Technically incorrect or no picture - What would you do?

H

Halflap

Messages
291
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Just had my first chance to use my camera at a music event.

The only lenses I had were a 50mm F/1.8 and a 28-300mm F/3.5-5.6 zoom. Maximum ISO on my camera is 1600.

The 50mm was a bit wide as we were not close to the stage. I knew that the speeds I would get from the zoom would not be fast enough to handhold so I shot manual at 1/100 & 1/125 with the aperture varying between 3.5 and 5.6. This was averaging up to about 2.5 stops underexposed. Now I have imported them into Lightroom and improved them a fair bit but still have very noisy shots which are technically not fantastic but are sharp(ish).

Was just wondering what other people would have done in the same situation. Would you have not bothered to shoot knowing that they would not be good shots or is there some other way.

Here's one of the shots

IMG_3058 by steveflegg, on Flickr

And Yes, I know there is a microphone stand growing out of his head
 
Last edited:
Well thats not too bad. Good in fact I would say considering. I wouldn't call it noisy. I take it noise removal has already been applied in Light Room so I don't think trying to use "Noise Ninja" or any of the others would work more, just distort the image now its been processed.

I think its always best to have a sharp image thats too dark, rather than a well exposed blurry one, after all it cost nothing to try with digital does it?
 
Always under expose at gigs anyway as there is usually loads of horrible red light around and it's really easy to blow the red channel. What constitutes a keeper is very different under extreme circumstances.
 
The technical side comes second for me - a technically bad but good shot is worth more than a boring but correct shot !
If you look at some of the most famous pictures ever - for example the shot of the Spanish civil war fighter being shot by Cappa (someone will find a link I expect !) and that cannot be called technically correct can it..?
 
595capa.jpg


AND

artwork_images_141083_437993_robert-capa.jpg
 
Halflap said:
Just had my first chance to use my camera at a music event.

The only lenses I had were a 50mm F/1.8 and a 28-300mm F/3.5-5.6 zoom. Maximum ISO on my camera is 1600.

The 50mm was a bit wide as we were not close to the stage. I knew that the speeds I would get from the zoom would not be fast enough to handhold so I shot manual at 1/100 & 1/125 with the aperture varying between 3.5 and 5.6. This was averaging up to about 2.5 stops underexposed. Now I have imported them into Lightroom and improved them a fair bit but still have very noisy shots which are technically not fantastic but are sharp(ish).

Was just wondering what other people would have done in the same situation. Would you have not bothered to shoot knowing that they would not be good shots or is there some other way.

Here's one of the shots

IMG_3058 by steveflegg, on Flickr

And Yes, I know there is a microphone stand growing out of his head
Click to expand...

Better to get an noisy shot than no shot at all :thumbs:

Is that Vic Reeves far right :lol::lol::lol:

Les :D
 
I think that's an acceptable shot given the circumstances. For me, the chaps waving the lyrics in case they forget them is the shot - pity about the gap in the middle, but its a gig!
 
If you're the "customer" then surely you get to choose what's acceptable. If you're happy with them then that's what matters. And I don't mean by that that they are bad, just that your opinion is the one that counts.

Personally I'd adjust the white balance to tune out the tungsten cast a bit, but in terms of noise I don't see a problem here. In print I bet they'd be fine. :)
 
Agree with all of the above.. it's better to have a noisy shot, than no shot.
That pic certainly isn't ruined by the grain..
 
I think the idea is to get the shot that conveys both what you saw and the atmosphere of the gig, and the shot you posted does just that.


The technical side is there as a guide it’s not the law no one is going to come around and rap your knuckles because you broke the law, if you’d waited until all aspects of the shot were technically correct, the light just right all the band members close together no symbol across the drummers face & everyone looking right into the camera, we’d either be looking at a blank screen or an image with no soul that we would all be thinking that looks staged.

As has already been said if you’re happy with it then the image is great if you’re not then it’s a lesson and you make changes next time until you get what you’re after.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the comments. I was sort of hoping that some would disagree and say they would not have bothered taking the shots without having the fast lenses and camera with higher ISO capability. I think this goes to show that you don't necessarily need the latest or most expensive equipment to get passable shots

I did find that the lighting played havoc with the metering on the camera. When using the centre weighted metering with the 50mm 1.8 lens it was still over exposing. Also that viewing the shots on the back of the camera was quite unlike what I saw once downloaded to the computer. This was the first time I have shot bands so it was well out of my comfort zone but I learnt a lot. Over two days I shot almost 1000 pictures. Many are unusable but I was glad to get a few that are worth keeping. I am also learning a lot about lighroom as the normal shots I take only need slight tweaking whereas these are having to be adjusted to the extremes in some cases

The band was Dozy Beaky Mick and Tich. Originally the band also starred Dave Dee who died back in January 2009

Once I get some time I will upload a few more from other bands that were there (Tremeloes, Union Gap, The Move, Brian Poole, Marmalade)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top