Photographing a gig using a Nikon FM2

Elaine Maria

Elaine Maria

Messages
131
Name
Elaine Maria
Edit My Images
No
After a little bit a research, and I say little bit because I've hit a brick wall when it comes to finding information on this, I've come to the conclusion that's it's not often practised.
Photographing a small rock show using analog photography.

Does anyone have any experience with this? or even reasons not to do it.

I could use digital but I just think the look and feel of a B&W film print would be superior to the images produced by the hoards of digital photographers.
I'm trying to make an impression with the band I'm shooting in the hope of working with/for them again.

Virtual tour of the venue;
http://www.heaven-live.co.uk/virtualtour/virtual_tour.html
 
Elaine Maria said:
I could use digital but I just think the look and feel of a B&W film print would be superior to the images produced by the hoards of digital photographers.
I'm trying to make an impression with the band I'm shooting in the hope of working with/for them again.
Click to expand...

bands, and the music industry in general, tend to follow trends, and most modern music photography is punchy colours taken at the peak of gestures, and as clean as possible, so you will certainly be at a disadvantage shooting film in that respect - but who knows the band might like something different. Black and white and loads of grain is often seen as 'insta-art' or a useful fallback for if a shot can't be nicely recovered in colour (not that the bands know this of course!)

bash in some iso3200 film and go wild, work that lovely film grain :D

Personally, I'd shoot digital as well though :p If working, it's better to nail safe shots, and you can then work on the riskier shots - which can have great payoffs, but could also fail spectacularly.

venue looks alright, not too small a place, though looks like it could be a real cave, so you'll need to be crrrranking the iso most likely :p Also consider if they will be using crowd barriers / a straight front stage edge, ie will you be in a seperate area?
 
Last edited:
I shot a whole festival inside stages and outside stages with an om10 and om2 iso 200! most fun ive ever had!
 
Same as shooting digital, to be honest, fast glass, fast film (400 iso pushed a couple of stops as a minimum) and know your camera so well you can change rolls quickly and still get it right, whilst in the environment of the pit, in poor light, and before the 3 songs and out rule comes into play.
 
Elaine Maria said:
Fast glass.
What lens for the FM2 would I need?

Could I shoot both (digi and film) or would I be really pushing the chance of ********* up then?
Click to expand...

I'd say it'd be minimising the chances of problems rather than making it worse... Get the shots in the bag with the digital, then bash a roll of b&w through afterwards

As to the glass - can't help I'm afraid - I haven't used a nikon since before the Nikon FM2 was launched :LOL:
 
Fast as you can I'd say, but not so with the film - 3200 is way ott.
 
Not b&w but shot on an F3 with a 50mm f1.8 lens on Fuji Provia ASA 400

4777161267_c593ccdd42_b.jpg


Not brilliant but for a first time I was quite happy with it.

Andy
 
Stage lights change so quickly it's hard to be prescriptive. One of few times an auto exposure camera comes in handy.
 
Bardo said:
Personally I'd rather shoot digital and use post processing for greatest flexibility. Here's a shot I took of Norman Watt Roy of the Blockheads - shot using a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII on digital and then converted to mono using Silver Efex Pro...

2ahyxiv.jpg
Click to expand...

That shot made me change my mind =)

I think now, I'll still shoot both but heavily rely on Digital.
I have a D40 with it's kit lens but that won't do so I'll borrow from my college who unfortunately don't have Nikon bodies or lenses so I'll have to chose an alternative.

I've seen the band I'm to shoot several times before and I know there's going to be a lot of movement...I mean, the last time I saw them the singer dived into the crowd on THREE separate occasions and spent the majority of the time perched on the barrier in-front of the stage...
So assuming I'll be in a close proximity to him for some of the time, what lens should I be looking at taking out here?

Much thanks for all of the advice thus far =)
 
Tamron ƒ/2.8 17-50mm is faster than your kit lens, if you want close-proximity full- and upper-body shots or the whole band.
 
I did very little else in the 1980's.
Buy good B&W film and push as far as required.
It helps if you dev your own film or have access to a lab that understands the distinction...
That's assuming you're doing this for the fun of it.

However, if it's for work - use a DSLR. I know, I know...but there's a reason we all use them for work. The magic of having a latent image in the camera until the film is processed unfortunately cannot be eclipsed by the instant confirmation that you've nailed the shot that digital capture allows.
 
Elaine Maria said:
I've seen the band I'm to shoot several times before and I know there's going to be a lot of movement...I mean, the last time I saw them the singer dived into the crowd on THREE separate occasions and spent the majority of the time perched on the barrier in-front of the stage...
So assuming I'll be in a close proximity to him for some of the time, what lens should I be looking at taking out here?
Click to expand...

You'll have less time than you might think, roughly ten minutes for the first three songs and then you're normally moved on out, crowd diving will probably come later? How long does it take you to change a roll of film? I'd be going with the previous advice, nail some digital for two songs then hammer a couple of rolls of film off for the last song. As for a lens it's partly venue dependent and partly dependent on where the artists are themselves ( as well as how well you can muscle other photographers :) )
 
Elaine Maria said:
So assuming I'll be in a close proximity to him for some of the time, what lens should I be looking at taking out here?

Much thanks for all of the advice thus far =)
Click to expand...

For a job like this either go balls-out:
2x DSLR bodies and:
17-35 f/2.8 or 14-24 f/2.8 (personally I prefer the older lens and find the 14-24 too wide for the stuff I routinely call 'work' - others love it so it's a prsonal choice).
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8

...or go Retro:
1x 35mm film body and 35mm f/2 prime.

If you held a gun to my head and said 'Shoot film or Die' I'd choose an F3 and a 35mm f/2 every day.
 
itsdavedotnet said:
bands, and the music industry in general, tend to follow trends, and most modern music photography is punchy colours taken at the peak of gestures, and as clean as possible, so you will certainly be at a disadvantage shooting film in that respect
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I am reliably informed that Greg Neate http://www.neatephotos.com/ remains religiously loyal to the use of film. No question as to his ability to produce punchy colour (and black and white) images.
 
But then, Greg is not doing this gig, eh?
 
Auwyn said:
Not necessarily. I am reliably informed that Greg Neate http://www.neatephotos.com/ remains religiously loyal to the use of film. No question as to his ability to produce punchy colour (and black and white) images.
Click to expand...

Without wanting to second guess his individual style or choices (and I do like his work)... but digital gives -cleaner- images than the ones demonstrated on his site. Of course, grain is a useful element in some photos, particularly music, and film does give a very nice grain.

Depends what you are after, but shooting music, I aim to deliver cleaner and more saturated images than those, and faster than most film workflows would allow for.
 
If you really wanna do this, buy this, throw away the camera and use the lens!
 
Yes it will be possible, and lots of great rock images were made on film which gives (to my eyes) a very different look to digital desaturated.
Here is a picture I took on Tri-X pushed to 800EI
59983420.jpg


Now while digital will technically be superior as it will have better shadow detail film imparts a quite different look-slightly more down and dirty, gritty even, and certainly if you push- higher contrast.

So as you are new I'd take a DSLR which will electronically 'push' and give cleaner results for you main part of the gig.
Travel relatively light one 50mm prime and a medium tele zoom should do it.

Also as a learning experience I'd take the film Nikon and 50mm F1,8 loaded with fast mono film take incidental pictures, some of the gig just to understand process and for future learning.
 
^^^ That seems like the general consensus advice here, main digital but take the film camera for those not-so-important-to-get moments. And make sure you remember to save in RAW for the digital too... more options later :D
 
Elaine Maria said:
That shot made me change my mind =)

I think now, I'll still shoot both but heavily rely on Digital.
I have a D40 with it's kit lens but that won't do so I'll borrow from my college who unfortunately don't have Nikon bodies or lenses so I'll have to chose an alternative.

I've seen the band I'm to shoot several times before and I know there's going to be a lot of movement...I mean, the last time I saw them the singer dived into the crowd on THREE separate occasions and spent the majority of the time perched on the barrier in-front of the stage...
So assuming I'll be in a close proximity to him for some of the time, what lens should I be looking at taking out here?

Much thanks for all of the advice thus far =)
Click to expand...

I occasionally do nightclub photography for a mate (vaguely similar lol), and use a D40, and converted some of my shots from the other night into black and white using lightroom...

5088962779_ef1b314098_z.jpg


Probably a safer bet that sho0ting blind, for your first time. Although, I would still throw a film camera in a bag and experiment...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top