Photos from a local "Metal" concert.

[awad]

http://www.johnawad.net/lucy/lu8.jpg

http://www.johnawad.net/lucy/lu3.jpg

http://www.johnawad.net/lucy/lu16.jpg

http://www.johnawad.net/lucy/lu1.jpg

http://www.johnawad.net/lucy/lu13.jpg

these are photos of a local band that asked me to photograph their live show. most of those light trails are from the christmas lights that the band hung up everywhere. also, i know a lot of people dont like the light trails, but when i shoot these kind of shows, i feel as though that the light trails add to feeling of chaos. thanks for looking!

[mijbril]

Interesting with the trails, I have to admit.

Not my idea of metal though (but then I think metal these days has to be Aryan or Hammer Horror(ish) in nature or it's just rock)

[René Damkot]

Don't know about the light trails. A bit too much for me I guess, but that's a matter of taste. One question though: Why ISO 100; f/11; 2s? I'ld have used something like ISO 800; f/5.6 or lower; 1/2 s. Still enough xmas lights, but also a bit stagelighting and a bit more motion(blurr) to convey 'action'. That being said, I like the first and last image, although the flash could benefit from a little softening (bounce, diffusor)

[awad]

Don't know about the light trails. A bit too much for me I guess, but that's a matter of taste. One question though: Why ISO 100; f/11; 2s? I'ld have used something like ISO 800; f/5.6 or lower; 1/2 s. Still enough xmas lights, but also a bit stagelighting and a bit more motion(blurr) to convey 'action'. That being said, I like the first and last image, although the flash could benefit from a little softening (bounce, diffusor)

yeah, thats a good point, i didnt think about motion blur. i'll keep that in mind for the next show. also, i tried bouncing the flash, but the ceilings were around 15 feet high, and i wasnt near any walls, so it wasnt strong enough. and i dont own a diffuser yet.

thanks for the tips!

[Exit]

AMAZING! The light trails are what make the pictures. It must have been really dark in there eh? Did you shoot in AV?

[Sugarh1gh]

Might be a dumb question, but why aren't the people blurred too if the lens was open for so long?

[DwightMcCann]

Sugar, "shutter drag" with a flash. The shutter is open for almost two seconds while he points the camera around and then the flash fires.

[Steve Parr]

As in another thread, I personally find this type of shot as being overdone. I guess, from a photographic perspective they're fine and, if the band likes 'em, all the better.

What I see, though, is a trend moving towards these types of shots. My personal opinion is that, in this type of shot, the subject stops being the member of the band, and starts becoming the light trails.

Again, they're fine shots, but they're not blowin' my hair back...

[René Damkot]

also, i tried bouncing the flash, but the ceilings were around 15 feet high, and i wasnt near any walls, so it wasnt strong enough.
At ISO 100 f/11 it wasn't powerfull enough. At ISO 800 f/5.6 you have 5 stops extra ;)

[phishhead_23]

I dunno, I dig the shots. They're different. Nice captures of expression. To me they convey a nice sense of energy. I've been realizing, even with my own work, that just capturing a techincally great picture is not always the most creative or artistic. In fact, alot of pictures I've seen are flawless techincally, but very boring. I was looking at the "Phish Book" I owe that is full of incredible images that would be trashed if the photographer posted them on these forums. I'm going to start experimenting more in my future shoots.

[Steve Parr]

They're different.

See, that's the thing. They're really not.

They're good shots, certainly. But they're not "different". A quick perusal through this area of POTN will bear that out.

When I look at a photo of a band, or a band member, I find light trails and such to be distracting, especially if there are no shots which don't have them...

[DwightMcCann]

just capturing a techincally great picture is not always the most creative or artistic. In fact, alot of pictures I've seen are flawless techincally, but very boring.
On the other hand, no amount of artsy creativeness can overcome technically limited images. See, the idea that if you can't do technically good work that you can "make up" for it with shutter drag and selective desaturation and other such tomfoolery is self-serving bunk. Among other things it suggests that all the planning and preparation by bands, LDs, venues, etc., is secondary to the photographer. Truth is that the ART in Peforming Art is what is done by the ARTist and that should be respected. In order to convey the power, edginess, vividness, heat, smell, light and gestalt of a performance we need to produce images that we CONTROL, not that control us through our limitations. Or put yet another way, if every Tom, Dick and Harry with a P&S can get images that look like what I am getting then it is egotism, not art, that I am producing. Heck, even camera phones can get "artsy effects"!

[Steve Parr]

On the other hand, no amount of artsy creativeness can overcome technically limited images. See, the idea that if you can't do technically good work that you can "make up" for it with shutter drag and selective desaturation and other such tomfoolery is self-serving bunk. Among other things it suggests that all the planning and preparation by bands, LDs, venues, etc., is secondary to the photographer. Truth is that the ART in Peforming Art is what is done by the ARTist and that should be respected. In order to convey the power, edginess, vividness, heat, smell, light and gestalt of a performance we need to produce images that we CONTROL, not that control us through our limitations. Or put yet another way, if every Tom, Dick and Harry with a P&S can get images that look like what I am getting then it is egotism, not art, that I am producing. Heck, even camera phones can get "artsy effects"!

You, sir, are "The Professor"!

Dwight, that's an absolutely perfectly expressed synopsis of what we do.

Kudos, sir...

[phishhead_23]

On the other hand, no amount of artsy creativeness can overcome technically limited images. See, the idea that if you can't do technically good work that you can "make up" for it with shutter drag and selective desaturation and other such tomfoolery is self-serving bunk. Among other things it suggests that all the planning and preparation by bands, LDs, venues, etc., is secondary to the photographer. Truth is that the ART in Peforming Art is what is done by the ARTist and that should be respected. In order to convey the power, edginess, vividness, heat, smell, light and gestalt of a performance we need to produce images that we CONTROL, not that control us through our limitations. Or put yet another way, if every Tom, Dick and Harry with a P&S can get images that look like what I am getting then it is egotism, not art, that I am producing. Heck, even camera phones can get "artsy effects"!

Dwight & Steve, I'll start by saying I think you both are amoung the most talented photographer I've seen on these boards. I've learned a tremendous amount from you. But, I have to politely disagree with you on this. I have played drums in a band for over 12 years, so hopefully I have some perspective.


I consider my photography (however limited it may or may not be) to be another form of art, just like when I create music. My photographing live musicians is my interpretation of it, my art. Just like the notes that I choose to play are my creative interpretation of a song.


My focus is not on how the performer feels about it, just like I don't focus on how an individual feels about my song. They either like my interpretation of art or they do not. I don't necessarily care for Stevie Ray Vaughn, for example, but I respect his creativity and think he is very talented.


My photography is my interpretation of my subject (in this case, it happens to be a performer). Just like a painter interprets a still life or a photographer interprets a landscape. I think that you are selling yourself short to say that you are there at the beck and call of the perfomer (unless you were hired by the performer specifically to capture a certain style or mood). You are an artist as much as the musician is an artist.


Most people, with the right equipement, knowledge and practice can capture a "techically perfect" image, but not everyone is truely producing art. In my last band, I played with a guy who was truely awesome at playing covers, but his song writing was always lacking. And, I can certainly appreciate the Ozzy tribute band I recently covered and techinically, they were perfect, but they did not "inspire" me the way a great original band does. The original band is truely creating, not reproducing. At least for me, that's what inspires me in photography or music, or whatever it is.

Granted, some of the pics I see really are lacking technically to the point where it draws away from the creativity. (you still have to have proficiency with your "instrument" to be taken seriously). I see very often that someone who puts their art out there for this message board, or other message boards is shot down due to "imperfect technique". "your shots are too soft, you didnt use flash the right way, you should have done this or that with your F setting, etc...". I try to see the art.

Sorry this is so long winded!

[DwightMcCann]

Phish, I think we understand your point and in general agree with you, after all, Art comes in many flavors. But there are some dimensions and metrics that can be applied. One canvas of paint splatters is better than others; one "shutter drag" with flash is better than another; and while one soft image with great sensitivity may be better than some sterile but technically perfect image this is generally not the case. So, unless we line up the specific images about which we are speaking and analyze them by comparison, we must talk about generalizations, and in general, technically excellent images are superior.

As for your discussion about how you feel about your songs I would have to say that to the extent that you don't care how others perceive them but only how you feel about them, the same applies to photography. Whose art is it we are speaking of here? Those of us who make decent money shooting generally are much more concerned with the art of the performer and try to convey, in terms they appreciate, what they are doing. To be honest, it doesn't make a hill of beans how much I like my pictures (I can print them and hang them on my walls) if the performers and others who view their performances don't think I have captured their essence. So long as a photographer focuses on how much he likes his own work and its art then we are talking ego, not art. Same with musicians. I have heard tons of "local" bands who think they are great but they don't have recording contracts! I'm not judging their art, but then, what is art?

[awad]

See, the idea that if you can't do technically good work that you can "make up" for it with shutter drag and selective desaturation and other such tomfoolery is self-serving bunk.

i dont know if this is being directed at me or not!!

:~(

[phishhead_23]

I hear you, and I agree if you are getting paid by the artist to capture what they want (with clear expectations), then technically perfect shots are required. I guess I'm talking about the vast majority of us who are either just starting out or are exploring photography (and not making money at it), It's fairly dishearting to see people trash a photo that might be very creative because of something considered a textbook imperfection. Keep in mind, I'm not suggesting that some don't deserve to be trashed (I've seen plenty of images where I wondered what the person was thinking submitting the picture).

I was just talking to a pro photographer friend of mine about this whole issue recently and he said that's why he doesn't bother coming to these sites. I am learning a ton though, so I keep coming back.

[Steve Parr]

My photography is my interpretation of my subject (in this case, it happens to be a performer). Just like a painter interprets a still life or a photographer interprets a landscape. I think that you are selling yourself short to say that you are there at the beck and call of the perfomer (unless you were hired by the performer specifically to capture a certain style or mood). You are an artist as much as the musician is an artist.

One of the things you said was that the band asked you to photograph them. At that point, they're really more clients as opposed to artists.

Unless you've specifically discussed with them the style and content, you're simply doing yourself a disservice to yourself, as you're showing that you can take only one style of picture.

If they want to hire someone to take a technically perfect (or, as you referred to it, "boring") photo for their website or CD cover, they're probably going to go to someone else, as you've not demonstrated to them that you can do it.

Stevie Ray Vaughan was a masterful guitarist, but he was masterful in the blues genre. He wouldn't get hired by someone looking for a classical guitar player.

Such is the same with what you're doing. When someone's looking for a photo with light trails, well, you're the guy, as you're very good at it. However, when someone wants shots withouot them, will you have something to show them that would convince them to hire you?

When a local band thinks about hiring a photographer, I want my name to be the first name that pops into their heads. Period. If it's not, I want to know why, so I can make sure it is the next time they want to hire a photographer.

Now, this is all moot if you have no interest in ever being paid to shoot bands. In that case, I would say do what you love and, if the band digs it, all the better. But anytime someone hires you, your preferences take a back seat to the preferences of the person who's writing the check...

[Steve Parr]

I hear you, and I agree if you are getting paid by the artist to capture what they want (with clear expectations), then technically perfect shots are required. I guess I'm talking about the vast majority of us who are either just starting out or are exploring photography (and not making money at it), It's fairly dishearting to see people trash a photo that might be very creative because of something considered a textbook imperfection.

To be fair, a good number of us do this to make money. Art is good, but it doesn't keep the lights on.

I don't know that I've ever taken a "technically perfect" photo, so I would argue whether that's a requirement for selling photos. But if you're "just starting out", it wouldn't be a horrible idea to have a variety of styles to show a potential client...

[awad]

One of the things you said was that the band asked you to photograph them. At that point, they're really more clients as opposed to artists.

Unless you've specifically discussed with them the style and content, you're simply doing yourself a disservice to yourself, as you're showing that you can take only one style of picture.

If they want to hire someone to take a technically perfect (or, as you referred to it, "boring") photo for their website or CD cover, they're probably going to go to someone else, as you've not demonstrated to them that you can do it.

Stevie Ray Vaughan was a masterful guitarist, but he was masterful in the blues genre. He wouldn't get hired by someone looking for a classical guitar player.

Such is the same with what you're doing. When someone's looking for a photo with light trails, well, you're the guy, as you're very good at it. However, when someone wants shots withouot them, will you have something to show them that would convince them to hire you?

When a local band thinks about hiring a photographer, I want my name to be the first name that pops into their heads. Period. If it's not, I want to know why, so I can make sure it is the next time they want to hire a photographer.

Now, this is all moot if you have no interest in ever being paid to shoot bands. In that case, I would say do what you love and, if the band digs it, all the better. But anytime someone hires you, your preferences take a back seat to the preferences of the person who's writing the check...

i dont know if you got confused, or maybe im confused. but i'm the one that took these pictures, not phishhead. also, i'm not really sure why you think that this is the only type of photos i take, i guess because i chose to post these, that i might have fooled you all, but in all reality, i dont post my photos here often, and i posted these for the sheer reason that i liked the colors in them. if you guys want, i can show you other photos i've taken from theater shows, or even more live shots without the shutter drag effect. but regardless, it all comes down to that me AND the band both liked the photos. but this thread has definetly opened my eyes to being more cautious about the type of photos i take.

thanks.

[Steve Parr]

I was just talking to a pro photographer friend of mine about this whole issue recently and he said that's why he doesn't bother coming to these sites. I am learning a ton though, so I keep coming back.

My grandfather told me something, years ago, that has served mewell throughout my life: "You'll never learn as much as possible from only those people who agree with you."

Your pro-photographer friend sounds like someone who's afraid of criticism or a varying opinion. Ergo, this probably isn't the best place for him to be. You, on the other hand, seem like someone who can handle the constructive criticism and, by your own admission, are willing to learn from others and take the criticism on board for consideration.

I should reiterate my original point: Your photos are very good, for that style. I'm only suggesting you widen your base a little bit, as I think you'll reap benefits from it...

[Steve Parr]

i dont know if you got confused, or maybe im confused.

I'm fully ensconced in, and seem to be racing through, my 40's. It's a fair bet that I'm the confused one...

if you guys want, i can show you other photos i've taken from theater shows, or even more live shots without the shutter drag effect.

I would love to see some more stuff from you; theatre, live shots; what have you!

but regardless, it all comes down to that me AND the band both liked the photos.

Well, there ya' go. All is well...

but this thread has definetly opened my eyes to being more cautious about the type of photos i take.

I don't know that I'd use the word "cautious"; just be mindful that you might, one day, encounter a band that wants more mundane (for lack of a better word) photos. Being able to show them some would be a good thing...

[phishhead_23]

One of the things you said was that the band asked you to photograph them. At that point, they're really more clients as opposed to artists.

Unless you've specifically discussed with them the style and content, you're simply doing yourself a disservice to yourself, as you're showing that you can take only one style of picture.

If they want to hire someone to take a technically perfect (or, as you referred to it, "boring") photo for their website or CD cover, they're probably going to go to someone else, as you've not demonstrated to them that you can do it.

Stevie Ray Vaughan was a masterful guitarist, but he was masterful in the blues genre. He wouldn't get hired by someone looking for a classical guitar player.

Such is the same with what you're doing. When someone's looking for a photo with light trails, well, you're the guy, as you're very good at it. However, when someone wants shots withouot them, will you have something to show them that would convince them to hire you?

When a local band thinks about hiring a photographer, I want my name to be the first name that pops into their heads. Period. If it's not, I want to know why, so I can make sure it is the next time they want to hire a photographer.

Now, this is all moot if you have no interest in ever being paid to shoot bands. In that case, I would say do what you love and, if the band digs it, all the better. But anytime someone hires you, your preferences take a back seat to the preferences of the person who's writing the check...

Actually, most of my photos are what I would consider "safe". I feel the need to expand my horizons, which is was started this series of posts. I've posted on here before, so some of you might be familiar. And actually, I am shooting for a website that covers local bands, so I am not actually being asked by the bands to shoot them per say. I approach them, then look to sell what I capture. I hope to make money at it soon. I'm just starting out and still learning how to use my equipment. I want to first learn how to take a great technically sound picture, but I want to put my own flavor on it.

Maybe I've been looking in different places, but I don't normally see what I would call "Safe" pictures in most of the Rolling Stone magazines I read or the albums that I buy. Most seem to have a degree of artisic interpretation. Ideally, I'll be able to do both the technically sound and the artistic proficently.

My main point in this whole thing is that art is okay and that alot of times on here, it seems like we are intolerant of it. I think the pictures on this posting were good, so they had an impact on me. I realize that everyone has their own tastes, I just dislike when people discredit a photo because it is not perfect. (I see this happen all the time).

[Steve Parr]

I just dislike when people discredit a photo because it is not perfect. (I see this happen all the time).

You may see it all the time, but I don't believe you saw it here...

[phishhead_23]

I see it frequently on here.

[DwightMcCann]

i dont know if this is being directed at me or not!!

:~(
Absolutely not! I apologize that it came across that way. I am beginning to sense that there is a disconnect in some of these discussions. There are a lot of guys taking their nice DSLRs out and shooting their buddy's bands. Sometimes they use interesting techniques to make their images more interesting and artistic. They are not interested in obtaining the most excellent images that their equipment could obtain, they are simply out to have a good time and perhaps impress their friends. This is a very legitimate occupation and pasttime.

Then there are the guys on here that are aspiring or actual professional concert photographers and who are looking for that next notch up, that little edge to make them better, the technique that will be noticed. Some have a Rebel with kit lens and get turned onto a nifty 50 and WHAM, their images take a quantum leap for the better. There are others shooting with 1D Mark IIN and 300mm f/2.8 in a venue with $750,000 worth of lights (that's me) who are always looking for ... yes, that next notch up, that little edge ... So I am now looking at getting a 400mm f/2.8 ($6600) in the hope of getting better images. Steve Parr just got a 20D and we expect to see his images WHAM!

I think we have a problem reconciling these two groups. Those shooting friends in a bar with a Rebel who really like their own images are rightfully off-put by those of us criticizing their technical abilities ... who cares??? While those of us who have invested years and many, many thousands of dollars (I invested $38,000 in 2005) in equipment don't understand why the guy with the Rebel doesn't think our advice is worth it's weight in gold. We are at 6's and 9's here ... you know, apples and oranges. So, let me say again, saying an image is not technically excellent (notice I am not saying perfect) is not "discrediting" it ... it is a critical observation denoting that there was some mechanical thing that could have been done that is believed to have been able to produce an improvement of the image. It is not a denigration of the artistic quality. Let me also point out that "artsy" techniques, in any genre of art, that are repeatedly done by the bulk of artists become cliche ... and when anyone without a modicum of talent can do the technique it often becomes considered boring and uninteresting. I think these images are unusually good for using such a technique, but it is cliche ... although in this case what difference does it make? I don't think any.

[Steve Parr]

I see it frequently on here.

If you view constructive criticism as "discrediting" a photo, well, then there's no way to debate that, other than to say that the criticism is offered as just that, and nothing more...

Steve

[phishhead_23]

Absolutely not! I apologize that it came across that way. I am beginning to sense that there is a disconnect in some of these discussions. There are a lot of guys taking their nice DSLRs out and shooting their buddy's bands. Sometimes they use interesting techniques to make their images more interesting and artistic. They are not interested in obtaining the most excellent images that their equipment could obtain, they are simply out to have a good time and perhaps impress their friends. This is a very legitimate occupation and pasttime.

Then there are the guys on here that are aspiring or actual professional concert photographers and who are looking for that next notch up, that little edge to make them better, the technique that will be noticed. Some have a Rebel with kit lens and get turned onto a nifty 50 and WHAM, their images take a quantum leap for the better. There are others shooting with 1D Mark IIN and 300mm f/2.8 in a venue with $750,000 worth of lights (that's me) who are always looking for ... yes, that next notch up, that little edge ... So I am now looking at getting a 400mm f/2.8 ($6600) in the hope of getting better images. Steve Parr just got a 20D and we expect to see his images WHAM!

I think we have a problem reconciling these two groups. Those shooting friends in a bar with a Rebel who really like their own images are rightfully off-put by those of us criticizing their technical abilities ... who cares??? While those of us who have invested years and many, many thousands of dollars (I invested $38,000 in 2005) in equipment don't understand why the guy with the Rebel doesn't think our advice is worth it's weight in gold. We are at 6's and 9's here ... you know, apples and oranges. So, let me say again, saying an image is not technically excellent (notice I am not saying perfect) is not "discrediting" it ... it is a critical observation denoting that there was some mechanical thing that could have been done that is believed to have been able to produce an improvement of the image. It is not a denigration of the artistic quality. Let me also point out that "artsy" techniques, in any genre of art, that are repeatedly done by the bulk of artists become cliche ... and when anyone without a modicum of talent can do the technique it often becomes considered boring and uninteresting. I think these images are unusually good for using such a technique, but it is cliche ... although in this case what difference does it make? I don't think any.

Wow, Dwight, I'm very suprised by this post...that really sounds elitist (and kinda summarizes my point). I think you missed the boat on my point. And this is the last post and I'm gonna put this one to bed. I don't think anyone is ignoring yours or anyone else's feedback, I think that's the reason why most of us are here in the first place. Our family and friends will all say "wow, those are great photos", but I want to hear true photographers give me suggestions and feedback. It seems to me though, that often, when someone (not necessarily me) posts a picture that is outside of the box, it is dismissed as poor technique.

When I go onto PBase and see the most popular galaries, I see the opposite. If a picture sucks, then it sucks. And if someone puts a ****ty picture out there for everyone to see, then they should be able to take the feedback that comes with it. There is a difference between constructive and non-constructive criticism. I personally encourage people to tell me to be mindful of shutter speed and other helpful feedback that will improve my technique.

As far as the style of picture or photographer, I understand that everyone has a preference and is entitled to his/her opinion. I sometimes feel, however, that the feedback is not constructive, rather it is a dismissive "I don't like that style of photo", "that's so overdone" or that we don't like the use of selective color or shutter drag. That type of feedback does not make a beginner a better photographer. Remember, everyone starts at the beginning at some point.

Please keep in mind that I'm not necessarily suggesting that you or anyone in particular does this. I've been speaking in general terms throughout this thread.

Like I said before, I really respect your work and have spent a considerable amount of time studing your pictures and your advice. Ultimately, this is a circular discussion with no end.

[DwightMcCann]

I agree. Elitist, circular, with no end. QED

[earplugsrequired]

Then there are the guys on here that are aspiring or actual professional concert photographers and who are looking for that next notch up, that little edge to make them better, the technique that will be noticed. Some have a Rebel with kit lens and get turned onto a nifty 50 and WHAM, their images take a quantum leap for the better. There are others shooting with 1D Mark IIN and 300mm f/2.8 in a venue with $750,000 worth of lights (that's me) who are always looking for ... yes, that next notch up, that little edge ... So I am now looking at getting a 400mm f/2.8 ($6600) in the hope of getting better images. Steve Parr just got a 20D and we expect to see his images WHAM!

I think we have a problem reconciling these two groups. Those shooting friends in a bar with a Rebel who really like their own images are rightfully off-put by those of us criticizing their technical abilities ... who cares??? While those of us who have invested years and many, many thousands of dollars (I invested $38,000 in 2005) in equipment don't understand why the guy with the Rebel doesn't think our advice is worth it's weight in gold. We are at 6's and 9's here ... you know, apples and oranges. So, let me say again, saying an image is not technically excellent (notice I am not saying perfect) is not "discrediting" it ... it is a critical observation denoting that there was some mechanical thing that could have been done that is believed to have been able to produce an improvement of the image. It is not a denigration of the artistic quality. Let me also point out that "artsy" techniques, in any genre of art, that are repeatedly done by the bulk of artists become cliche ... and when anyone without a modicum of talent can do the technique it often becomes considered boring and uninteresting. I think these images are unusually good for using such a technique, but it is cliche ... although in this case what difference does it make? I don't think any.

I have to say I'm a bit put off by this too..I'm shooting with a rebel xt. when i was shooting film i did put out some money on a couple of nice zoom lenses.. I think though overall, the equipment is only part of the total picture.. what you do with it is worth a whole lot more.

I too was leary of posting on a message board. I have never taken a photography class. I know what I like, and what I don't like. From shooting over the years and having bands see my work, I've gotten used to what they like as well. Shooting in bars, hmmm I guess it's a bar, but it's really a club. And I'm shooting national acts.

It's like last night I was shooting Seether and Shinedown, two fairly popular national acts. There were a couple of photographers in the barricade with some really nice equipment but was what they did better than what I did? Who knows..

I don't profuse to be an expert. There are somethings that I like and somethings that I don't. I like clear images. I seriously delete ones that aren't. I like to see who the artist is. And if I'm shooting for a specific reason for a band then I will make sure to get the headstock of the guitar. I have had photos used in guitar catalogs so I know how important that is.

We all can learn from each other.. Nobody is perfect. Technically perfect? What good is being tecnically perfect if we are boring?

Just my two cents. People have been very supportive to me here. That being said - what do you think of the photos below? Both were show with a Sony Cybershot, techncally a point and shoot. Granted the ISO goes to 800 on it. The first is of the singer of Linkin Park - the lighting, well there were stadium lights in the arena.. The second is of Kelly Osbourne. This lighting was so subdued. She doused herself with water so that's why her hair is like it is..


http://www.earplugsrequired.com/bands/linkinpark/linkin6.jpghttp://www.earplugsrequired.com/bands/kelly/kelly2.jpg

[DwightMcCann]

I am surprised by these two responses. I was trying to make sense over why there seemed to be stress/conflict/tension about the comments on the images and I felt as though there were two camps with conflicting goals. I still think that. So I am labeled elitist and it is assumed that I think all Rebel images are poor and I am not supportive of aspiring or novice photographers ... I don't think any of those characterizations are accurate but I have obviously hit a nerve and no amount of discussion is going to clear this up so I, too, am abandoning this thread.

[awad]

this is why i dont post my photos!

sorry for all the drama!

[Steve Parr]

I don't think anyone is ignoring yours or anyone else's feedback

And yet you refer to that which is offered as criticism as an attempt to "dicredit" a photo...

but I want to hear true photographers give me suggestions and feedback. It seems to me though, that often, when someone (not necessarily me) posts a picture that is outside of the box, it is dismissed as poor technique.

I get the impression that you actually only want to hear suggestions and feedback that's supportive, simply because you seem to be so defensive concerning some of the comments offered.

If a photo displays a use of poor technique, why on earth should that be kept a secret?

When I go onto PBase and see the most popular galaries, I see the opposite. If a picture sucks, then it sucks. And if someone puts a ****ty picture out there for everyone to see, then they should be able to take the feedback that comes with it.

So, lemme' get this straight: It's okay to do it on PBase, but not here?

There is a difference between constructive and non-constructive criticism. I personally encourage people to tell me to be mindful of shutter speed and other helpful feedback that will improve my technique.

Please cite an example of non-constructive criticism in this thread...

As far as the style of picture or photographer, I understand that everyone has a preference and is entitled to his/her opinion. I sometimes feel, however, that the feedback is not constructive, rather it is a dismissive "I don't like that style of photo", "that's so overdone" or that we don't like the use of selective color or shutter drag.

None of those comments were left out there on their own, though. Yeah, I said some of those things, and I also said why I said those things. Ergo, "constructive criticism"...

That type of feedback does not make a beginner a better photographer.

I disagree...

Remember, everyone starts at the beginning at some point.

This is absolutely true.

When I posted my first shots here; maybe a year or so ago, I was hammered for them. They were horrible. Now, I could've found another forum where people would sugar-coat their opinions so I could feel good about my photos, or I could decide to take the constructive criticism, harsh though it may have been, and learned from it.

I opted for the latter, and I'm happy I chose that path...

[awad]

i guess ill update this thread with pictures i took from shows that i didnt use shutter drag for. hopefull i'll get left alone then.

disclamer: im aware these pictures arent good. i just feel i have to post something that doesnt have shutter drag.

http://www.johnawad.net/walt/owen.jpg

http://www.johnawad.net/concert/abulia%20088.jpg

http://www.johnawad.net/concert/abulia%20157.jpg

http://www.johnawad.net/concert/show7.jpg

http://www.johnawad.net/concert/fc/3.jpg

http://www.johnawad.net/concert/fc/9.jpg

also, i'll be the first to admit that i enjoy using the shutter drag effect because it allows me to get better results (in my eyes) with the lenses i have. i only own three lenses at this point, a 50mm f/1.8, the kit lens, and the canon 10-22mm. and only one of those are good in low light. and not to mention that the 300D isnt the best tool to be using at high ISOs.

[Steve Parr]

Thank you for posting those.

I'm an elitist, too (apparently), and I freakin' hate shutter drag.

:rolleyes:

[Bob_A]

I like the second last one (the B&W one). It's a strange crop, but for me it works. The only thing that might make it better would be to show a bit more of the mike stand.

[phishhead_23]

Dwight, I am sorry if you interpreted what I said that way. I certainly didn't intend it as a personal attack. (I've tried to chose my words carefully on this thread). I just thought the words that you chose came off as condesending to those of us who don't have the means yet to buy the gear that can give us the quality of shot that you're able to consistantly achieve. I've read enough of your posts on here to know that you are very helpful and supportive of beginning photographers, that's why I was suprised at the post. I'm sure it's just a case of me interpreted it incorrectly. I think that both "schools" are correct, depending on what you are trying to accomplish. I also think this thread has gotten out of our control.

Steve, You should go back and read my posts more closely.

Awad, I dig the shutter drag and think you've got some great images here. I particuarlly like Image 1,3 &4. I think they capture the mood perfectly. I love how you've used the available light to your advantage.

[René Damkot]

That being said - what do you think of the photos below? Both were show with a Sony Cybershot, techncally a point and shoot. Granted the ISO goes to 800 on it.
Very, very nice. It isn't the equipment that makes the picture, its the person behind it.
Seems this thread went a little overboard.... Everybody lighten up a little, please :)

Awad: I really like pic #4 of your last post.
#2 and 3 would have been nice if sharp, #5 is nice, but some strange things happend in B&W conversion I think.

[Steve Parr]

Steve, You should go back and read my posts more closely.

I have.

I came away with the impression that when someone sees criticism that they think is unwarranted or harsh, they dismiss it.

I've not made the comments "I don't like that style of photo", "that's so overdone" or that I "don't like the use of selective color or shutter drag", and left them out on their own. I've always followed it up with why I'm not a fan, and why the photographer might want to explore some other styles or methods for taking these shots.

The best criticism is honest criticism, which is what I try to offer. If some folks don't like it, well, so be it. If someone posts "please be kind, as I know people may not like my photos, but I have a tragically fragile ego and can't handle criticism", well, perhaps I'll forego posting my thoughts, constructive though they may be...

Steve

[phishhead_23]

I need to clarify something about your interpretation of my posts. I am and have always been open to critism of my work (feel free to look back at any of my posts). I am speaking (maybe out of place) on behalf of the general person who posts on here. I will also say that some of the photos on these forums truely do suck.

If I am cooking a meal and say I've prepared this steak, tell me what you think. If you say "I hate steak, so I've got no use for this meal" is not what I would consider constructive criticism. "This steak is alittle tough and bland. You might want to try this seasoning and cook it for 10 mins on each side the next time you cook steak, and see how that works for you", to me is constructive criticsm. It doesn't mean that I want you to lie that the steak is good, as to not hurt my feelings.

I'm not saying that You or ANYONE in particular is guilty of this, I'm saying this as a general observation from surfing this board for the last 6 months. If someone posts a bad picture, I would expect to see feedback about it. If someone posts pics like the ones posted at the beginning of this thread (that, while are not someone's cup of tea, but certainly aren't bad pictures), I just don't like to see it discredited bacause we don't like the style. Why post a response, then?

I wouldn't want your opinion on the steak if you're a vegetarian. I would, however, want your opinion if you know how to cook a better steak.

[René Damkot]

I'm a vegetarian, but I still know how to cook steak :p
As far as we're off-topic allready: I've had a lot of discussions when people refer to me as an artist. I'm not an artist, but more a craftsman IMO. I try to capture a concert as good as I can; people, light, mood, whatever. I don't try to 'create' or 'add' something, just communicate. I can take beautiful pictures, but being beautiful doesn't make 'em art.

[Steve Parr]

If I am cooking a meal and say I've prepared this steak, tell me what you think. If you say "I hate steak, so I've got no use for this meal" is not what I would consider constructive criticism. "This steak is alittle tough and bland. You might want to try this seasoning and cook it for 10 mins on each side the next time you cook steak, and see how that works for you", to me is constructive criticsm. It doesn't mean that I want you to lie that the steak is good, as to not hurt my feelings.

I think a more fair example would be not to use someone who hates steak, but rather someone who likes, say, a particular marinade. The starting point; the steak, is the same. To mirror your example, you'd need to use a photographer and someone who hates photography...

If someone posts pics like the ones posted at the beginning of this thread (that, while are not someone's cup of tea, but certainly aren't bad pictures), I just don't like to see it discredited bacause we don't like the style. Why post a response, then?

Again, I would love to see where the photos were discredited. I don't see it so, if you could point it out, I'd appreciate it.

Perhaps you could tell us why someone who doesn't like a photo shouldn't post a response...

I wouldn't want your opinion on the steak if you're a vegetarian. I would, however, want your opinion if you know how to cook a better steak.

Do you play bassoon? I don't. If you do, I promise to never comment on your bassoon playing.

Again, you've offered a poor example.

The person posted some photos. The "style" of the photo is something I don't particularly care for, so I said so.

I didn't leave it at that, though.

I continued to explain why it's not my "cup of tea", and why I think it's important for a photographer, especially someone just starting out, to be able to have the skills to get any kind of shot, as opposed to just the one.

You keep bringing up how shots are being "discredited" so, I'll restate my question: Please show me where that occurred...

[phishhead_23]

Okay, I think I have sufficiently spoken my point. This is now becoming redunant and a matter of semantics. Forget I said anything.

Rene, don't sell yourself short. You're an artist as much as the musician is an artist. 2 people can see the same thing yet capture it completely different. The interpretation of the subject is your expression of art. At least, that's how I feel. I've written songs and taken photographs. I feel equally creative with both.

[earplugsrequired]

Rene, don't sell yourself short. You're an artist as much as the musician is an artist. 2 people can see the same thing yet capture it completely different. The interpretation of the subject is your expression of art. At least, that's how I feel. I've written songs and taken photographs. I feel equally creative with both.

I really like that you said this. I love looking at photos from shows that I have also shot to see what others have shot. It's amazing to see how different and how similar we can be. A friend of mine and I recently shot the same show with very similar equipment and our shots are so different.. The lighting in them doesn't even seem like the same show! Plus as photographers we go after different elements.

[Steve Parr]

Rene, don't sell yourself short. You're an artist as much as the musician is an artist.

I think that's kinda' funny, considering Rene was the first person to say they weren't crazy about the light trails...

[René Damkot]

Rene, don't sell yourself short. You're an artist as much as the musician is an artist. 2 people can see the same thing yet capture it completely different. The interpretation of the subject is your expression of art. At least, that's how I feel. I've written songs and taken photographs. I feel equally creative with both.
I don't think I cut myself short by saying I'm a craftsman rather then an artist. While I agree with your 'interpretation' part, I don't think I'm being 'creative', because I don't 'create' anything, I just capture as good as possible. Like I said, I've had numerous discussions about this. To me an art photographer is doing something completely different from what I do. Don't know what exactely...
Truth to tell: In my book there aren't much photographers who produce art. There are some beautiful pictures in museums nontheless, but *I* don't see it as art. Hmmm, come to think of it; maybe it's just my defenition of art that's skewed ;)
Then again: Like Douglas Adams said: 'I tend to be very suspicious of anything that's art while it's being created'. Another: 'I think the idea of art kills creativity'

[justchris]

You're an artist as much as the musician is an artist. 2 people can see the same thing yet capture it completely different. The interpretation of the subject is your expression of art. At least, that's how I feel. I've written songs and taken photographs. I feel equally creative with both.

I've written songs and taken photographs as well and they really can't be compared in this sense. You write a song because that song didn't previously exist and you felt the need to carry it from your brain to your instrument (or recording, PA system, whatever) in an inherently self-referential creative effort.

With performance photography, you have to draw a line for yourself - where does the performer's art end and the photographer's art begin? If you make a conscious decision to put emphasis on YOUR end of the 'creative' bargain, you're exposing yourself to a whole 'nother set of standards. Art is easy to create. Good art usually isn't. If you take an "artsy" type of photo, it is quite likely it's been done a million times over. If you simply make an excellent capture of a performer that really embodies their essence as such, it doesn't matter how un-flashy it is - the performer will speak for themselves.

Unless you're making a forthright statement that you're an "art" photographer who "interprets" performers, you shouldn't view the performer as a fellow artist, but merely as a subject.

How many famous/successful performance photographers have an artistic "style" such that they could be identified by merely looking at one of their captures?

[phishhead_23]

This thread needs to die already!

[René Damkot]

Why give it a bump then ;)
Okay, I'll stop.... :D

[justchris]

This thread needs to die already!

Yes, quickly, before someone learns something.

[ACDCROCKS]

I like them, a lot of people on here gave me grief for doing the exact same thing, I did it becasuse I got bored watching a band sit their and play. I did'nt just want the band to be noticed, I wanted my pics to get noticed (which there being put on a cover for what I did). If the band likes them do it, but if they don't, slow it down lol. From the members I talked to, they said they never seen me take a bad picture. LoL it's finny how the people on here talk about artist, to me, as long as it looks cool, it's cool, I could care less what some one thinks of my pics, as long as I like,...But If I was getting paid and told to do certain shots or ideas... Keep up the lines, make the people on here get mad, thats what do best for no reason lol ;) j/k.

[Steve Parr]

Keep up the lines, make the people on here get mad, thats what do best for no reason lol ;) j/k.

Mad?

I haven't seen anyone get mad...

[DwightMcCann]

Phish, perhaps I was overly sensitive about the "elitist" thing ... I am the diametric opposite from elitist. But I have a compulsive need to understand social dynamics. I was trying to figure out why there was such a disparity in perspectives and though it might be the difference between (a) people with a lot of experience, better equipment (due to their commitment and times evolving) and goals driven by "the client", and (b) generally younger shooters in poorer venues taking pictures for their friends. After all, the guys in a pickup game of BB have different goals and abilities from NBA pros. So I see that I drew a line of demarkation, but it was not "elitist" in the sense of superiority but in the sense of diversity. Whenever you apply a label to an individual and thereby characterize them you always lessen them because it removes all their other dimensions.

AWAD, these news images are marvelous ... they all have mood and power and energy and are the epitome of photographs in which art overtakes technique such that issues of "sharpness" are irrelevent ... these are the images that I have trouble with.

[phishhead_23]

Mad?

I haven't seen anyone get mad...


I agree, I don't think anyone is mad. We're just having a conversation. I don't like anyone's pics less or like coming to this board less because of a difference of opinion. I'm actually pretty satisfied there can be a discussion like this and not have it get ugly. Try going to a Cleveland Brown's forum and see if you get the same!!

[Steve Parr]

I agree, I don't think anyone is mad. We're just having a conversation. I don't like anyone's pics less or like coming to this board less because of a difference of opinion. I'm actually pretty satisfied there can be a discussion like this and not have it get ugly. Try going to a Cleveland Brown's forum and see if you get the same!!

Well, of course, but that's just because the people on that forum don't realize the Browns suck...

:D

[phishhead_23]

They have Steeler envy ;)

[ACDCROCKS]

atleast Im no squealers fan lol

[phishhead_23]

And you're not celebrating a superbowl victory either ;)

[ACDCROCKS]

And you're not celebrating a superbowl victory either ;)

nope, the referees were ;)

[phishhead_23]

sour grapes. :-p


Where are we going to find the room for this 5th trophy...

[awad]

i can?

[Sabbra_Cadabra]

With the exception of the last picture, the light trails ruin them for me.

[johneric8]

Here is my take on this issue. I prefer great sharp photos that show the musicanan and a glimpse inside his soul !! If you do that right, then the light trails are just a distraction period.......... Being a former touring musician I apreciate the effort that you put out and it looks cool to a certain degree. It really comes down to what you like or the band likes depending on if your getting paid for your work. But, for me, I want a glimpse into the soul and I want it clear and sharp without tons of grain. The deer in the headlights flash look doesnt really do much but flatten out features.

[Steve Parr]

With the exception of the last picture, the light trails ruin them for me.

Oh, Hell... NOW you've done it!

:lol:

Steve

[DwightMcCann]

I am finding that I like the light trails better and better as we keep coming back to rehash the work of our friend AWAD who long ago became disgusted with this thread and threw up his hands in anguish! :-)

[johneric8]

Dont get me wrong, it's artistic in a scientific kind of way! I do like it, but it's not my style.. that doesnt mean I wont try it next time I go shoot a band! LOL...;)