3 more gigs this week, for one, as getting good shots are top of my list i may stick to my 50mm, and then experiment with the f2.8 at the other ones. With only 3 songs to shoot in, changing lenses is a bit cumbersome....

Any ideas on if i'm totally missing something?
 
hi Dan... stick some examples up on here and we'll have a look (y)

f2.8 should cause no problems really, i'm afraid i'm no expert on Canons, but a 40d looks on a par with a d700 (at least on price) and so you should be able to go to 1600 iso without any problem. gig shots allow you to get a bit grainy, all adds to the atmosphere of an image - but i'd much rather have a crisp, noisy shot at 3200 iso, than something less superior by not going above 800.
 
i'll post a couple when i get back home tonight - of the f2.8 that is.

but until then - everything you see on my flickr page
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danyell_photos/

is shot either 50mm or 85mm - mostly using f1.8 and trying to avoid over 800. you should be able to check the exif if not.

I tend to avoid using 1600 and anything higher because i just find it too noisy - i find grain will work for rock bands, but i try to avoid grain and using mono chrome for an entire set of photos because thats too much of an obvious answer. Obviously i do use it! but try to not do it too much. When i first got the 40d, i have to say i did expect the noise to be less noticeable than it is.

perhaps im making errors in my processing in lightroom? any suggestions welcome as it would be nice to get the best out of this lens (altho with my next gig tomorrow, i appreciate that could be a bit of a push :) )
 
shooting at 1.8 is very tough because your margin for error is incredibly small. so for example your shot here suffers from that tiny DoF. when looking at your LCD ir probably looks great, but then on a monitor you notice your subject is out of focus. again, with one like this, all subject focus is lost.

as with animals, it's the eyes that you want in focus, so although one like this looks perfect, i think it's his teeth which are in sharpest focus. and in gig situations, any lens loves focusing on the the mic ;)

but that said, this is being uber-critical. chances are, the way your clients are likely to be using these images (online, flyers, posters), such a tiny margin of error isn't going to make any difference, as sharpness is likely to be lost in the print/compression process.

generally in PP for gig shots, I'll add some clarity, blackness, a bit of light fill if needed.

going into a gig, i will shoot in manual and dial in 1/125sec, iso 800 and f2.8 - and adjust from there, usually slowing the shutter speed or upping iso, depending on conditions. don't think i've ever shot a gig at f1.8

you've obviously got some great contacts and access to venues, so keep at it! gig photography is a really tough arena to learn the craft in, but once you get the hang of it, it sets you up really well. i'm always learning with every gig and would never think i've sussed it!
 
thanks for your words benners. I of course see all your points on the DOF and am aware of them.

I do try and focus lock on the face somewhere, eyes if i can (or the guitar if thats what im after) and then reframe but obviously depending o the artist as to whether they are moving or not. So far the photos have only been used on line so you're right that the faults in them have not proved to be a problem so far.

in terms of PP that's pretty much all i do, if it is a darker shot i will try adding some exspoure or brightness, but nothing too crazy.

thanks for the tips on your settings. I'm hesitant about going below that on shutter speed due to too much blurring - especially seems to be the case for rappers who do alot of jumping around! The gigs at Indigo2 i've been able to do at 640 sometimes, but perhaps I am too focussed on the ISO, that grain just gets my goat!

I would just love to be able to get a 5d mark II - not because i think it'll make me able to 'better' photos - just that flexibilty to push the ISO more will mean i can use a small F stop and get some crisper shots.

Mostly i was wondering if i was doing something wrong in regards to the f2.8 lens that i've hired seeing as i was expecting something amazing that i would fall in love with.... you mention things looking good in the LCD - some of the f2.8 i shot last night looked useable on my LCD butup on the screen just wasnt up to it

I've had some good luck with venues most def. but certainly feel out of my depth when i see shots from the same gig on agency sites.
 
Last edited:
ISO 1600 on a 40D shouldnt be an issue. And if you are really bothered, why not hop to a 5DmkI (or 'Classic' as some people call it)? The noise handling will beat that of a 40D.

Personally, I've shot some trash venues with a 40D and my 50D and always use my Sigma 24-70 F2.8 and I've never found that F2.8 to be a problem, especially with the venues you are shooting at too!
 
by the sounds of it, you've pretty much got the understanding covered, it really is down to fine tuning and personal preference/opinion to be honest. some gig shots i've taken, i've not been too happy with but others have really liked - and vice versa :D

focus and recompose at 1.8 is almost impossible, as even a singer songwriter would only need to move an inch and the frame would need refocusing.

again, probably teaching egg-sucking, but search on Flickr for other shots from venues you shoot at and look at the exif data to see what others are doing.

a body with great iso capabilities will obviously help, i noticed an huuuge difference going from a D90 to a D700 - can shoot at 1600 without much issue at all. this one was shot at 2500 and i'm pretty sure i didn't add any noise reduction filters, etc.

there's always an outside chance you had a soft copy of the lens, but unlikely i'd have thought. the main difference i noticed going from a third party 2.8 to the Nikon 2.8 was the speed of AF.
 
i've added a couple more shots that i took at the weekend, most of which are with the f2.8.

i've found 1600 a bit too noisy, but perhaps i am too fussy?

MJ stebbings - that 5d seems hard to find for me - and the price that it is - i kinda feel like the II means i wouldnt have to upgrade for longer you know? i cant afford either so i should prob just shut up :)

hmm not so much egg sucking - you know i suggested someone else do that and didnt even think of doing it myself - what a wally!

how else would i know if i had a soft copy of the lens?

hmm overall i'm just confused. experimentation at gigs seems a bit too hit and miss.. hmmm. someone decide for me? :p
 
hmm, I see what you mean. this one doesn't seem to be in focus in the face, more around his belt, or bottom pocket?

it could be a problem with focusing and recomposing - at such fine apertures, there's barely any room for error... the difference can be a focus on the eyes or end of the microphone... i've had a fair few great compositions, only for the tip of the microphone to be nice and sharp :bonk:

i think this one shows that... on the face of it, a great shot (and it is, particularly with the out of focus point) but the sharpest point is the microphone. but again, we're being super picky... for most people and most uses it's just right.

this is great, and if you're concerned about noise, don't be! it's really not noticeable. if you are fussed by it, get a plugin like noiseninja which will cancel it out. i've not yet tried it, but even the tool in LR3 would probably do the trick.
 
I agree with benners about the shots. I'm not really sure whats going on. I may be asking a stupid question but have you got it on centre focus point, and what Focus you using? I tend to use one-shot as the focus is too slow on my Sigma so its a case of fast focus and fire :LOL:

The one where benners said the focus is on the mic tip, it looks more on the hand/end of the mic :shrug:
I know that feeling though, perfect shot, but the focus has grabbed the mic head and not the face :(
 
MJ Stebbings said:
I agree with benners about the shots. I'm not really sure whats going on. I may be asking a stupid question but have you got it on centre focus point, and what Focus you using? I tend to use one-shot as the focus is too slow on my Sigma so its a case of fast focus and fire :LOL:

The one where benners said the focus is on the mic tip, it looks more on the hand/end of the mic :shrug:
I know that feeling though, perfect shot, but the focus has grabbed the mic head and not the face :(
Click to expand...

i'm not the best at choosing the sharpest point in a pic, you're probably right with what's in focus :)

that's a good point about the the focus point choice - also i always use single shot, even with a fast AF lens, as continuous can get confused sometimes. i usually use spot metering too, rather than matrix.
 
thank you for all your help.... I do have neatimage, but i've only been using the free version, which can be limited but in terms of resources is the level i'm at at the moment.. I have light room 1.4, so not sure the noise reduction is as good. again a resources issue in terms of upgrading (excuses, excuses i know :) )

i think the first one it was a focussing issue in terms of not focussing on the face - perhaps i was expecting too much from a pricey lens - to over come my mistakes :p

i'm at that venue again and i have to say its good on light - which is why i chose this week to rent the lens.

i think as one of the gigs is more important than the other i may leave more testing til its not that one so i can be more confident that im not missing something

thank you and any other top tips all taken on board :)
 
spot metering - check
centre focus - check

however i do have it on AI Focus, i seem to rememebr switching to single shot whilst experminting in the past and wasnt happy. but i cant rememebr the deets on that...
 
a great place for info on shooting gigs, is Todd Owyoung's site - as well as up-to-date galleries, he often talks through how he shot gigs and there's a bunch of great advice, blogs and tips on there too... definitely worth exploring.

http://www.ishootshows.com/
 
dan_yell said:
however i do have it on AI Focus, i seem to rememebr switching to single shot whilst experminting in the past and wasnt happy. but i cant rememebr the deets on that...
Click to expand...

Thats me not trusting my lens :LOL:
If you are using a lens with a slow AF, that might be why (such as the 50mm f1.8) but the 24-70 should handle it fine on AI Focus
 
yeah, i've been on some of that website, but have to admit to not exploring is throughly. He's awesome.

Well i may or may not use the lens tonight, so we'll see. I may use during support and see what the lighting may bring.

thanks again, i've been showing up my blagging my way through this so far... :p
 
Keep going mate, it will be rewarding in the end, and I'm sure you will fall in love with the 24-70 next time.

Good call on the support acts, especially since the headliners usually get a better lighting set up, so if you can nail it to start with, then getting it for the headliners will be easy
 
Just finished editing for the night. It all went well, venue is very generous with lights - exactly why this was the week to rent the lens...

will post examples when its not 3am :)
 
here are some of my photos from last night

http://www.flickr.com/photos/danyell_photos/sets/72157628225709469/

Didn't break out the 50mm at all - all shots with 85mm and the f2.8 - i had the 85mm at f2.8 as well to start off to see how it was handling it. The lighting was very bright so i was able to keep ISO lower and even move up to f3.2 at times.

I'm still not TOTALLY amazed by the lens, i do prefer the sharpness of the 85mm but that's probably due to my inability or inexperience with it more than anything.....
 
Last edited:
i've just had a quick flick through, and if I'm honest I think you're being waaay to picky. there are a couple of shots which are suffering from a focal point issue, but the majority of them are absolutely crisp and clean.

remember, you're shooting in a dark room (albeit with great lighting at that venue) with people moving around. you're not going to get the same quality of shot as shooting at 100 iso, on a tripod, in a sunlit field ;)

be interesting to know which of those Hanson images you're not happy with...
 
Thanks for the positive words Benners. you're probably right, I am probably expecting too much from the lens, especially given my inexperience with it. I think I just see the shots from photo agencies and wish they were mine :) Or it could be my editing that isnt up to scratch yet, as it is a bit of a blag...

I am a lot happier with the shots than I thought I would be and I'm glad I didnt shy away from using it in the end.

I do love that 85mm lens though, it makes up for some of the shortcomings of the 350d
 
honestly, the quality of pretty much all those Hanson shots couldn't be any better - gig shooting is pretty tough, i don't really think you get the chance to expose correctly, etc. as you just don't have the time.

once you're confident with the technical side of shooting, it becomes even more fun because you start to concentrate on composition and 'watching' the action for some great images. at my first gigs, I was taking 200-300 shots, almost like a machine gun as I was scared of missing something! but that then means hours of editing!

now I probably take anywhere from 50-100 shots of a headliner, sometimes fewer if they're a singer/songwriter or someone who doesn't move around a lot. because you usually need to file the images within an hour or so of taking them, it means a LOT less editing and post-production!

it all comes with experience, don't worry about not being agency-quality after your first gig... we can't be a Danny North or Andy Willsher after a couple of shoots ;)

now you've got some contacts, try going to a few gigs for practice, ones where your client isn't really bothered about having images but gives a chance to experiment.

just out of interest, who are you shooting for - are you doing a house photographer role?

all-in-all, well done and keep at it, I don't think you have much to worry about (y)
 
Yeah, its a house photographer kinda deal. i've been extremely lucky to get this venue as i dont think i've seen lights that good anywhere outside an arena! (not that ive shot an arena) as well as access to some nice opportunites

I've done quite a few gigs this year so its not like its my first one, i've just been a bit apprehensive about this lens rental thing. i am still on the machine gun level though, for acts that move around anyway. I probably ended up sending 10% of what i actually shot. Which is more than usual, I wasnt forced out after 3 songs so i stayed for another... and then stopped taking the p*ss... - i took less of the support act as she was just in one place with a guitar, ive not put those couple up yet as i ran out of time.

I have 2 more gigs before i send the lens back so ill post to those when i get a chance too.

One of the photographers i know on flickr and he uses AV so it doesnt have to change the f stops when he's shooting - i never really got on with that, i dont know if he uses it all the time, but he has great photos!
 
I've just had a look through the images, didnt bother blowing any of them up as most live shots will be about the size they are in your flickr.
There was one shot I noticed that had focusing issues, other than that, they look crisp to me.
Dont forget, you are comparing a zoom against a prime lens. A prime will almost always be sharper than a zoom, however it lacks being versitle. So, then lenses are different animals really.

They also didnt look like an overly interesting bunch to photograph either. One drummer, one keyboards and the other on guitar and vocals. I can imagine a little static? The fun gigs are punk bands, they are crazy! Haha!
 
dan_yell said:
Yeah, its a house photographer kinda deal. i've been extremely lucky to get this venue as i dont think i've seen lights that good anywhere outside an arena! (not that ive shot an arena) as well as access to some nice opportunites

I've done quite a few gigs this year so its not like its my first one, i've just been a bit apprehensive about this lens rental thing. i am still on the machine gun level though, for acts that move around anyway. I probably ended up sending 10% of what i actually shot. Which is more than usual, I wasnt forced out after 3 songs so i stayed for another... and then stopped taking the p*ss... - i took less of the support act as she was just in one place with a guitar, ive not put those couple up yet as i ran out of time.

I have 2 more gigs before i send the lens back so ill post to those when i get a chance too.

One of the photographers i know on flickr and he uses AV so it doesnt have to change the f stops when he's shooting - i never really got on with that, i dont know if he uses it all the time, but he has great photos!
Click to expand...

MJ makes a good point about differences between primes and zooms.
it's a generalisation, but you'll find most gig photographers will shoot 2.8 on 24-70mm & 70-200mm (with a prime or two in the bag in case of really dark gigs, or for arty shots, and occasionally 14-24mm)

it's always horses for courses, but i prefer to shoot in M for complete control... because things are so fast moving sometimes, i like being able to change any setting in a click or two.

be interesting to see what you photos you think are great (from others) and which of yours your not happy with?

but like I say, I think you've pretty much got it nailed, the lens seems to be working fine... once you've got confidence in that, you can concentrate on fun compositions :)
 
Only ever shoot M, I like the control. And if he is shooting Av, then his shutter speed will vary. I would rather the shutter stayed the same if i'm honest, but either way, I shoot M so that I have total control over the whole shot.

I used to be "machine gun" gig photographer, but I usually take around 100 shots not, maybe less.

I dont shoot much live music now, I do it so rarely that I've become rusty at it and it annoys me :LOL:
I've been lucky to shoot gigs by Anti-Flag, Reel Big Fish, Enter Shikari, Nile, Terror, Stiff Little Fingers, Less Than Jake and loads more. Full on action. Some of those were at a venue with great lighting. Others were at a complete Dive. I hate shooting at the small dive, I'm never fully happy with my shots now and it just really annoys me! :LOL:
 
Last edited:
if light really is an issue, the take along a flash and save it for your 3rd song... that way if security are really jobsworth and tell you off/pull you out, at least you've had a couple of songs and grabbed a few crisp flash ones ;)

my first (well, first and only!) NME published image was one from a dark venue, band used loads of backlighting, tiny stage and I had to rescue most images in Photoshop... including the one that got printed! it was far from crisp and clear ;)
 
Yeah they were pretty static - and it was hard to shoot Taylor on keyboard cos of his mic stands. There was some variety later on in the gig with drummer doing a solo on guitar, and Taylor out from behind the mic jumping about. But in general no, i guess they're not that interesting - just an indulgence to be able to go :)

i guess i didnt expect to be able to see the difference between the zoom and prime with my unexperienced eye, but perhaps its not as unexperienced as i thought. But as benners said, I had noticed that either of those f2.8 were generally the norm amongst those of the 'big guns' at i see shooting at gigs. But, then, not to keep going on about it, i assumed this was because they'd probably have Nikon or Canons of the level of a 5d mark II or I that was able to push the ISO higher than the 40d.

I always shoot in M too - they had said whatever mode it was was better for the varying light, but i found it more difficult for it to judge what was the right exspoure with such changing light.

MJ - which in particular had focussing issues?

wow, 100 photos, ha, now wonder im filling up hard drives like noones business, i am such a hoarder.

in regards to good shots of other people's and not so good ones of mine - i should do some work.. but i'll post to some of those at some point :)

i was told by one of the venue's that rolling stone germany had asked to publish one of the kasabian shots i took - but i've heard nothing on that so i am not holding my breath on that.......
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top