Ozzy Osbourne in NW Indiana!?

[phishhead_23]

Actually, it's an Ozzy Tribute band. I wasn't excited by this "assignment" when it was first presented to me, but I actually ended up having alot of fun with it. They were very good, you could close your eyes and you wouldn't know the difference between the real Ozzy or not. These guys need to go play Vegas. Lighting was terrible in this small local bar and I lost image quality on the resize. Hope you enjoy.

[phishhead_23]

A couple more. Btw, I had to add the water mark, because the only way I'm getting paid is if I manage to sell my pics!

[phishhead_23]

another couple for your viewing pleasure.

[phishhead_23]

this is it.

[René Damkot]

Some nice pics, but the watermark is *really* obnoxious... I like #3, 5 and the last (petty about the guitarneck being cropped... Damn, I've said it again)
Some pics look like the focus is off btw...

[phishhead_23]

Thanks for the comments. You're probaby noticing the very shallow depth of field I had to use to get enough light to capture the image. In most cases, I had to stay at F2.2 and below so you'll see a guitar neck in focus, but the hand strumming it is out of focus. I've been experiementing with differnet settings, but it seems to be the nature of the beast, working in small clubs like this.

I do make as much an effort to keep my shutter speed as high as possible (with a goal of at least 1/100th sec), but sometimes I can only get an image at 1/30th or 1/50th a sec, which tends to be soft.

Also, I have realized the problem with the 50mm prime in a small club setting, it forces you to pick and chose what you can capture. I'm saving up for a wide-angle zoom (if anyone can recommend one, that would be helpful) that works well with low light. So to help fund that, I am trying to sell the pictures that I take to the bands, hence the watermark. I apoligize about that.

[René Damkot]

I can't recommend a zoom,, I can recommend the 28/1.8 and Sigma 20/1.8 (although the latter has some trouble finding accurate focus at greater distance (>5-10 m) YMMV)
On average Canon wides aren't superb, zooms even less so. Just MHO off course ;)

[phishhead_23]

Would I be better off avoiding the 17-35 (I think that's what it is) Canon L zoom? Granted, it's super expensive. It would be nice to not have to buy every prime and then have to switch out lens during the course of a night. The 28mm prime doesn't seem to give me a wide enough angle (considering my 1.6x crop factor).

[René Damkot]

That would be 17-40 f/4.0 L or 16-35 f/2.8L probabely. Both (relatively :p) good lenses, but either prime is better at f/2.8 and will allow opening up the aperture another 1 1/3 stop. Also, you can get both primes for less money. All comes down to preference I guess; Zoom does come in handy sometimes, and adds 'infinite perspective control', but I don't miss having it on these jobs, while I would miss shooting at f/2 and below. YMMV
I switch lenses regularly, but that's a very fast job. I have a white piece of gaffer tape marking the red dot on the lens; makes it easier to find in the dark. Dust is not that big an issue. (Also, since I'm mostly shooting at wider apertures, it shows up less ;) )
Also I tend to 'look for images' depending on what lens I have attached: When the 28mm is on my camera, I'm not looking for close portraits...

[jfrancho]

I have a white piece of gaffer tape marking the red dot on the lensThat is brilliant! Thanks!

[Steve Parr]

I've had the pleasure of hanging out with Zakk Wylde for a period of time, and that guitarist is pulling off a pretty good imitation of him. It doesn't look like he's wearing the "BLS" vest, though...

[René Damkot]

That is brilliant!
Ah, well, what can I say.... I am :D

[phishhead_23]

Is the 20 mm the widest prime on the market? I'd love to find one alittle wider.

[DwightMcCann]

I like these. The watermark is offensive and generally ineffective. And not a shutter drag in the lot!

[phishhead_23]

Dwight/Rene....can you clarify about the watermark. Offensive as in it's hard to look at the picture, or offensive that it offends people. If so, how would you suggest I protect my work when showing it to a band who has not committed to buying them or paying up front? I'm open for a thoughts/suggestions.

[DwightMcCann]

Offensive as hard to look at ... and many of us believe that at the size images we post here it is unlikely to be useful/effective in protecting your intellectual property. Without any intended sarcasm I would suggest that if the images are truly valuable and you truly believe that they will be stolen rather than bought that you should not display them in any forum or publication until you have been compensated. Putting them up to be admired and stroke your ego while at the same time denaturing them in this fashion is marginal at best. Get your money and then show us what you got!

[phishhead_23]

I hear ya. The only problem is that I post them on pbase.com for the bands to go and look at. They then let me know if they want them or not. The watermark is really for them not to take the pics without being compensated (the owner of the e-magazine suggested I do this as he had a problem with it in the past). Do you think that is inappropriate or do you think I'll just piss the band off?

[DwightMcCann]

I think you wait for the band to buy them and then you post them here without the watermarks!

[jfrancho]

Is the 20 mm the widest prime on the market? I'd love to find one alittle wider.It's the widest that goes to f/1.8.

[blackshadow]

For a fast wide angle prime try the Sigma 30mm f1.4 - it's a pretty handy low light lens for shooting gigs.

[jfrancho]

That is a nice lens, but I wouldn't call 48mm (30*1.6) wide, it's more of a standard lens. 20mm is 32mm on APS-C.

[René Damkot]

The watermark is very distracting. At the least, don't put it over the subjects head... I'ld say use a smaller watermark, in an edge of the picture. If anyone uses the picture anyway, sue 'em ;)
There are wider primes then the 20mm, but not as fast. Canon makes a 14/2.8 IIRC.
edit: Oops, didn't realise there was another page :o