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

when i file for agencies, they only want about 12-15 images max - all need to be different/varied. that's one lesson I learnt, not to put up dozens of images from a gig on my flickr/website, just choose about 8-10 of the best, all different.

although you might be proud of having dozens of crisp shots, people only want to look through a handful of different shots, they're not interested in 10 almost identical shots of the lead singer.

so by being selective about taking shots, it's much more efficient to take 50-100 shots as you can edit and file quicker. that then means 'knowing' your subject - finding out which songs bands open with, what the band members are likely to do: stand on risers, jump, reach into the crowd, pull faces, team up with other band members, knowing who stands where on stage, are they left/right handed, are there pyrotechnics, etc, etc.
 
yeah to be honest, thats more than i usually put up - and if i had my fan girl hat on - i'd have 100 images in there. It's something to do try and keep in mind, but i'm aware its something i do need to work on - but i have got better about being selective on what shots go on the flickr site and what shots i just edit cos they're 'decent'. I'm getting there on that - but always good to be reminded when i go off on a tangent :)

and in regards to research yes - good points - i've done a little of this, subconciously, but not as a 'this is part of my preperation' so that's something to build on, thanks.
 
dan_yell said:
MJ - which in particular had focussing issues?
Click to expand...

This One

I'm guessing as you focused, he leaned back or something? Its the only one with any real focusing issues. I thought there was one where the mic was sharper than the face, but I cant see it now so its obviously not an issue! Haha!
 
Ah right yes - i thought it was blurring rather than focussing cos he'd moved, but it could be that too. actually i may take that one out - the other one from that position is better and this one wouldnt be missed. he was moving either backwards or forwards as they had just finished a song.

Cheers guys :)
 
I love this photo but it just needs a bit of cropping to make it better.

Dont be affraid to change the image size so that its sqaure, rather than keep it in a 2x3 ratio
 
would you make that one square? or just a comment in general? I kind of liked the expanse at the top, but i can have a play with cropping to see how it'd look in another way. ive not really done square kinda think it might look odd.. but experimentation is worth a look :)
 
dan_yell said:
Ah right yes - i thought it was blurring rather than focussing cos he'd moved, but it could be that too. actually i may take that one out - the other one from that position is better and this one wouldnt be missed. he was moving either backwards or forwards as they had just finished a song.

Cheers guys :)
Click to expand...

i would take it out... think of your Flickr as your professional portfolio, so you only want to be showing off a handful of your best shots from each artist.

MJ Stebbings said:
I love this photo but it just needs a bit of cropping to make it better.

Dont be affraid to change the image size so that its sqaure, rather than keep it in a 2x3 ratio
Click to expand...

unless you are shooting for an agency, in which case try to keep the original dimensions and let the designer decide on the best crop. you never know what size hole the picture is going to fill on a flyer, poster, page... they may be after a photo with a lot of empty space to overlay text, or it may convince them to use that photo as it gives them some inspiration.

also, keeping the original dimensions makes for a professional-looking slide show as there's not lots of resizing going on :)
 
benners said:
unless you are shooting for an agency, in which case try to keep the original dimensions and let the designer decide on the best crop. you never know what size hole the picture is going to fill on a flyer, poster, page... they may be after a photo with a lot of empty space to overlay text, or it may convince them to use that photo as it gives them some inspiration.

also, keeping the original dimensions makes for a professional-looking slide show as there's not lots of resizing going on :)
Click to expand...

Fair comment. I've never shot for an agency, only for the venues and promoters themselves.
With the shot i linked to, keep the dimensions, but crop in from the left top corner a touch, reducing the space above the top of the head and bringing the left side in a touch
 
MJ Stebbings said:
Fair comment. I've never shot for an agency, only for the venues and promoters themselves.
With the shot i linked to, keep the dimensions, but crop in from the left top corner a touch, reducing the space above the top of the head and bringing the left side in a touch
Click to expand...

it's another thing which I think helps with efficiency in the whole process... if you can compose shots at the time of taking, to fill the frame, it makes editing so much easier. it also helps if you ever want make/sell prints as you've got a universal dimension ready-to-go.
 
that is something which using the 50mm forces me to do at the time of shooting, without the luxury of Mr rented £1000 lens. Or rather, it's something i read about the lens on a review and agreed with :)
 
I tend to fill the frames with my shots anyway, so not much room to crop to anything but a 2x3 ratio :LOL:

As I say, never shot for agency work, just for the work of the venue and promoter, so I had more pp time than most.
 
Two shots from last night. Good lights again. i think my first use of it on saturday was what made me apprehensive as it was a club night and the lights for the PA acts was obviously not what they use for a full gig night.

One more gig Sunday and then Mr Lens goes home :-/

there is also this and this of the support act from Hanson
 
Last edited:
good stuff... though I'd definitely consider trying out shooting 1600 iso. I don't know how models compare, but I was playing around with the iso on my D90 and D700 last night... the D700 gave better results at 3200 than the D90 did at 800!

not using Canon, I don't know where the 40d sits in terms of entry level/pro, but most gig togs I know who use Canon have the 5d. Glass is always the main investment, but if you're serious about pursuing gig photography, it may be worth looking to upgrade your body. you can then keep the 40d as a second/backup body... great for when it comes to shooting festivals, etc. as you can stick a midrange zoom/prime on one, and a telephoto on the other.
 
Good shots mate, the styalist ones could be a touch lighter, but their dark skin tone doesnt help this.

As Benners said, higher ISO means you can increase your shutter and will probably nail a few more of the shots by preventing motion blur
 
Hmm, i dont really want to shoot in 1600, i have done before and noise has been too much, for me to be happy anyway.

40d isnt entry level, my 350d is entry level (which is now on the 600d maybe?) i guess its the next one up, a kind of intermediate thing i guess.. I use the 350d as the back up and the 85mm makes up for its short comings.

I really really do want to get a 5d or 5d mark II but i just can't justify the cost. I know its an investment but i just cant spend the money on it given other things i need money in life. I'm serious about it, but i'm also serious about eating :) Altho given that, I'm hoping when the new super duper uper Canon comes out next year that some people will start selling their 5d mark II to upgrade to the new one and I might be able to get a good deal 2nd hand - which is how i've bought my past two cameras. If did upgrade i think i'd have to sell the 40d as i would be able to recoup some cost from selling that, more than the 350d and i use the 350d for some other stuff for which the 40d is a bit of over kill.

but, thats all just speculation - i'd have to see at the time. Annoying when life getsin the way of gig photography :)

oh and i also was shooting a lower ISO as at a higher iso it was over exposing peoples faces to a point where i thought they might not able to be recovered very well....
 
Last edited:
I never had any compaints about noise from my 40D, it surprised me. I would use a higher ISO still and invest in noise reduction software, or use LR3
 
i have been using free version of neat image, i may perhaps buy the full version.

what are your thoughts re: the over exposing of faces etc when i was using a higher iso - it looked very bright and thought it may be too much to pull back from
 
dan_yell said:
i have been using free version of neat image, i may perhaps buy the full version.

what are your thoughts re: the over exposing of faces etc when i was using a higher iso - it looked very bright and thought it may be too much to pull back from
Click to expand...

What PP do you use and do you shoot JPEG or raw?
To be honest, without seeing a shot like it, I cant comment too much
 
i use light room and shoot raw.

when i get some time i'll post up some unprocessed examples, i should have some.

thanks for all your help so far mate
 
as a quick aside, there does seem to be a wellknown problem with soft copies of the Canon 24-70, just noticed a number of comments about it in this thread posted earlier.
 
Surely with it being a hired lens, that shouldnt be an issue. I think its just Dan_Yell not being used to it and comparing the results to a prime lens, which is probably pin sharp
 
MJ Stebbings said:
Surely with it being a hired lens, that shouldnt be an issue. I think its just Dan_Yell not being used to it and comparing the results to a prime lens, which is probably pin sharp
Click to expand...

oh yeah i don't think that's the issue here, but as i mentioned it earlier, just thought i'd show i wasn't making it up :D
 
benners said:
oh yeah i don't think that's the issue here, but as i mentioned it earlier, just thought i'd show i wasn't making it up :D
Click to expand...

:LOL:
Well, its another piece of kit I was looking at getting, to replace the Sigma, so I'll 100% make sure I know what I'm getting before handing over money. You might have saved me a little here :D
 
Hahahaha, dont we all!
 
Seems kinda strange photographing rock concerts and complaining about problems with noise. :D
 
Hahaha, I never complain about noise :D
 
Pardon? Some excelent shots there Dan.
Wish the gigs i go to were lit as well as that one. I do a lot of small venue stuff, and the lighting in some is ruddy awfull.
I regularly have to shoot at 1600 or even 3200 to keep above 100th.
my trusty sigma 18-50 2.8 manages, although i'd love an 85mm 1.8 or even a 1.4.
One day.
Just got myself a sigma 70-200 2.8 so thats gonna get an outing to a bigger event somewhere, where i need the range.
 
Mr Lens has gone home how. Last gig last night - not put anything on my profile just yet. But there are some on the Indigo2 facebook page - De La Soul. Still good lighting, but not *quite* as bright, and speedy, jumping about rappers made things a little harder - but the flexibility in the focal length did help in this situtation. Worked at 1000 ISO , but still getting over my issues with going above that. But am going to try and work at 2.8 with my other lenses at future gigs at that venue.
 
dan_yell said:
Mr Lens has gone home how. Last gig last night - not put anything on my profile just yet. But there are some on the Indigo2 facebook page - De La Soul. Still good lighting, but not *quite* as bright, and speedy, jumping about rappers made things a little harder - but the flexibility in the focal length did help in this situtation. Worked at 1000 ISO , but still getting over my issues with going above that. But am going to try and work at 2.8 with my other lenses at future gigs at that venue.
Click to expand...

if you get something like Lightroom 3, that has a noise reduction feature in it (clicky) and pick it up in the classifieds on here for £100 ... then that will help.

I shot a wedding at the weekend on my D700 and took some of the indoor shots at 3200iso + 2.8 and they look great.

2.8 is more than enough for gig shooting, even at non-o2 type venues... it may be that you would be better upgrading your body to one which has better iso. I thought my D90 was good enough and gave some pleasing results, but when i moved up to the D700, wow, totally different - i still use the D90 as backup, but don't use it much as the performance in lowlight is nothing compared to the D700.
 
Yeah I expect the better choice would be upgrading but not really an option money wise at the mo. I do expect to see some amazing difference there. I'm re assessing the situation when the 1dX comes out and thinking about it again then. At the moment they are around £1500, body only, not sure what will happen afterwrds.

Im glad I rented the lens - to be able to use it, and also to back up that i dont have the kit at the moment to get the best out of it, and therefore shouldnt be thinking about buying it.

how easy is it to switch your library over to a new version of lightroom, if the version you have is not *ahem* pleasing to Adobe?

did you use the noise reduction on the 3200? or just the camera's performance meant it was useable?
 
dan_yell said:
Yeah I expect the better choice would be upgrading but not really an option money wise at the mo. I do expect to see some amazing difference there. I'm re assessing the situation when the 1dX comes out and thinking about it again then. At the moment they are around £1500, body only, not sure what will happen afterwrds.

Im glad I rented the lens - to be able to use it, and also to back up that i dont have the kit at the moment to get the best out of it, and therefore shouldnt be thinking about buying it.

how easy is it to switch your library over to a new version of lightroom, if the version you have is not *ahem* pleasing to Adobe?

did you use the noise reduction on the 3200? or just the camera's performance meant it was useable?
Click to expand...

i'm not sure about Lightroom, I bought a copy of LR3 a little while ago but haven't had the time to play with it yet... up until now i've been using CS3 (Bridge and Photoshop to edit)

I've not used any noise reduction on the 3200 shots... you can see some noise, but I've no problem giving them as theyare to the client.

i went from d90 + tamron 28-75 2.8, to d700 + nikon 24-70 f2.8 and they really are a world apart. i hate to say that as I shot a LOT of gigs with that first set up and got some great results, perfectly fine for agency work. but the upgrade means even better quality and speed. but that's not to say you need that kind of kit to get results.
 
I think you'll find the 1Dx is a lot more of £1500
 
no i meant the current retail of the 5d mark II. :) the new canon is something silly like £6000..
 
Ooohhhhh, my bad :p
 
the other photos on the venue's facebook are from a colleague - he has two Nikon bodies so assume he has a d90/d700 kind of deal
 
Personally, I think looking at a 5DmkI is always a good shout. If I remember, the 40D is a 10mp sensor, and the 5D is a 12.1, so you wont be losing resolution anyway, and get better noise handling abilities
 
oh believe me, i've looked at it, i just think if i am going to buy something else, i'd rather try anfd get the funds for the mark II as i'd be less likely to get fussy about the ISO again and even though the 5d would be better, the mark II would be better than that and think i'd not need to upgrade again for a lot longer for the mark II... i wonder if either cheaper in the states....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top