I want access, but they want my photos! Help!

[Compact Diss]

Here is a message from a band I want to photograph, they are not a local band but on a label and are established although not very well known at this time. They are on a tour coming close to me.

This is what I got:

Please send us a link to your photos and note that a photopass shall be fine under condition that the band/management gets to approve all photos and can use all photos for free.

I also heard back from a local artist that I would get the pass and they would like copies of all my photos.


I know I want the photo pass but this seems to be way out of line. Do any of you actually grant these type of permissions?

I'm afraid I would be giving something away that they can potentially make money from...

Any help is appreciated.

Joe-

[sapearl]

Hmmmm....interesting. Ask them exactly what their intended use is. Perhaps there's some mutually agreeable business potential here? I certainly wouldn't give the store away, but perhaps there's room for some profitable negotiation.:rolleyes:

[narlus]

what venue are they playing?

if you want control of yr images, and the club generally allows camera access (which is usually the case around boston), i'd think hard about just paying the $12-15 and being able to use the photos as i see fit.

[Compact Diss]

It's a metal show at the Palladium in Worcester. No photography is allowed without permission....

I don't think in the way she worded her email that there will be any negotiation.

I'm still pondering what type of decsision to make...

[narlus]

ah...i've never shot @ the Palladium before, but that does seem to be metal heaven for boston, and draws the big names.

seems like she's got very limited options if she wants to shoot. if she shoots on the local band's pass, can she also shoot the other bands? i guess that's one potential loophole.

[Steve Parr]

I’ll play Devil’s advocate here, and I’ll look at this from the band’s perspective (which includes their management).

Why do you want to shoot them? Is it because you’re a fan of the band? If you’re a fan, it’s probably a fair bet that you know other people who are fans. It’s also quite possible that these other fans would be willing to pay you for some quality photos of the band. If you’re going to make money using their image, is it so outlandish that the band might want to make some money, too? Why shouldn’t the band, at the very least, benefit from having free access and use of the photos?

Essentially, you’ve worked yourself into a position of now having to convince the band why you should benefit from your having a credential, but they shouldn’t. Now, you probably just want to shoot the band because you’re a fan, and you have no intention of selling the shots; you just want to take pictures.

I can absolutely guarantee that you will never convince a band or, more importantly, their management, of that.

When I contact a band, I make an offer of some gratis images up front. If they accept that offer, then it’s entirely up to me how many I give them. I can give them two or I can give them 100 (I generally send about six or so). The point is that, at the end of the day, I will have followed through on my offer. The band benefits from my having been there, and I got to shoot the band and use the image(s) in my portfolio.

Again, playing Devil’s advocate, the scenario you present is this: You want something for nothing. I don’t know too many performers who would go for this...

[livewire-photography.com]

Whenever Alice Cooper comes round i get photo/backstage passes from the guitarists, and hell i give them a disk for sure, doing each other favors, and i can use them for portfolio etc, i think go for it and also if you like them then why not, its good practice and if there established then u never know they might give ur details to someone else?

[Steve Parr]

Whenever Alice Cooper comes round i get photo/backstage passes from the guitarists, and hell i give them a disk for sure, doing each other favors, and i can use them for portfolio etc, i think go for it and also if you like them then why not, its good practice and if there established then u never know they might give ur details to someone else?

Exactly; it's called "networking".

I've got a few paying gigs as a direct result of tossing someone a photo CD. I don't have to do it often, either. You can get a lot of milage out of half a dozen shots if you give them to the right person...

[Compact Diss]

I read all the replies and since I'm really just starting out I asked that I maintain credit on them in case they are used as long as I get to use them for myself...I'll let you know her reaction...


Thanks for the replies and advice...


Networking is exactly how I feel right now about all of this. I'm just getting out there. Besides anyone can steal my pics right from flickr anyway. I would like to get some show under my belt before I start looking for money.

Thanks-

It will be interesting to find out and share her decision.

Joe

[sapearl]

Very eloquently stated Steve - it makes a great deal of sense; well put.

I’ll play Devil’s advocate here, and I’ll look at this from the band’s perspective (which includes their management)........

[Steve Parr]

Very eloquently stated Steve - it makes a great deal of sense; well put.

Thanks.

Let's just say that I had to learn that lesson the hard way...

[sapearl]

Ah.... education through the School of Hard Knocks :rolleyes: .

Thanks.

Let's just say that I had to learn that lesson the hard way...

[Compact Diss]

Steve I appreciate the words and it seems to me that I'm not yet in a position to make demands on these people. If I had an established business or company then I amy be abel torefuse but like I say I'm just getting out there and I'm happy ot be able to do it.

Thanks-

[Steve Parr]

Ah.... education through the School of Hard Knocks :rolleyes: .

I received my Doctorate from that particular institute of higher learning...

[Steve Parr]

Steve I appreciate the words and it seems to me that I'm not yet in a position to make demands on these people. If I had an established business or company then I amy be abel torefuse but like I say I'm just getting out there and I'm happy ot be able to do it.

Thanks-

I say go for it.

One way to look at it is like this: If they don't know how many shots you take, they don't know what to expect. Just make sure that what you do give them is quality stuff...

[Grey56]

This sounds awfully familiar....much like the last time I was shooting at the Palladium. Hmm....

Jennifer

[livewire-photography.com]

Compact Diss, u should be able to keep all the rights to the shots as they are your shots, and they have not paid for them, sure let them use them with ur name on them etc, but tey are your shots, just say that u will use them for portfolio and if they dont want u to use a particular one ask y and then for money and they can buy it off u, and they should be fine with it, afterall free publicity from them.

[blackshadow]

This sounds very dodgy to me.

I'd be emailing back and outlining a number of points saying:
1 - That you (the photographer) under law retain all copyright to your images (unless you agree to sell them)
2 - Ask what they want to use your images for
3 - Ask how the approval process for the images works, who gets to approve them, how long does it take and why it is needed given that you own the copyright to all images you sell (it would be different if the band were a paying client)
4 - Offer them low resolution copies for web use as long as you are credited for the shots whenever they are displayed. If they want to use the images for more than this it would be by negotiation.

[DwightMcCann]

Given that you approached the band (as I read it) I think Steve's perspective makes a lot of sense. I often am willing to provide a CD of images to the artist for concerts I have been paid to shoot by someone else, usually the venue. On the other hand, while I am willing to honor their request of prior approval, I limit their use without compensating me to website or personal use. My goal is mostly to get my images in their hands and let the images speak for themselves, but not just let them take them and run. Depending on your goal I would carefully weigh Richard's excellent advice ... you don't have to give them all the images or the high res versions as both he and Steve point out.

Five minutes ago I received an email from my friend Rick Barker of Big Machine Records that an image I shot for him of Taylor Swift may be used by Pollstar [if you don't know what Pollstar is (I didn't) then check it out on Wikipedia.] I provide Rick with CDs of full res images of his artists for him to use and/or shop around. He will negotiate my deal. But the point I am trying to make is that you do best by assuming that all parties involved in whatever you do are working in the best interests of everyone and that it is safe to provide material for viewing. I know only too well that this is a Pollyanna assumption and not everyone plays fair but over the long haul it has paid off for me.

[niqqunos]

I'm in a similar predicament myself...

I took some photos of a Melboune russian 'criminal' folk band, Vulgar Grad, a few weeks ago as part of the Sydney Festival.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=262512

I posted them on my site and I noticed a comment yesterday on the gallery from the bass player in the band (who must have googled the band name and my site came up) suggesting that I offer the photos to the band. There was no mention of whether this should be free or not!

I responded offering up to 6 images (at 640 x 480 resolution w/ watermark) for free, and if they wanted them at higher resolution and without watermark (i.e. for commercial use) then I would charge $20 per image.

I'm sure that I will get a 'thanks but no thanks' response, and I explained that this price is cheaper than a 'pro' would charge, and I'm by no means a pro but my gear and insurance etc still comes at a cost and if they are likely to use the photos for commercial purposes then its a fair call.

Lets hope the band sees some value in quality photos and takes up my offer!

[sspellman]

As many others have said, bands usually only trade the special access given to photographers for their own benefit-media exposure being the best reason. If you can't offer them media exposure, then they really have no reason to give you anything. Besides your own motivation is clearly to build your own portfolio or make some income from the pictures-if I were a band/performer I would offer you the same deal.

As with every field of photography, you need to start small and build upwards. Get your portfolio started by shooting less well known bands. There are no shortcuts. When you have solid examples of good work then you will be in a position to approach larger bands and media outlets about hiring you for assignments.

Another point about negociations is that the first party to make a solid offer will often get an end result closer to their goal. In other words, if you had offered them a few pictures for free upfront, then they might not insist on all of them.

Good Luck-
Scott

[kmb]

I write this from a Finnish perspective, so cultural and economical differences might make my views invalid for other countries.

NEVER EVER give out images for free for a purpose you or someone else could (or to an extent, should) be paid for. You're preventing professionals from making a living out of this, as the managers get used to not having to pay for the pictures. It is anyway unprofessional not to offer fair compensation up front for work that is going to be used for professional purposes.

It is extremely frustrating to try to offer my services when the response is that "we already have/will surely find somebody that will do this for free for us". I just now contacted a festival organizer asking them if they needed my services (I didn't first talk anything about price, since I wanted to see how they reacted). The answer was that they normally don't give credentials to freelancers (meaning with no magazine backing them up), but in my case, they could make an exception if I would provide pictures of the event to them for "promotional purposes". Why? Because there has been a large number of requests from the magazines to get those kind of pictures. Now, I'm very sure those are the very same magazines I sell my services to. And if they aren't, there is some other freelancer that tries to offer their services to them.

For me presonally there are situations where it is much more important for me to make sure I'm not "eating somebody else's bread" rather than to make sure I get fairly compensated.

Now, I cannot say what is the case for the rest of the world, but I've been building my little network just fine without giving promo-rights to any pictures for free. I have a portfolio consisting mostly of not-too-well-known bands, and I get most of the time treated rather nicely (I'm guessing that my portfolio is enough to convince most people that I do professional grade work and should be compensated accordingly).

[kmb]

Some of these points have been repeated above, but for conveninence I'll just reply to this post (I don't want to come across as hostile towards anybody, but I do have some differing views on this subject):

(and this is again from Finnish perspective).

If you can't offer them media exposure, then they really have no reason to give you anything.

A photo pass is not really too expensive to produce :). Of course, it depends on the venue and how many photographers there already are, and if you can convince the band / their manager that you won't be a nuisance.

Other than media exposure, a photographer can offer the band:
- Pictures for web gallery
- Pictures that can be bought if and when needed by the band or media
- Exposure on the "grass roots" level (fan forums and such) - basically fans of the band are happy to see new photos from the band.

It might not be such a bad deal for the band just to give out a piece of paper for that.

Besides your own motivation is clearly to build your own portfolio or make some income from the pictures-if I were a band/performer I would offer you the same deal.

It's nice to get things for free, but:
- whatever income the photographer may get from the pictures is not usually taken from the band's purse in any way. So why should they care? If s/he gets money from selling the photos, then surely s/he's providing exposure to the band.
- photographers should be fairly compensated for their valuable services (service is valuable if the band deems that they could use the pictures for "real" purposes).

As with every field of photography, you need to start small and build upwards. Get your portfolio started by shooting less well known bands.

Exactly. I would be very surprised if the small bands - in general - would present such conditions as the OP has encountered.

[Milner]

As many have said, generally I exchange images with the band in order for them to grant me access. In these cases I do grant them rights for use on the web, but any use must include a photo credit and a link to my page. I look at this as an oportunity to market myself and my work to the fan base of the band. In these situations I hope to bring in money from sales to the venue, local media, fans and maybe the band if the want print media rights.
In the case that a band asks me to shoot, that is negotiated case by case. Some are paid per shoot including all photos, and some are shot and I sell the photos individually. It is all part of the negotiation of getting a job....Everyone likes to think they are getting a deal, so what ever sounds best to them to get them to use me, I am good with....
When the venue is paying me, I generally offer low res/web ready images to the band for their use, hoping they may like them and be willing to buy rights to full res for other uses.
With every body owning a digi cam these days, you have to work a little harder, be willing to be creative, do a little more marketing, and make some concession to get where you want, BUT if your professional, and your images are good, you will make it back on the back end....I look at every job as as a gamble....some I am risking more than others, but even if I don't make anything off of a shoot, I gained experience, spent time doing what I love, and only lost time....

[mace0002]

I also do shoots with artist-not musicians-but painters, sculpters etc. I do this for my portfolio and offer to give them prints in return for their time. You have complete control of the images they see-so give them only your best and allow them to use them for promotion and be sure they understand you will be doing the same-it will be win win either way..exposure for you on both sides and they will be happy. One of my mentor's(Jay Stock) says "sometimes it is okay to give it away". Good luck.

[Steve Parr]

- whatever income the photographer may get from the pictures is not usually taken from the band's purse in any way. So why should they care? If s/he gets money from selling the photos, then surely s/he's providing exposure to the band.

This is the only real point I think I disagree with.

Let's say that you wrote a book that hit #1 on the New York Times Beste Seller List. You, of course, would make a gazillion dollars.

I come along, and decide that the book would make a good movie, so I write a script and produce the movie. The movie goes on to sweep the Oscars, and I make a gazillion dollars.

Is that fair? After all, you got exposure, right?

Shouldn't you, in some way, be compensated? After all, it was something you owned that I made money off of.

A band has a right to both protect and market their image as they see fit...

[CanonXTuser]

This is the only real point I think I disagree with.

Let's say that you wrote a book that hit #1 on the New York Times Beste Seller List. You, of course, would make a gazillion dollars.

I come along, and decide that the book would make a good movie, so I write a script and produce the movie. The movie goes on to sweep the Oscars, and I make a gazillion dollars.

Is that fair? After all, you got exposure, right?

Shouldn't you, in some way, be compensated? After all, it was something you owned that I made money off of.

A band has a right to both protect and market their image as they see fit...

As you can imagine steve how much you actually own or can expect to own or control versus what should reasonably be considered public or one should not expect to control, especially as it may abridge other constitutional and public interests, ie. claiming control of one's image allows you to censor or charge a hefty fee for a editorial cartoon lampooning you.

You are definitely right that people, not just rock stars, but you and I should have some expectation and feeling we should control or have some right of compensation if someone uses our image for gain.

Your analogy though is too broad though for comparison with concert photography.

A film based on a book involves substantially using/publishing the "story" that someone else has created. In fact, a film usually publishes so much of the "story" that it can be seen as diminishing the market for the book, ie. why get the book when I can see the movie. Yes, there are exceptions. Once or twice or bought or borrowed a book because of a movie existing.

Fyi, those books were Silence of the Lambs by Thomas Harris and Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton. That's two out of probably hundreds of movies I;ve seen based on books.

A photograph or photographs are hardly publishing the "substantial story" of a band or a show - lights, sound, live movement, etc. Thus, they are more likely to make a person interested in getting the "full story."

To me, the more apt analogy to a concert photo is publishing an excerpt or quotes from a book on blog or in an article or let's even be visual - one thinks a quote or passage from the book is so cool they make a banner with the passage printed on it to hang on stage when their band plays or print the phrase on their drum head, etc.

Should one have to get permission to do so in that case? Should the book author expect to be paid?

lol. sorry steve, but you're triggering the lawyer in me with that analogy ... lol.

[kmb]

This is the only real point I think I disagree with.

Let's say that you wrote a book that hit #1 on the New York Times Beste Seller List. You, of course, would make a gazillion dollars.

I come along, and decide that the book would make a good movie, so I write a script and produce the movie. The movie goes on to sweep the Oscars, and I make a gazillion dollars.

Is that fair? After all, you got exposure, right?


I have to respectfully disagree with the point you're making, because:
- A book is the creative work of its author (not the real-world persons the book might be written about)
- A photograph is the creative work of its taker (not the persons that might be in the photo)

I do think that in the case you presented, the author should be compensated for the use of his/her work. So, I agree that in the case you presented, the author should be compensated, but I disagree that it was the same thing with photographers vs. bands.

I understand that there is a gray area there because the book/photo could not have been written/photographed without its subject as such, but I think this point is at least arguable.

Another analogy: if you sell a photo of a tree which grows on land that you do not own, should the land owner be compensated? (I guess one might answer "yes" to this, and I guess it depends on the point of view, but again, I think it is at least arguable).

A band has a right to both protect and market their image as they see fit...

To a certain extent...

Anyway, I think there's an underlying cultural difference here (which I have noted before in other posts written by other residents of the US).

[sspellman]

KMB-

Undistributed pictures by themselves are of no benefit to any established band. Good pictures in national and local media do offer the benfit to the band, and they do grant media passes for that. Any major performer already has hundreds of images available to them from real media outlets for their use, they don't need random pictures from amateurs. Photo passes do take work and effort by the PR staff, venue management, and security.

In this case, the photographers income does not harm the band, but in fact is primarily generated by the subject. If they are going to grant a photographer special access to generate income from their success, isn't it perfectly reasonable that they guarantee that will not have to pay for the use of the images in the very rare chance that they want to use them?

I agree that photographers services should be fairly compensated-my business is based upon that same concept. The problem here is that a random amatuer photographers services in this case have no value to the band-sorry. If they somehow need pictures that badly, they hire someone with proven success-a pro. When a photographer can establish that your services are rare and valuable, then they will be able to negociate better business arangements with more important clients-thats reality. Even another 500 posts in this forum will not change that.

-Scott

BTW- Nice pics on your website!

[Steve Parr]

To a certain extent...

I would disagree with that.

If a person is making money from selling the image of a performer, that performer should be compensated.

The position has been taken here that the "trade off" is that the band gets exposure if the photographer is selling prints. This seems to dismiss the probability that, if someone is taking their picture and then is able to sell them, the band probably doesn't need the exposure...

[CanonXTuser]

I would disagree with that.

If a person is making money from selling the image of a performer, that performer should be compensated.

The position has been taken here that the "trade off" is that the band gets exposure if the photographer is selling prints. This seems to dismiss the probability that, if someone is taking their picture and then is able to sell them, the band probably doesn't need the exposure...


I agree with that though likewise, I think if a band benefits from a photo, the photog should be paid. Neither should be able to profit without including the other.

The examples in my comment on Steve's analogy are related to fair use. If you took a passage from a book and started printing t-shirts to sell with the passage on them, then I think it is quite arguable that you should get permission and share profit with the author.

[narlus]

KMB-

Undistributed pictures by themselves are of no benefit to any established band. Good pictures in national and local media do offer the benfit to the band, and they do grant media passes for that. Any major performer already has hundreds of images available to them from real media outlets for their use, they don't need random pictures from amateurs. Photo passes do take work and effort by the PR staff, venue management, and security.

In this case, the photographers income does not harm the band, but in fact is primarily generated by the subject. If they are going to grant a photographer special access to generate income from their success, isn't it perfectly reasonable that they guarantee that will not have to pay for the use of the images in the very rare chance that they want to use them?

I agree that photographers services should be fairly compensated-my business is based upon that same concept. The problem here is that a random amatuer photographers services in this case have no value to the band-sorry. If they somehow need pictures that badly, they hire someone with proven success-a pro. When a photographer can establish that your services are rare and valuable, then they will be able to negociate better business arangements with more important clients-thats reality. Even another 500 posts in this forum will not change that.

-Scott

BTW- Nice pics on your website!


i agree w/ what scott wrote 100%.

[kmb]

The problem here is that a random amatuer photographers services in this case have no value to the band-sorry. If they somehow need pictures that badly, they hire someone with proven success-a pro. When a photographer can establish that your services are rare and valuable, then they will be able to negociate better business arangements with more important clients-thats reality.

Experience has shown that amateurs doing work for free have and will prevent many opportunites where a pro (or a good amateur) would otherwise get fair compensation - that's also reality. As I said, I have experienced this, the potential client saying flat out that they will not pay for the services I, as a semi-pro, could offer them for a very reasonable price, as they will find somebody who will do it for free.

I do paid gigs all the time nowadays. I know that some of them an enthusiastic amateur would do for free and that I'm getting paid because of my skill (and equipment I use). That still does not remove the fact that amateurs that do work for free will make life harder for the pros, because - again in my experience - there are a number of bands, companies, festival organizers, record companies, news papers and magazines willing to compromize quality if they can get the pictures for free (and in some cases they don't even need to compromize anything, there are very good amateurs out there).

If it is, as you claim, that the amateur photos have no value to the artist (again, my experience shows otherwise), why not do a deal where the amateur gets paid if his/her pictures get used. That would be fair.

EDIT: again, I live in a different country, so the "harm" amateurs are doing by working free might be a whole different thing here. I see here more and more that digital photography is seen as free commodity - especially in the field of music photography. Offering my services sometimes yields a surprised response when I actually point out that I would like to get paid fairly.

[kmb]

I would disagree with that.

I was talking in general terms. The band has a right to protect their image to a certain extent. Meaning that the principle of free speech will override that, in my opinion. This has not much to do with photography, and that's why I didn't dive into the subject more deeply. Anyway, if somebody was to write a critical article or even a book about a band they should be able to do so (as long as they're not lying), even if it could harm what the band would like their image to be. Sorry about being obscure and going off topic.

[Compact Diss]

Well I never heard back from the lady so it seems that my asking to maintain credit for the photos was just too much to ask.

About all this pro vs. amateur...

Honestly, I'm a beginner. You all were once beginners. It seems that the new people out there get all types of crap from some who have been doing this longterm. I think it was mentioned above but if not your work should speak for itself. You shouldn't be insecure about an amateur coming onto the scene and taking your business away. An amateur who is honest with himself would never take on more than he/she could handle and if they do then the band learns a lesson for trying to do it the easy wasy and hiring someone who doesn't have the necessary skills/equipment.

Being a pro does not mean that you are better, it means you have been doing it for a longer period of time.

I shot a show last night and another photographer comes along for the headliner and I started getting the looks. First he had to loook down at my camera, then at me. I felt like I was in a locker room. I was pissed because how about a hello-not the nasty glaring from the side of the stage. He had a full professional set up, I had my XT and my Tamron lens...No big deal but this guy should not have felt like he had to be a shark and look me up and down.

If I had all the expensive equipment he was using I may have heard a hello, now I just walked away feeling like he was a jerk.



I could have been the lead singers brother....


All I'm saying is that there is no magic button to press, in a year when I have the full set up/professional equipment and a big portfolio will I be a pro?

I don't know, I'm more on the level that I'm out there having fun and loving this. I'll leave the locker room stares for the high school kids.

[Steve Parr]

I have an odd aside to all of this...

One of the performers I shoot doesn't pay me. He's very well known locally, and his shows always sell out. My association with him has brought about a good number of paying gigs, so I see the fact that he doesn't pay me as a fair trade off. I shoot him, maybe, twice a year.

More than once, he's said that I should sell photos I've taken of him alongside where his CD's are sold. He doesn't want any of the money from the photo sales. He's even agreed to autograph them.

I've thought about doing it, but haven't yet.

This doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand, but I was just thinking about how different some performers can be, and how different their demands can be...

[blackshadow]

Honestly, I'm a beginner. You all were once beginners. It seems that the new people out there get all types of crap from some who have been doing this longterm. I think it was mentioned above but if not your work should speak for itself. You shouldn't be insecure about an amateur coming onto the scene and taking your business away. An amateur who is honest with himself would never take on more than he/she could handle and if they do then the band learns a lesson for trying to do it the easy wasy and hiring someone who doesn't have the necessary skills/equipment.



Yes we did all start somewhere and it can be a little daunting - I find most of the photographers I have met in the music side of things to be very personable (there are a couple of exceptions) but most are friendly and willing to impart a bit of knowledge or sit down for a beer after a show or compare shots at a later date.

A couple of other points - yes your work should speak for itself and skills are far more important than equipment - anyone who judges you on your gear rather than the quality of your work shows themself up to be a tosser.

I wish you the best of luck, it takes hard work and effort, both with your photography and your networking skills to gain a reputation, but if you are professional and persistent it will come.

If you are having trouble getting access to bands/venues I suggest you set your sights low to begin with and shoot smaller bands/venues to build your portfolio and hone your skills. Once you have a portfolio you can approach publications/webzines, bands, venues etc... people who can help you with passes to bigger shows. It's also a great way to build a network as with smaller shows you can usually talk to the bands and their management directly.

Good luck and I look forward to seeing you regularly posting work here.

[kmb]

Just a quick reply:
- I agree that pros are not necessarily better than amateurs - which is kind of the point: if you do good work, and that work is used, you should get compensated.
- I have no "big names" in my portfolio, even though I'm a semi-pro and shoot regularly for one news paper and three magazines (although typically I get one gig per month per magazine, which isn't much).
- I use Tamron lenses (28-75/2.8 and 17-35/4.0-2.8 are really good budget concert lenses) ;).
- I'm not a full pro (I have a dayjob that pays for my food and the roof over my head, and the equipment I use for this hobby - although now I'm slowly getting some return on investment), but I'm just generally concerned about this, and I make sure I don't take anybody's work opportunities (without getting compensation that matches the quality I produce), although the vast majority of the gigs I photograph are for fun.

It's intersting how big the general opinion difference seems to be on this board compared to the Finnish photography forums.
I'm cool, I have no intention of moving abroad, I just wanted to share my thoughts concerning this matter, and I hope I haven't upset anybody. I certainly didn't intend to bully "beginners" (I started this 11 months ago, so I'm not sure I'm not a beginner myself) :(.

[sspellman]

"If it is, as you claim, that the amateur photos have no value to the artist (again, my experience shows otherwise), why not do a deal where the amateur gets paid if his/her pictures get used. That would be fair."

KMB-

Its not a matter of fair, or a matter of my opinion. The band in this case is clearly telling the amateur photographer that their work has zero value to them and they will not pay for it. Done-end of story. Nobody's opinion here matters-it wont change the outcome.

-Scott

[Steve Parr]

I liken this to the Screen Actors Guild. You can't get a SAG card unless you've had some meaningful work, and it's almost impossible to get some meaningful work unless you have a SAG card.

Getting work as a concert photographer, in my opinion, is about networking, about being willing to impart a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" attitude, and how people perceive what it is you're doing.

When I first started doing this, I shot for free. I was getting into gigs, with a band. As a result, people (namely other bands) saw me walking around a club with a camera. They talk to the band I shoot and ask "Who's this guy?" Bands can be pretty competitive. If one band has a photographer show up, others could want one, too.

After about two years, I can now walk into virtually any club in San Diego and shoot and, for the larger "concert" venues (House Of Blues type places), it's no longer a challenge to get a credential. I fill out the paperwork and I'm in. Why? Well, because as a result of networking, I now know stage managers, booking agents, and promoters, as well as many of the artists.

When I worked for free, it was a situation where either the band wasn't in a position to hire someone, or the club was so rough that nobody would want to carry a few thousand dollars worth of gear into it. Still, I needed to get the experience and build a portfolio. That wasn't going to happen unless I was willing to shoot for free, so I did. I have no regrets about that.

As for people who think that, if a band gets a free photographer, then they'll always "expect" a free photographer. I'm not sure I agree with that. One band I shoot for free (one of my original "guinea pigs") and I have discussed the fact that, in the near future, fair compensation will need to be provided. Through being able to improve by shooting them over the last two years, I've also had the chance to prove myself to them. Basically, they don't have a reason to look anywhere else for a photographer.

I don't get freaked out when someone says they intend to shoot for free. Frankly, I think more people have done it than are willing to admit they have. Do it, get the experience, and the rest will come when it's time for it to come...

[Milner]

I liken this to the Screen Actors Guild. You can't get a SAG card unless you've had some meaningful work, and it's almost impossible to get some meaningful work unless you have a SAG card.

Getting work as a concert photographer, in my opinion, is about networking, about being willing to impart a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" attitude, and how people perceive what it is you're doing.

When I first started doing this, I shot for free. I was getting into gigs, with a band. As a result, people (namely other bands) saw me walking around a club with a camera. They talk to the band I shoot and ask "Who's this guy?" Bands can be pretty competitive. If one band has a photographer show up, others could want one, too.

After about two years, I can now walk into virtually any club in San Diego and shoot and, for the larger "concert" venues (House Of Blues type places), it's no longer a challenge to get a credential. I fill out the paperwork and I'm in. Why? Well, because as a result of networking, I now know stage managers, booking agents, and promoters, as well as many of the artists.

When I worked for free, it was a situation where either the band wasn't in a position to hire someone, or the club was so rough that nobody would want to carry a few thousand dollars worth of gear into it. Still, I needed to get the experience and build a portfolio. That wasn't going to happen unless I was willing to shoot for free, so I did. I have no regrets about that.

As for people who think that, if a band gets a free photographer, then they'll always "expect" a free photographer. I'm not sure I agree with that. One band I shoot for free (one of my original "guinea pigs") and I have discussed the fact that, in the near future, fair compensation will need to be provided. Through being able to improve by shooting them over the last two years, I've also had the chance to prove myself to them. Basically, they don't have a reason to look anywhere else for a photographer.

I don't get freaked out when someone says they intend to shoot for free. Frankly, I think more people have done it than are willing to admit they have. Do it, get the experience, and the rest will come when it's time for it to come...


Very well said. I completely agree.

[kmb]

Its not a matter of fair, or a matter of my opinion. The band in this case is clearly telling the amateur photographer that their work has zero value to them and they will not pay for it. Done-end of story. Nobody's opinion here matters-it wont change the outcome.

I have to disagree.

Wanting something for free does not necessarily mean that what is wanted for free is not needed or has zero value.

I know for a fact that amateurs can produce photos that are spectacular and can be used in all sorts of things.

Of course, if there is a pressing need for live photos, the band will buy the needed photos from photographers, or hire a photographer to photograph the photos that they do not already have. Imagine, for instance, that a band is going to do a live album. They need photos for the booklet, and the cover. They have gotten previously hundreds of photos for free. If there are some nice material, anybody won't get compensation. These photos definitely don't have "zero value". They were aqcuired for free, becuase they could be aquired for free.

[kmb]

That wasn't going to happen unless I was willing to shoot for free, so I did. I have no regrets about that.

I'll make the following bold, because it's really important: My underlying assumption in this discussion has been that one does not need to shoot for free (and give all rights to the artist's management) to build the network. That's the environment I live in - I think I have done just fine. As I noted before, some things might not apply in other parts of the world.

I have shot for free, of course! But apart for one concert, I haven't given pictures to a usage purpose where I thought a person making a living out of this could have had a business opportunity. Usually, I just give web usage rights to the band, even if I shoot for a magazine.

As for people who think that, if a band gets a free photographer, then they'll always "expect" a free photographer.

I have encountered this sort of attitude a few times - maybe it isn't like that, in general, but as you can guess, when it happens, it is very very frustrating ("we won't pay for the pictures because someone will do it for free for us anyway". Goddamn!).
A majority of management persons, magazine editors, and bands luckily do assume that I'd have to be compensated.

Frankly, I think more people have done it than are willing to admit they have.

I have done this once, but for the record, I'm very sure this hasn't advanced me in my so called career ;)

[taygull]

I think most of you are missing the point.

The management company is hired to promote the artist. The "promotion" of the artist includes how the artist is perceived in the public space.

You will find most management firms want to view the images for the main reason as to not let an image that is unflattering, or it does not portray what they are spending hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars on marketing to create. It is also fair to assume that the management company has a responsibility to monitor/create/get there share of all revenue generated by the artist, this would include images.

I agree there is not much benefit from an "unknown" photographer shooting an event where cameras are not allowed.

If you are asking the artist/management company for "something" then you must give them "something" in return. This is where the negotiation will start.

For example..

"Yes I'll be happy to provide you with some of the images I shoot", in the event you find some that would help promote the "artist" I'm sure we can come to some arrangement to share the rights."

You did not say how many, what resolution, and you have made a polite statement that they will need to work with/pay you for commercial use of the images.

At the point you are in your career I think you are at the mercy of the management company....and they know it.

[kmb]

Off topic.

Luckily most of the people who I've talked with in the Finnish music business do not see me as a business partner, but as an enthusiastic photographer who really loves to do what he does - create more or less good looking photos. I have met and talked to really nice people, to whom the music is still the main thing (rather than making profit) - when they talk to me, they treat me primarily as a person, not as a business partner or somebody who could possibly benefit their business somehow. This applies to most of the managers and record company. I don't have to convince them that they'll get somehow more money through giving me credentials.

One discussion I had with a well-known Finnish band (inside Finland's borders, that is) went essentially like this (E-mail):

Me: I'd like to photograph your upcoming gig <at my local club>. Is this possible? I would give you images for web usage, and I'll make sure I don't bother the audience. I won't use Flash. Here's my portfolio: (link to slightly dodgy collection of images back then).

Them: Of course! We'll put your name to the guest list. We were also wondering if you'd like to come backstage to document the atmosphere after the gig. Would that be ok?

Me: Yes, sure. Thank you!

(the gig + backstage session)

Me: here are the pictures (link). I'd be honored if you would consider using these on your web pages.

Them: Thank you, very nice images. We might purches the usage rights for some of these, we might get back to you on this matter.
...

[CanonXTuser]

Well I never heard back from the lady so it seems that my asking to maintain credit for the photos was just too much to ask.

About all this pro vs. amateur...

Honestly, I'm a beginner. You all were once beginners. It seems that the new people out there get all types of crap from some who have been doing this longterm. ...

I personally would not call someone who looks down at another because of their gear as a pro, I call them a jerk.
be careful of stereotyping others based on that. there's nothing in the definition of pro that means one can't be gracious.

at the same time, I can understand the perspective of someone, who like I've experienced, sees someone with a point and shoot or even a camera phone blocking a good shooting angle for the entire show. it is especially frustrating when you know it's iso 1600 shooting situation and the guys or gals gear is lucky if it goes beyond iso400, ie. you know they are getting awful, blurry pics.

at that point, I wish they understood that being an amateur doesn't mean one can't be gracious and think of others also.

P.S. If this is the case, don't feel at loss. Being credited is not just a right of law but simple do unto others, ethical treatment.

Write back and ask the publicist [and cc the band] how simple and ethical request that was and how she would like it if some big time event - a movie for example - not only asked the artist to supply a song for free, but without credit. Sounds fair and decent?

Then you can tell her that I said that being a pro does not mean one has to be a jerk but in her case, I'll make an exception!

[DwightMcCann]

I personally would not call someone who looks down at another because of their gear as a pro, I call them a jerk.
if you call that being a pro, then that's your problem. be careful of stereotyping others based on that.

there's nothing in the definition of pro that means one can't be gracious.

at the same time, I can understand the perspective of someone, who like I've experienced, sees someone with a point of shoot or even a camera phone blocking a good shooting angle for the entire show. it is especially frustrating when you know it's iso 1600 shooting situation and the guys or gals gear is lucky if it goes beyond iso400, ie. you know they are getting awful, blurry pics.

at that point, I wish they understood that being an amateur doesn't mean one can't be gracious and think of others also.

Hehehe! Yes, I am guilty of suggesting that Rebel users aren't professionals ... but I think this is simply a reality ... professionals simply must use the most durable and responsive equipment with the widest range of options and best technology. It doesn't mean that the guy with the Rebel can't get damned fine images.

But I did want to add to XT's observations. I am the "House Photographer" for the Chumash Casino Resort Entertainment Department and the primary entertainment photographer for the PR department, although I am really a contract photographer ... they just like me. Anyway, when other media photographers show up or when the PR group decides to send other contract photographers to an event (because they want to cover some other aspect of the event like the guests or just to have comparison images to see if I am really worth keeping on) they are usually directed to touch base with me. Reviewers without their own photographers are also referred to me. I always treat all of these people as my personal guests. I show them where to get free beverages (no alcohol allowed!) I pass out business cards with the incantation, "If you need courtesy images from this event please contact me by email" even to the other photographers ... sometimes they have "issues" (equipment failures, etc.) and I want them to know that I will back them up with my images. If the other photographers use equipment compatible with mine I am clear that I will loan equipment including batteries and CF cards (right up to my $6700USD 400mm f/2.8.) I often loan a lens that someone wants to simply try out. I am always happy to shoot shoulder to shoulder or to point out all of the best acceptable shooting spots. At boxing events I am sometimes asked to assign positions on the mat to the other photographers and I make sure they have chairs and water, etc.

I cannot tell you how amazed some of the visitors have been by my behavior! Particularly the boxing togs cannot believe that the "House Guy" is trying to help them get the best pictures they can. I share every tip I have. If I find out a notable is around I share the information. For the concerts it is similar ... I've had newspaper guys show up with dead batteries because they have been working all day and didn't have access to an outlet. I've had guys with lens, rented or otherwise, that stopped working. I have loaned my 300mm f/2.8 because there were none left to be rented. I have one hell of a reputation with all of the other photographers who occasion the casino. It reflects well on me and it reflects well on the casino.

On a funny note, I usually get there an hour early and run through all my equipment and then set it on the stage front where I will be standing at the start of the concert ... there are zillions of guards and security cameras so the equipment is very safe. There have been a couple of times when professionals have been "handed" to me as the house guy and they have sneered a bit as I've been gracious, and kind of suggested that they don't need ANY aid in their task since they are the professionals who have been brought in on special assignment because I apparently couldn't handle the job. But their mouths fall open when I smile and say, "OK" and walk past the guards and ropes and pick up two 1D bodies with big white lenses when the concert starts. Yes, there are some real photographic snobs out there ... and I guess I'm one of them, but it doesn't mean you can't be gracious and helpful.

[taygull]

and I guess I'm one of them, but it doesn't mean you can't be gracious and helpful.


I find it easier and less stressing to just be a jerk!:p

I'll give a good example of what causes someone to be a bit of a "snob" or arrogant.

I was shooting one of my first weddings a few weeks ago. The magazine I'm employed by had asked me to cover some local "winter games" the same weekend. I let them know I had a prior shoot but would "work something out". I contacted two other local "pro's", one is kinda a wannabe but I figured I'd give him a shot at covering some of the games, he'd get a media pass and maybe get some stuff published. The other photog has a business, does this for a living (although mostly weddings and head shot stuff).

The first photog said they'd do it but a few days before the shoot he/she had to cancel because of a family emergency, no problem. I then went to my other option and met the photog (I'll use photog so I keep the "who" as confidential as possible) and explained exactly what I wanted shot, please shoot in RAW and gave them all the credentials. I made some "assumptions" about this photog being able to get these "indoor" shots of various sporting events.

So late on Saturday I get an email from the photog during my wedding and it is an apology, the email states that the photog was very disappointed with the way the shoots went due to being told no flash was allowed. Well the email said since the photog did not know how to do this the photog just put the camera in "sports" mode and "hoped" the pictures would turn out OK. I've not seen them yet, and I'm not that worried as we probably only need 4-6 good shots for this article but it goes to show why sometimes those of us with pros with "equipment" and knowledge get a little snobbish.

[CanonXTuser]

So late on Saturday I get an email from the photog during my wedding and it is an apology, the email states that the photog was very disappointed with the way the shoots went due to being told no flash was allowed. Well the email said since the photog did not know how to do this the photog just put the camera in "sports" mode and "hoped" the pictures would turn out OK. I've not seen them yet, and I'm not that worried as we probably only need 4-6 good shots for this article but it goes to show why sometimes those of us with pros with "equipment" and knowledge get a little snobbish.

Most "pro" photographers use flash, and don't realize that for concert photography in particular, that is a no no.

Thus, it is very common that even the most established potrait or wedding photography won't have the equipment and experience to photog a no flash concert.

I hate to tell you taygull but being that the event was both action and lowlight/no flash, don't be surprised if he doesn't have a single sharp picture.

You may have to go with a couple fuzzy shots meant to "imply the action and excitement of the event.

[narlus]

Most "pro" photographers use flash, and don't realize that for concert photography in particular, that is a no no.

it's kind of funny in that a decent number of the credentialled shooters i see at the larger places around Boston (like Avalon or the Paradise) seem to use flash.

i know the typical rules are '3 songs/no flash', but have any of you ever seen this enforced if a transgression has taken place? i mean, it's not like band X is gonna stop playing, point to the offender, and ask security to boot his arse; in fact, the '3 songs/no flash' rule is usually dictated by the PR rep upon pass approval, who likely isn't even at the show. and is security really geared into the 'no flash' rule? i guess it depends on the venue and staff, but

[DwightMcCann]

it's kind of funny in that a decent number of the credentialled shooters i see at the larger places around Boston (like Avalon or the Paradise) seem to use flash.

i know the typical rules are '3 songs/no flash', but have any of you ever seen this enforced if a transgression has taken place? i mean, it's not like band X is gonna stop playing, point to the offender, and ask security to boot his arse; in fact, the '3 songs/no flash' rule is usually dictated by the PR rep upon pass approval, who likely isn't even at the show. and is security really geared into the 'no flash' rule? i guess it depends on the venue and staff, but

Yes, Narlus, the no flash rule is heavily enforced at the casino, mostly so the guests are not annoyed, not for the convenience of the band. Even the occasional camera phone that fires a flash will often generate a warning to an individual.

[niqqunos]

As both a musician and a photographer I think the 'no flash' rule is very reasonable...

I shot Saul Williams a few weeks ago (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=258440) at a traditionally low-light venue with no barrier and a 5 foot stage height.

There were 2 other photographers there, both using much superior cameras to my Rebel XT (350D) and with nice shiny white lenses with red bands around them... one was shooting with his Speedlite 580EX, but facing it rearward DIRECTLY INTO THE EYES OF THE AUDIENCE, including myself. I was standing behind him because he stood front and centre of the stage for the entire show and often raised his camera hand over his head, blocking people's views, well- at least the views of those who weren't blinded by his flash, and generally being very obnoxious and rude.

Its this type of person who really annoys me, and gives the rest of us a bad name... I was so close to reaching over and switching his Speedlite off, as people we actually LEAVING because of him.

Photographers are meant to capture the event and enhance the enjoyment of it, and this guy may have taken some nice shots (well he should considering the gear he had) but he ruined the show for those around him...

[Steve Parr]

it's kind of funny in that a decent number of the credentialled shooters i see at the larger places around Boston (like Avalon or the Paradise) seem to use flash.

i know the typical rules are '3 songs/no flash', but have any of you ever seen this enforced if a transgression has taken place? i mean, it's not like band X is gonna stop playing, point to the offender, and ask security to boot his arse; in fact, the '3 songs/no flash' rule is usually dictated by the PR rep upon pass approval, who likely isn't even at the show. and is security really geared into the 'no flash' rule? i guess it depends on the venue and staff, but

If someone within the barricade at the San Diego House Of Blues uses a flash, Security will promptly tell him it's time for him to go. I've only seen it happen once, but it was swift.

I see a lot of photographers there with flashes on their cameras, but they don't use them. Never could figure that out...

[Metalphotographer]

I see a lot of photographers there with flashes on their cameras, but they don't use them. Never could figure that out...

Perhaps for autofocus assistance? The focus assist matrix put out by the 580EX helps a lot if I have flash set to "does not fire" in custom functions on my 20d.

[Steve Parr]

Perhaps for autofocus assistance? The focus assist matrix put out by the 580EX helps a lot if I have flash set to "does not fire" in custom functions on my 20d.

No kiddin'?

[taygull]

I see a lot of photographers there with flashes on their cameras, but they don't use them. Never could figure that out...

I will usually have my flash on my body when shooting "no flash" concerts. The reason is sometimes there may be a request from a fan, or a shot of something in the venue I might want were I need the flash.

I'd like to know more about the flash assist as well.....

[Metalphotographer]

No kiddin'?

No kidding. It outputs a grid of straight red lines giving the lens something to focus on when it's dark. I think it helps :)

Give it a try sometime, I've run into several people who were shooting at shows with 580 EX flash heads who weren't aware of the "beams" emitted by their flash heads.

One more thing, the beam only emits when focus mode is set to "One Shot," it won't emit when it is set to "AI Servo" or "AI Focus." Then again I can only speak of using it with the 20d, not sure about other bodies.

[Steve Parr]

No kidding. It outputs a grid of straight red lines giving the lens something to focus on when it's dark. I think it helps :)

Give it a try sometime, I've run into several people who were shooting at shows with 580 EX flash heads who weren't aware of the "beams" emitted by their flash heads.

One more thing, the beam only emits when focus mode is set to "One Shot," it won't emit when it is set to "AI Servo" or "AI Focus." Then again I can only speak of using it with the 20d, not sure about other bodies.

Wow... learn something new everyday.

I have some Promaster fancy-pants flash. I'll have to check and see if it has that feature...

[CanonXTuser]

There were 2 other photographers there, both using much superior cameras to my Rebel XT (350D) and with nice shiny white lenses with red bands around them... one was shooting with his Speedlite 580EX, but facing it rearward DIRECTLY INTO THE EYES OF THE AUDIENCE, including myself. I was standing behind him because he stood front and centre of the stage for the entire show and often raised his camera hand over his head, blocking people's views, well- at least the views of those who weren't blinded by his flash, and generally being very obnoxious and rude.

Its this type of person who really annoys me, and gives the rest of us a bad name... I was so close to reaching over and switching his Speedlite off, as people we actually LEAVING because of him.



you should advise the management and if you get his name or find out what mag or newspaper he was shooting, let us know and at least I will be glad to send him and/or his editor a message of his rude and decidely unprofessional.

standing and hogging one spot, flashing the audience [imagine a lot of shots, no wonder people left], and raising the camera when you are already front and center [and thus, will glaringly be in the view of others] is unprofessional behavior.

getting the shot no matter what = not giving a **** about anybody else = American a****** not American professional.

[johnstoy]

This is a pretty good thread...I like the sides taken and believe we need to stick to our guns, regarding fair recognition through appropriate compensation...

Sometimes, you need to do the numbers, and figure out what the band take home at the end of the day is...It usually is quite an eye opener to find they invest a fortune to be in the spot light...Therefore being open minded, creative and flexible is the way to be realistic, regarding, freebies, complimentary passes, and compensation.

In my case, I'm retired...There are house pros shooting at my local venue when appropriate...I don't bother them, they don't bother me...They get paid...I'm retired.

[blackshadow]

I for one take a lot of pride in not using flash when photographing live shows - I know it would be very easy to drag out my 580EX and set it appropriately, I see a number of photographers using flash and sometimes they get better images. I have also been lambasted by one such photographer in another forum for advocating a strict no flash policy when shooting live bands. Personally I wish security would enforce the no flash rule more often to stop the annoyance to both the audience and the performers.

[CanonXTuser]

I have also been lambasted by one such photographer in another forum ....

ie. a photohog who can only think of the issue in terms of themself, because every band I've ever talked to has absolutely said they hate flash, when the subject comes up. but sure screw the band.

and as someone that watches lots of shows, it's one thing for an occasional flash to go off every now and then. it's very very noticeable and bearable if it's now and then. but if flash is going off dozens of times in a show, that would be quite distracting.

luckily, I can't vouch from personal experience as I've yet to be at a show where either security allowed machine gun flashing or with fans that did not have enough sense to limit themselves to only a couple flash snaps.

but sure screw the fans also. screw the bands. screw fellow photogs when the flash goes off and ruins their exposure [happens quite regularly to me]

as that is what your flash advocate is advocating.

[Metalphotographer]

I often use fill flash (through a diffuser or bounced) at venues where there is little to no front lighting, especially when there is a lot of fog. However I do make a point of asking the band if they mind before I do so. I have yet to encounter a single metal or hardcore band say anything negative about flashing. I think the heavier bands are so used to strobes and such on stage that it doesn't phase them so much.

[CanonXTuser]

I often use fill flash (through a diffuser or bounced) at venues where there is little to no front lighting, especially when there is a lot of fog. However I do make a point of asking the band if they mind before I do so. I have yet to encounter a single metal or hardcore band say anything negative about flashing. I think the heavier bands are so used to strobes and such on stage that it doesn't phase them so much.


well, that's a great alternative point of view and i think given the band the "heads up" probably earns you a lot of good will.

moreover, diffusing or bouncing it makes it a lot easier.

the band Staple [now disbanded] gets my awarded for calm under fire. Darrin Keim - the lead singer - came to the edge of the stage and was on his knees and a girl with a point and shoot fired directly in his face, not more than 4 feet away, while he was holding a long note.

and this was a powerful flash, literally whited him out. Darrin did not miss a beat or look the slightest bit ruffled. i was absolutely amazed. i mean. the flash that went off was really powerful and at eye level.

the thought that went through my mind was holy cow, i know he must have wanted to curse and that he must be seeing "stars."

just read how distinctly i remember it and that should tell you how out of numerous moments where I've been around flashes going off, this is the one I distinctly remember because of how egregious it struck me ... as hey, let's fire off a flash right in a guy;s face moment!

[Matatazela]

I think that you should define "use" and then insist that the images are all watermarked with your details. Maybe a webpage address.

If they decide to use an image for a billboard, or sell images to Rolling Stone and you have basically given them the right to do this, I will feel sorry for you, but a lot less sory thanyou will feel for yourself!!!

[Steve Parr]

It usually is quite an eye opener to find they invest a fortune to be in the spot light...

One thing I've learned from working in the music industry is that it's not cheap to be a rock star...

[johnstoy]

One thing I've learned from working in the music industry is that it's not cheap to be a rock star...


Living in the fast lane, means making good money...it also means spending it fast, just to keep with the "Joneses"...Eventualy, for most, the well starts drying up...the reality check had better occur, before they hit rock bottom.

[Compact Diss]

I have yet to use my flash while shooting a concert. I won't either unless a band hires me and requests it.

Narlus I was also surprised to see the flash going on at the Middle East-happened to be a photographer for the Phoenix too...I felt like she was cheating. The lights there are awful but you can see the pics I have of Seemless, not too bad with some editing.

I beliebe in going and dealing with the light the way it is, I take more shots and hope for the best. If I get nothing then I show nothing. I shot Piebald this past week and didn't post any, no sense in putting out something that isn't worth looking at.

I'll stick with the no flash club.

[CanonXTuser]

I have yet to use my flash while shooting a concert. I won't either unless a band hires me and requests it.

Narlus I was also surprised to see the flash going on at the Middle East-happened to be a photographer for the Phoenix too...I felt like she was cheating. The lights there are awful but you can see the pics I have of Seemless, not too bad with some editing.

I beliebe in going and dealing with the light the way it is, I take more shots and hope for the best. If I get nothing then I show nothing. I shot Piebald this past week and didn't post any, no sense in putting out something that isn't worth looking at.

I'll stick with the no flash club.

The reason people shoot flash is because of expense. Other than the 50mm 1.8, low light lenses are quite expensive. Three of them will easily have you over a grand.

[blackshadow]

Narlus I was also surprised to see the flash going on at the Middle East-happened to be a photographer for the Phoenix too...I felt like she was cheating.

Is The Phoenix a newspaper? My experience with newspaper photography of live bands in Australia is that the normal news photographers which most papers use do a very poor job of capturing good concert images.

[kmb]

Even though the previous message was an obvious troll, I'd like to point out that it's not all about the band "noticing" flash. It's about the mood, which may be disturbed if there are ten photographers with flashes there. Concerts are arragned for the audience, not the photographers.

EDIT: The post to which I replied here has been removed (by a moderator? I reported it), so this is a bit irrelevant now.

[blackshadow]

I agree kmb... seems like a troll... a whole 2 posts and no real identity.

[narlus]

Is The Phoenix a newspaper? My experience with newspaper photography of live bands in Australia is that the normal news photographers which most papers use do a very poor job of capturing good concert images.

the phoenix is a weekly boston (and providence and portland ME too, i think) paper, aligned w/ 'alternative' radio station WFNX. it's kinda like a village voice wannabe.

i've seen the photos in the phoenix and most are passable, some are decent, some atrocious. i get the feeling that the artistic aesthetic of the photo isn't something they are necessarily enthralled about, and to be honest, 3" x 5" shots in newsprint b&w aren't gonna blow anyone away, anyway.

and to the troll: please screw off until you have something more meaningful to add to the discourse.

[CanonXTuser]

Even though the previous message was an obvious troll, I'd like to point out that it's not all about the band "noticing" flash. It's about the mood, which may be disturbed if there are ten photographers with flashes there. Concerts are arranged for the audience, not the photographers.

EDIT: The post to which I replied here has been removed (by a moderator? I reported it), so this is a bit irrelevant now.

if the person can't get how ridiculous and disruptive it would be to have one let alone several people firing off flashes throughout a band's whole set then the troll is pretty irrelevant in intelligence.

as is, I can only go with what I've been told, and every band I've talked to on the subject saying they hate flash and many times that saying how they are amazed that I am able to get the quality I get without flash.

[narlus]

please show us some of yr flash shots.

they can definitely have their place (mainly in the dimly lit conditions of a small club, esp w/ an energetic band), but if as you say, you are using flash @ these 'real gigs', then my experience is that the lumens available make flash a non-starter.

surely you've got some nice flash shots of justin timberlake, red hot silly peckers, or other 'real' artists kicking about in yr portofolio, no?

[blackshadow]

please show us some of yr flash shots.

they can definitely have their place (mainly in the dimly lit conditions of a small club, esp w/ an energetic band), but if as you say, you are using flash @ these 'real gigs', then my experience is that the lumens available make flash a non-starter.

surely you've got some nice flash shots of justin timberlake, red hot silly peckers, or other 'real' artists kicking about in yr portofolio, no?

I have them pegged as a Veronicas type!

[Suicidenote]

I hardly ever use flash, but sometimes if I'm having a hard time with lighting, I will flip up the peanut flash and snap a pic just to see how it looks. Here are a couple taken with my Digital Elph w/flash, so you don't even need a 580EX to see the effect.

And yes I know... pictures are too small.


http://www.monstarphoto.com/RobZombie2/images/Blasko12.jpg

http://www.monstarphoto.com/RobZombie2/images/Rob2.jpg

[Milner]

justin timberlake, red hot silly peckers, or other 'real' artists

OK, now I am upset:) You are refering to Justin Timberlake as a "real artist"....Now that is just unaccecptable to me.:D

[mattp]

I have yet to use my flash while shooting a concert. I won't either unless a band hires me and requests it.

Narlus I was also surprised to see the flash going on at the Middle East-happened to be a photographer for the Phoenix too...I felt like she was cheating. The lights there are awful but you can see the pics I have of Seemless, not too bad with some editing.

I beliebe in going and dealing with the light the way it is, I take more shots and hope for the best. If I get nothing then I show nothing. I shot Piebald this past week and didn't post any, no sense in putting out something that isn't worth looking at.

I'll stick with the no flash club.


But if you know that using a flash will get you a great picture 99% of the time instead of hitting or missing why not use it? As long as you don't shoot a TON of pictures with it i don't see it doing my harm. I go to shows and the flash doesn't both me at all. A very close friend of mine shoots local bands and bounces his flash and it isn't bad at all.

Just my 2 cents.

[taygull]

But if you know that using a flash will get you a great picture 99% of the time instead of hitting or missing why not use it? As long as you don't shoot a TON of pictures with it i don't see it doing my harm. I go to shows and the flash doesn't both me at all. A very close friend of mine shoots local bands and bounces his flash and it isn't bad at all.

Just my 2 cents.

Shooting live entertainment you will get a less than stellar photo using flash....99% of the time. Look through these pages of "quality shooters" who have invested time, money, education and equipment into learning to shoot live entertainment. Do the research and you will see 99% have no flash in the EXIF data.

Understand we all define what is stellar. If you are using your kit lens and don't have fast enough glass or a camera that can handle high ISO then your image would be better with flash....but it would not be better than one taken with the correct gear to capture the mood of the show.

You won't see 1% of pro concert shooters using flash when the performers are on stage. Like stated before, most of them will not allow it.

It just depends on what you are after...if you are looking for images that can be published or a picture you can put on your myspace page from a concert you went to well then.........the quality is up to you.

[narlus]

i'm very happy not using flash, which is why i lug around very fast primes...i can definitely state that if i just had zooms, i'd probably have to use flash at a fair number of shoots i do. it's just the nature of the beast of the bands i like, and the clubs they play. taygull, when's the last time you were forced to shoot ISO 3200 (or even 1600) w/ a wide open f/1.4 prime so you could eek out a usable shutter speed?

to say that images won't be published if you use flash is insane...take a look @ NME, Kerrang, or any local paper and i'd bet that a fair number in print have used flash. hell, most of the time these outlets (esp papers) don't care about the artistic aesthetic, they just want a fair documentation of the event, and in newsprint, a flashed photo works just fine.

there are plenty of good uses of flash (Charles Peterson would have gotten about 3 decent images instead of the 100s of amazing ones he did, while documenting the Sub Pop scene in Seattle), esp for fast-moving punk bands playing in dingy, small clubs.

[taygull]

Insane huh.....and who really considers the "Sub Pop scene in Seattle" quality performing arts anyway:p ......of course there are exceptions to every rule. That is why I did not say 100%. I shoot @ 1600 ISO 95% of the time. I have shot on occasion 3200 ISO.

The difference is the bands or performers who want my images expect a certain level of quality I let the know to get that quality there is a minimum amount of light required. The local venue that I'm the house photog for recently did some remodeling which cause the lighting to become very poor. I told the owner I could no longer provide the quality images he was use to.....so he ordered $25K worth of new lighting...sometimes you just have to educate the smaller venue's (of course they do have to care about the images and not just the take for that day). Also the venue's of most decent acts won't allow flash. If it is the "garage bands" or venues that are so dark I'd have to shoot at 3200 ISO or all flash then that is a shoot I'd pass on......which leaves the door open for you narlus.

[narlus]

say what you want about musical tastes, but are you familiar w/ Peterson's work? the man is an icon, an w/ good reason.

it's clearly a different realm of music than what (and where) you shoot, and that's ok. the reason as you state of "1% of pros" shooting flash at those events is because they clearly don't need to; the light is so good that there's really no need, unless it's for some some fill. that said, there are plenty of situations where that won't work.

in case it's not clear, i do this thing as a hobby, because i like the bands i shoot, and i'm not looking to make much if any $ from it. which again is OK w/ me. :)

[johnstoy]

I took one with a flash last week...just to see one again...cause I haven't taken one in 5 or 6 thousand snaps...

While the no flash, prime lens, low light pics came our very nicely, the flash shot was literally frightening... It is so bad I won't post it ever, anywhere. It will serve as a reminder of the potential damage a flash does, in certain stage light situations.

I'm buying a flash and diffuser for some wedding photography... but would rather not try it at a concert venue...

[René Damkot]

Flash can be usefull if done right.
If it's done right, you hardly see it is used. Sometimes I have to look hard on my own images to see weather I used flash....
Sometimes you just need to get the shot, and flash is the only option...
Biggest reason I avoid it, is the unpredictability of ETTL, mostly in wider, overview shots, where the subject is tiny...
I used flash in 16 images out of these 20: click (http://www.moonglade.net/~rene/060902_Geuzenpop2006/index13.htm). See if you can find the ones without, not looking at the EXIF ;)

[kmb]

Flash can be usefull if done right.

Any thoughts about what settings would be a good start point in starting experimenting this (your images don't seem to contain exif info)? I've never really used direct flash but one day I guess I will need it.

I do have some yellow/orange (=warming) gel that I can put in front of the flash head to warm the light up.

[livewire-photography.com]

Does the 430ex Flash have this Capability?
cheers

[narlus]

Flash can be usefull if done right.

thank you René; i agree completely.

I used flash in 16 images out of these 20: click (http://www.moonglade.net/%7Erene/060902_Geuzenpop2006/index13.htm). See if you can find the ones without, not looking at the EXIF ;)

well i just clicked on one, and you certainly used it on this one, for fill under his hat, right?
rhd_20060902Geuz1491.jpg

[René Damkot]

Any thoughts about what settings would be a good start point in starting experimenting this (your images don't seem to contain exif info)? I've never really used direct flash but one day I guess I will need it.

Exif is there, but some viewers on Firefox won't show it (I found out recently in this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=263669&highlight=EXIF))

Try this online viewer: click (http://regex.info/exif.cgi).
Alternatively, just download them.

I use a warming filter on the flash, and some -FEC. Mostly some +EC is needed (dependig on light levels) to overcome NEVEC (http://eosdoc.com/manuals/flash/NEVEC/). (Thank you Canon).

If light levels aren't insanely low, this seems to work quite okay.
If flash becomes more 'main' light, (no front lighting at all for instance), I tend to set the camera to Manual. That way I can at least determine what shutterspeed I'm using.... Still the image will be worse then with decent lighting. click (http://www.moonglade.net/~rene/060611BDM/source/image/rhd_060611bdm0024.jpg)


Does the 430ex Flash have this Capability?
cheers


I think the 430 EX will do just fine.

[René Damkot]

well i just clicked on one, and you certainly used it on this one, for fill under his hat, right?
rhd_20060902Geuz1491.jpg

Yep. The hat was a bugger. Also used flash on most of the shots of the singer. I didn't need it for the drummer though, since he was further back on stage, so did have some better front lighting.

[Steve Parr]

You know, something which should be addressed here, as well, is "style".

A musician has his own "style", that being the way he writes and/or performs a song. An author has a style, as does a painter or a movie director. You can watch a Martin Scorcese or Steven Spielberg film and, if you didn't know who directed it, you could probably guess.

In January 2006, I took this shot of Tommy Shaw of the band Styx:


http://onstagephotography.com/images/hugetommyshaw02.jpg


A friend of mine dubbed it "performance portraiture"; giving the "style" of the shot a name; a genre, if you will.

I'm not a fan, at all, of flash photography at concerts. But, I will admit, that evey so often I see a shot with shutter drag and flash that I like. Likewise, and while not a big fan of country music, every so often I'll hear a country song that I like.

I think, as a photographer, it's important to develop one's personal style. One of the local concert shooters here in San Diego goes for, almost exclusively, wide angle shots. That's her "style".

So, no, I don't like flash. But, and here's the bottom line, if the client likes shots taken with flash and shutter drag, then that's all that matters. If the client likes close-in shots of the faces of the band, that's what matters.

I do, however, think it's important for those who shoot with flash to have a workiing knowledge of shooting without flash, though, as a lot of venues simply won't permit it, and those of us who routinely shoot without it should have a working knowledge of shooting with a flash, as we may just encounter a client who wants it...

[narlus]

steve, well said.

btw, do you think Bono sometimes wears a 'Kilroy Was Here' shirt? ;)

[Steve Parr]

steve, well said.

btw, do you think Bono sometimes wears a 'Kilroy Was Here' shirt? ;)

Hehehehehe... I suppose anything's possible...

[narlus]

bumping this thread up a bit, because i found something interesting...

whilst browsing the Southern Lord boards, someone posted a scan of an article on Boris, published in Bass Guitar World. in it was a photo, obviously flashed, of Boris:

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/5236/borisny2.jpg

i saw the credits, and figured i'd check out what David Atlas' work was all about. turns out he's a very well-respected photographer, w/ a strong portfolio (and client list...Rolling Stone, Village Voice, etc) of shooting big profile names on well-lit stages. see for yrself:

http://www.davidatlasphotography.com/

seems like he could use a bit more work in the dark, dingy, cramped clubs which i call home. ;)

http://narlus.zenfolio.com/img/p434840696-4.jpg

[DwightMcCann]

Rene, tell about this flash warming filter ... sounds like a very useful item since much of the flash problem is that "noon time" color balance.

[kmb]

Rene, tell about this flash warming filter ... sounds like a very useful item since much of the flash problem is that "noon time" color balance.

I have some orange (or it looks that way), umm, plastic (I believe it's called "gel filter" or something like that) I bought from my friend who bought it from a music store (it's meant for stage lights), IIRC. I haven't really tested how much it makes the flash warmer, but when I do, I'll post some test shots.

I use a rubber band to keep it in front of the flash's head.

[livewire-photography.com]

yeah i would like to see some of these test shots, as iv never come across them before,

On that guys website(David Atlas) hes got a nice pic of Garbage singer hey Dwight lol.

[CanonXTuser]

bumping this thread up a bit, because i found something interesting...

whilst browsing the Southern Lord boards, someone posted a scan of an article on Boris, published in Bass Guitar World. in it was a photo, obviously flashed, of Boris:

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/5236/borisny2.jpg

i saw the credits, and figured i'd check out what David Atlas' work was all about. turns out he's a very well-respected photographer, w/ a strong portfolio (and client list...Rolling Stone, Village Voice, etc) of shooting big profile names on well-lit stages. see for yrself:

http://www.davidatlasphotography.com/

seems like he could use a bit more work in the dark, dingy, cramped clubs which i call home. ;)

http://narlus.zenfolio.com/img/p434840696-4.jpg


Agreed. Your photo looks much more richer and has depth that flash photos generally don't. David's photo looks like a really good snapshot but does not have the richness or sense of vibe of many non flashed photos often posted on here.

[blackshadow]

Makes you wonder just how many picture eds of publications are actual photographers...

[René Damkot]

Rene, tell about this flash warming filter ... sounds like a very useful item since much of the flash problem is that "noon time" color balance.

Probabely the easiest way is to get a (free) Roscolux or Lee sample booklet (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=205509). All gels they carry, almost tailor-made to fit a 580EX ;)
Alternatively, do as I did, and ask a lighttech for some filters, somewhere in the 'warm' range, about CTO. Experiment with diffferent filters untill you find one that gives the best color with the WB settings you use on camera. (My camera is set to K=3200K, I use a Lee 204 (http://cinemasupplies.stores.yahoo.net/31-lee-s204.html) IIRC)

[shesgotthepic]

I'll make the following bold, because it's really important: My underlying assumption in this discussion has been that one does not need to shoot for free (and give all rights to the artist's management) to build the network. That's the environment I live in - I think I have done just fine. As I noted before, some things might not apply in other parts of the world.


I am arranging for KMB to shoot a big named band later this year. He won't be paid for it but he will get a chance to add a big name to his portfolio and he can sell those pictures to anyone he wants. (or at least that is what I will negotiate for him)

The manager of the band gave me the opportunity to shoot the band from the pit during an entire gig. He waived the 3 song rule for me. The deal was that if he wanted to use them he could. This was 1992.

Today I work for him. I will still let him have my shots for free - webuse but I know that he will pay for pictures used in tour programs. Or hire a photographer for promotional photo sessions. He doesn't have a problem with me selling any of my pictures, should I be asked, as he knows how hard it is to break in to this and make a buck.

He is himself an avid photographer and pretty dang good at it as well. Quite a few live shots circulating of this band are taken by him.

It is hard to get a foot in the door. It's taken me 20 years however - it isn't until recently that I am starting to take my photography seriously. Bands are now coming to me wanting to buy pictures for web use.

Kalle is far ahead of me on that.

I am contemplating contacting magazines to offer my services. I would most likely do one shoot for free that on the condition they use any of them they will use me again and pay me for the next shoot.

It's like breaking in to being a roadie. I had to start working for nothing just to learn, get a foot in and get the reputation as being reliable and a hard worker. Then when my phone started ringing with requests for my services instead of me calling to ask if I could do a job, I started charging. Strangely enough - I started getting more jobs as soon as I put a price tag on my services.

Just my 2 cents.


She
www.oscarssons.org/shegot

[shesgotthepic]

Photography is the third most expensive hobby I have indulged in after girls and sailing!

Totally off topic - try having horses as hobby. A friend of mine and her husband worked out that her two horses were more expensive than his hobby... He's a pilot and owns shares in two planes.

Go figure.

[shesgotthepic]

I do, however, think it's important for those who shoot with flash to have a workiing knowledge of shooting without flash, though, as a lot of venues simply won't permit it, and those of us who routinely shoot without it should have a working knowledge of shooting with a flash, as we may just encounter a client who wants it...


I learnt to shoot without flash as I started with concert photography. I no nothing about shutter drag (don't even know what it means) or how to judge exposrue times. I leave that to the camera. AV or TV mode and fiddle with that. Put a flash in my hand and I wouldn't even know where to begin. I'm not sure I'd know how to fix it to the camera!

She
www.oscarssons.org/shegot

[Yella Fella]

amongst all this taking pics of the performers, to sell them, wouldnt you need them to sign a model release?

[kmb]

I am arranging for KMB to shoot a big named band later this year.

... and I thank you for that :).


amongst all this taking pics of the performers, to sell them, wouldnt you need them to sign a model release?

Not in Finland at least. It's another thing if the band would make me sign a contract stating otherwise. But for journalistic purposes and the like, I can sell the pictures.

[woman4life]

Here is a message from a band I want to photograph, they are not a local band but on a label and are established although not very well known at this time. They are on a tour coming close to me.

This is what I got:

Please send us a link to your photos and note that a photopass shall be fine under condition that the band/management gets to approve all photos and can use all photos for free.

I also heard back from a local artist that I would get the pass and they would like copies of all my photos.


I know I want the photo pass but this seems to be way out of line. Do any of you actually grant these type of permissions?

I'm afraid I would be giving something away that they can potentially make money from...

Any help is appreciated.

Joe-

I'd definitely want a little clarification. I might accept it as long as I maintained all rights to use them myself. I'd want to know what they mean by "approve all photos." But then I am a hobbyist, not a pro.

[CanonXTuser]

I'd definitely want a little clarification. I might accept it as long as I maintained all rights to use them myself. I'd want to know what they mean by "approve all photos." But then I am a hobbyist, not a pro.


It's kind of like telling a contractor, I'll give you a pass to enter my kitchen but we get to keep all the work you do for free.

when people are paying hundreds of dollars to have professional portraits done and thousand plus dollars for wedding photos .... bands and management think that a $5-$10-$15 etc. dollar ticket covers having professional photos taken .... is getting a free pass enough to pay the sound and lighting people?

what next, I'll give you a pass to photograph my wedding but i get to keep all your pics for free.

[woman4life]

It's kind of like telling a contractor, I'll give you a pass to enter my kitchen but we get to keep all the work you do for free.

when people are paying hundreds of dollars to have professional portraits done and thousand plus dollars for wedding photos .... bands and management think that a $5-$10-$15 etc. dollar ticket covers having professional photos taken .... is getting a free pass enough to pay the sound and lighting people?

what next, I'll give you a pass to photograph my wedding but i get to keep all your pics for free.

That's a valid point. I don't normally even get a free pass. LOL I could have been on the guest list for one of the bands coming up, but I had a ticket already since they are one of my favorite bands. I sure wouldn't give away any rights I personally had, paid or not. I"m too possessive of my photos... good or bad. LOL

[Steve Parr]

It's kind of like telling a contractor, I'll give you a pass to enter my kitchen but we get to keep all the work you do for free.

when people are paying hundreds of dollars to have professional portraits done and thousand plus dollars for wedding photos .... bands and management think that a $5-$10-$15 etc. dollar ticket covers having professional photos taken .... is getting a free pass enough to pay the sound and lighting people?

what next, I'll give you a pass to photograph my wedding but i get to keep all your pics for free.

Point taken, but I think there's another side to it, as well.

I market myself, primarily, to local bar bands. Bar bands, generally speaking, need to be judicious when deciding to spend what little money they have.

When I refer a band to my website, it helps to have shots of people like Eric Johnson, Zakk Wylde, or Albert Lee. The bands considering hiring me see these, and it certainly credibility. One band told me "Hey, if you can shoot Zakk Wylde, you can shoot us!". I didn't charge for the Zakk Wylde shoot, as my "payment" comes as a result of local bands hiring me as a result of seeing those shots on my site.

I don't sell the photos on my website, so there's no concern for a model release. They serve as an online resume, and nothing really beyond that.

It's worked out okay thus far...

[CanonXTuser]

Point taken, but I think there's another side to it, as well.

I market myself, primarily, to local bar bands. Bar bands, generally speaking, need to be judicious when deciding to spend what little money they have.

When I refer a band to my website, it helps to have shots of people like Eric Johnson, Zakk Wylde, or Albert Lee. The bands considering hiring me see these, and it certainly credibility. One band told me "Hey, if you can shoot Zakk Wylde, you can shoot us!". I didn't charge for the Zakk Wylde shoot, as my "payment" comes as a result of local bands hiring me as a result of seeing those shots on my site.

I don't sell the photos on my website, so there's no concern for a model release. They serve as an online resume, and nothing really beyond that.

It's worked out okay thus far...

the issue people are finding objectionable, at least I find objectionable, is the incredible broadness and presumptiveness.

did you actually give all your shots to Eric Johnson, Zakk Wylde, Albert Lee, etc. for free? no credit or watermark even? full files? no restrictions [such as web use only vs. taken it and using it for their cd or poster or even merch they might sell and make money from]?

the issue you seem to be addressing is the idea of whether it is worth doing free work or free pics for artists that otherwise should be capable of paying and God knows, would want paid for anything they did.

I don't have a problem doing so with qualifications/stipulations as to number, use and credit; but do consider an artist demanding unqualified use of everything pretty offensive. i don't think i'm alone in that and would be surprised if you are advocating unqualified number and use.

[taygull]

Not a big participant in this thread but my thoughts are pretty simple.

If a band wants/needs images they will more than likely pay someone to take them. They will negotiate a deal with the photographer and both will be happy.

If a photographer wants to shoot a band and contacts them then what value do you bring the band? I would suspect little to none. I don't find it objectionable for them to put restrictions on the images you will be taking, after all they did not contact you.

Remember you are asking them for a favor so I don't understand why you should be upset if they want something in return. They are stupid if they don't ask for everything.

You don't have to agree to the terms and they don't have to let you shoot.

I think most concert shooters are naive to think there is a huge need for what we do. If a band or label has a specific need for the type of stuff we do then they will call someone they have worked with and trust, and guess what....they will pay for it.

[CanonXTuser]

They are stupid if they don't ask for everything.

You don't have to agree to the terms and they don't have to let you shoot.

I think most concert shooters are naive to think there is a huge need for what we do. If a band or label has a specific need for the type of stuff we do then they will call someone they have worked with and trust, and guess what....they will pay for it.

I think it's unethical, but yes, if their "moral" system tells them to take everything, they can ask. And may it be done to them, and they shouldn't bitch about it.

photographers hopefully will decline and let people know what jerks they are. Compact disc should name the band.

[kmb]

If a photographer wants to shoot a band and contacts them then what value do you bring the band? I would suspect little to none.


Remember you are asking them for a favor so I don't understand why you should be upset if they want something in return.

Why would they want something that has "little to none" value to them?

[shesgotthepic]

If a photographer wants to shoot a band and contacts them then what value do you bring the band? I would suspect little to none. I don't find it objectionable for them to put restrictions on the images you will be taking, after all they did not contact you.
/.../
Remember you are asking them for a favor so I don't understand why you should be upset if they want something in return. They are stupid if they don't ask for everything.

You don't have to agree to the terms and they don't have to let you shoot.

I think most concert shooters are naive to think there is a huge need for what we do. If a band or label has a specific need for the type of stuff we do then they will call someone they have worked with and trust, and guess what....they will pay for it.

I think it's unethical, but yes, if their "moral" system tells them to take everything, they can ask. And may it be done to them, and they shouldn't bitch about it.

photographers hopefully will decline and let people know what jerks they are. Compact disc should name the band.

Why would they want something that has "little to none" value to them?

I work for a band and do press screening on line so I have a foot in both camps. A freelance photographer has very little value UNLESS the person is on assignment for a magazine/newspaper/webzine THAT WILL publish a review of the concert.

I don't care if they get a 15 page spread on a website. I don't care if said website might do a review. I don't care if the local news paper might do a review. If they are - they should contact me. A freelance photographer trying to blag himself a free ticket has zero value. He is only wanting to expand his portfolio and to add the band name to his name dropping list (this guy tried that as well).

I might do a mistake by not passing this guy on but this band doesn't need the exposure he can offer on his website. He needs them.

Yes, I will suggest the tour management to let a freelancer in if there is talent there and if they have a meek attitude and I think the person can add value. The second they start "don't you know who I am" or play the name dropping game (which I am the Queen of and play very well) is when I wash my hands off them.

I've just had an e-mail from a label distributor/PR company about a couple of bands they promote who will be touring in may. It was a mass send out but there was an offer in there for press pass at a couple of gigs. There is one band inparticular I would love to a) see b) shoot so I will most likely ask for a pass + offer the label a few pictures for free. They have been good to me with promo CDs for a contract I had and keep sending me promos although they know I no longer have the contract. They scratch my back I scratch their. It's the least I can do. So I'd probably offer them 3-5 pics for free. If they want more they'd have to pay.

I actually think it is quite smart of bands to have photographers sign agreements on usage of what pictures are taken.

And yes - if they need really good shots they will call someone and use that person and he will be paid.

There is also another reason - some bands might need a little PP to remove a chin or a bulge before they are deemed good enough to use. ;)

The only thing that happens by naming and shaming a band is burning your own bridges. We freelancers need the bands more than they need us. It is their market. They can pick and chose because there is more of us than there is of them. Neither one of us will benefit if one person goes off like a lose cannon.

The words Heat, Kitchen and Out - comes to mind.

She

[kmb]

To shortly refine my point: I think it'd be best to either not let any "freelancers" (without an assignment by a medium that is) in OR compensate them fairly IF/WHEN their images get used.

I've done a large amount of work to have good relations with magazines (I reprsent one major Finnish newspaper, one major-ish Finnish music magazine and one underground metal magazine) and webzines (this is more or less mixed work) and other medias so that I'll get the passes I need/want. Of course I had to photograph about one hundred gigs to get the necessary experience (and a sound portfolio). I'm constantly keeping in touch with the other parties in music industry, and it's rather time consuming. I don't think I'm special in this respect - anybody with hard work can do the same, I'm sure.

Another free hint: it is not completely worthless to find and join or create a web site for concert photography and try to get acredited through that (I created Huumakuva.net, which I now like to think as the definitive source for Finnish music photogrpahy - dunno, you decide!). I got acredited to the Eurovision Helsinki 2007 through the website I created (The Eurovision song contest is one of the worlds most widely broadcasted and watched non-sports events).

What I love to see is mutual respect between the photographers and musicians (or their management) for each others work. This works really well, but of course, the band or their management needs to know that the photographer (that's me!) isn't a complete A-hole and does respect the other parties involved. But I just love that most of the time in Finland the bands and their management see me as somebody to work with rather than a nuisance who needs to be herded.

[shesgotthepic]

To shortly refine my point: I think it'd be best to either not let any "freelancers" (without an assignment by a medium that is) in OR compensate them fairly IF/WHEN their images get used.


Now - it isn't the band who should compensate the photographer for the image being used - unless it is the band using the image for promotional reasons. If a magazine, website etc all third party, use pictures of freelancers then they should pay that freelancer - not the band. I hope that is what you mean and if so - I agree.

However - a band using a freelancer's work and if given for free - as long as you have your name with it (demand having it there and contact details!) it could actually do you some good. A great picture will give you work.

Everybody started working for free. Everybody had a break sometime and when they started charging for their work were taken seriously.

Kalle - you have great shots in your portfolio. You are already being paid for your work. there is no reason for you to give pictures away for free. You just need to get some bigger bands in your portfolio to move forwards.

:-)

[taygull]

I work for a band and do press screening on line so I have a foot in both camps. A freelance photographer has very little value UNLESS the person is on assignment for a magazine/newspaper/webzine THAT WILL publish a review of the concert.

I don't care if they get a 15 page spread on a website. I don't care if said website might do a review. I don't care if the local news paper might do a review. If they are - they should contact me. A freelance photographer trying to blag himself a free ticket has zero value. He is only wanting to expand his portfolio and to add the band name to his name dropping list (this guy tried that as well).

I might do a mistake by not passing this guy on but this band doesn't need the exposure he can offer on his website. He needs them.

Yes, I will suggest the tour management to let a freelancer in if there is talent there and if they have a meek attitude and I think the person can add value. The second they start "don't you know who I am" or play the name dropping game (which I am the Queen of and play very well) is when I wash my hands off them.

I've just had an e-mail from a label distributor/PR company about a couple of bands they promote who will be touring in may. It was a mass send out but there was an offer in there for press pass at a couple of gigs. There is one band inparticular I would love to a) see b) shoot so I will most likely ask for a pass + offer the label a few pictures for free. They have been good to me with promo CDs for a contract I had and keep sending me promos although they know I no longer have the contract. They scratch my back I scratch their. It's the least I can do. So I'd probably offer them 3-5 pics for free. If they want more they'd have to pay.

I actually think it is quite smart of bands to have photographers sign agreements on usage of what pictures are taken.

And yes - if they need really good shots they will call someone and use that person and he will be paid.

There is also another reason - some bands might need a little PP to remove a chin or a bulge before they are deemed good enough to use. ;)

The only thing that happens by naming and shaming a band is burning your own bridges. We freelancers need the bands more than they need us. It is their market. They can pick and chose because there is more of us than there is of them. Neither one of us will benefit if one person goes off like a lose cannon.

The words Heat, Kitchen and Out - comes to mind.

She

My point exactly...we need not be so arrogant that "our" shots are somehow magical and the bands should bend over backwards to take care and invite us to the show. If they need something they will get it and they will pay for it.

[kmb]

Now - it isn't the band who should compensate the photographer for the image being used - unless it is the band using the image for promotional reasons. If a magazine, website etc all third party, use pictures of freelancers then they should pay that freelancer - not the band. I hope that is what you mean and if so - I agree.


Yes, I meant just that. If someone uses my work for "commercial purposes", I think its only fair to get a (reasonable) piece of that cake :). Sorry for not being clear...

Kalle - you have great shots in your portfolio. You are already being paid for your work. there is no reason for you to give pictures away for free. You just need to get some bigger bands in your portfolio to move forwards.

Thanks again :). I actually have just recently begun to think about "bigger names", since for now I've only concentrated in the Finnish scene, but I've begun to think about trying to get international music magazine contacts.

By the way, even though I get paid, the money will go mostly to travel expenses. It's not like I can quit my dayjob. I still do this "for free" because I'm hopelessly addicted :)

[Steve Parr]

the issue people are finding objectionable, at least I find objectionable, is the incredible broadness and presumptiveness.

did you actually give all your shots to Eric Johnson, Zakk Wylde, Albert Lee, etc. for free? no credit or watermark even? full files? no restrictions [such as web use only vs. taken it and using it for their cd or poster or even merch they might sell and make money from]?

the issue you seem to be addressing is the idea of whether it is worth doing free work or free pics for artists that otherwise should be capable of paying and God knows, would want paid for anything they did.

I don't have a problem doing so with qualifications/stipulations as to number, use and credit; but do consider an artist demanding unqualified use of everything pretty offensive. i don't think i'm alone in that and would be surprised if you are advocating unqualified number and use.

In this case, only Eric Johnson has gotten the photos (and he's quite pleased with the, thankyouverymuch!).

I look at it as a trade-off. Adding them to my portfolio increases the likelihood of someone hiring me to shoot their band. I've shot some already who've said their decision to hire me was based, in part, on who I've shot in the past.

In no case has an artist ever "demanded" anything from me...

[Steve Parr]

The second they start "don't you know who I am" or play the name dropping game (which I am the Queen of and play very well) is when I wash my hands off them.

I just wanna' make sure I understand the mindset here: It's okay if you do it, is that correct?

[shesgotthepic]

I just wanna' make sure I understand the mindset here: It's okay if you do it, is that correct?

No - it isn't. It is not good that anyone does it. People should be respected for who they are and not for who they know or have worked for.

I play it if I am forced to but avoid it like the plague.

[CanonXTuser]

My point exactly...we need not be so arrogant that "our" shots are somehow magical and the bands should bend over backwards to take care and invite us to the show. If they need something they will get it and they will pay for it.

yes, putting a name on a list to avoid paying $5,$10 bucks is really
"bending over backwards" ..... amazing, how they can do it and not have to take an hour break.

talk about exaggerating value.

your whole point is behaving like i or others don't recognize the legitimacy of an artist feeling they are getting value from having pics taken.

no where. no where do i say that or take that position. my position has been explicit and focused on one issue and one issue only .... whether want all the pics, all, ie. dozens plus pics, presumably full files for printing and web, is excessive value.

i totally agree that photogs need to think of the needs of artists. i almost always provide web images and personal prints to bands, management and promoters. the good will built for me doing so without them asking is tremendous. i practice using my photos to give value and show support to bands, etc. i absolutely agree with giving/making the bands see value in one's photographing. anyone with a mature, professional approach to concert photography wants their photos to be an asset in building excitement and connection with bands.

the issue i've been talking about is whether dozens of pics are worth more than $5, $10, $20 buck ticket [for an event of which one spends most of it looking through a view finder and checking the lcd].

you seriously contest that? and seriously think its the photographer that would be arrogant to think there work and effort is worth more than that?

if the band, publicist don't want photos than show integrity and say no, whether than put in a demeaning request and look abusive. otherwise, the band deserves what goes around comes around .... bands are a dime a dozen these days and it's not like they cure cancer. may somebody above them take them for all they got.

in short, just because someone can and think they can rationalize it, doesn't mean they should. they should be concerned with how it will reflect on them.

[CanonXTuser]

No - it isn't. It is not good that anyone does it. People should be respected for who they are and not for who they know or have worked for.

I play it if I am forced to but avoid it like the plague.

to me, if it's a legitimate point to make, it's a legitimate point to make. steve's name dropping helps illustrate his point that having recognizable names helps in promoting to others.

i saw it as steve dropping names to make a point and not to make him seem better than anyone else.

don't worry, i, dwight, and others will make sure steve doesn't think he's better than anyone else ... he, he :D

[shesgotthepic]

i saw it as steve dropping names to make a point and to make him seem better than anyone else.


I wasn't aware Steve was namedropping at all. Honestly.

[Steve Parr]

No - it isn't. It is not good that anyone does it. People should be respected for who they are and not for who they know or have worked for.

Man, I have to disagree with that. Who you've worked for goes a long, long way. Think about it: If you apply for an Account Manager's position at an advertising firm, the firm is going to want to know your work experience, IE: who you've worked for.

I don't see photography as being much different...

I play it if I am forced to but avoid it like the plague.

I really have to wonder at what point you would find yourself needing to do it, considering how much you clearly detest it...

[Compact Diss]

Another free hint: it is not completely worthless to find and join or create a web site for concert photography and try to get acredited through that (I created Huumakuva.net, which I now like to think as the definitive source for Finnish music photogrpahy - dunno, you decide!). I got acredited to the Eurovision Helsinki 2007 through the website I created (The Eurovision song contest is one of the worlds most widely broadcasted and watched non-sports events)


KMB just wondering how long it was before you saw a profit with your website. I have the same thoughts myself of creating a website to host all of my work. I just don't know if it is worth the time and energy. There is already well established music sites around here. I don't know if I would make much of a difference in the scene at all. My ultimate goal is to work with magazines. I want to walk into a bookstore and pick a magazine off the rack and flip open to a page with a picture I shot.

Maybe the first steps to reach that goal is in creating a website...

Joe

[Steve Parr]

i saw it as steve dropping names to make a point and to make him seem better than anyone else.

Well, in all honesty, it is "name-dropping" in a way.

When guys in a metal band visit my website, they see shots of Zakk Wylde. I know a lot of people in metal bands who freakin' idolize Zakk. If the fact that they're impressed that I shot Zakk is enough to get me the paying gig with their band, then that's all I need to know...

[Steve Parr]

I wasn't aware Steve was namedropping at all. Honestly.

That's because I'm one smooth sonofabeeotch!

[kmb]

I cannot see that being able to "drop names" is anywhere near as desirable as having insanely good pictures of any band in one's portfolio... But then, I don't know how many opportunities I have missed because I don't have any big (international) names in my portfolio, I only know why I've gotten the contacts I currently have.

Anyhow, when I think whether I want to shoot a particular gig, I can honeslty say that typically 95% of the motivation comes from the thought that I might be able to get some visually interesting, different and inspiring photos. There are sometimes other motivators as well, for instance, if somebody from the band requests me to photograph them out of appreciation for my work. Or if the photos get used in a magazine (I really like having an audience for my work). Or if I need to get more experience on something.

EDIT: wrote that while Steve was writing his posts... I think I live in a bit of a different environment than he does... I haven't gotten any live gigs from bands yet (plenty of people doing it for free here).

[shesgotthepic]

Man, I have to disagree with that. Who you've worked for goes a long, long way. Think about it: If you apply for an Account Manager's position at an advertising firm, the firm is going to want to know your work experience, IE: who you've worked for.

I don't see photography as being much different...


Yes, I agree. I was more talking about a personal level. Also I will look at what they can do - no matter if they've shot an unknown band or if they've shot a famous band.



I really have to wonder at what point you would find yourself needing to do it, considering how much you clearly detest it...

Ha ha ha. Not a photography issue at all. My first Macbook pro broke down and was repaired twice, still very unreliable. I had bought it off a shop chain in a different town so wandered in to the one where I live now. They asked me to produce repair records.

I did - they decided to replace the machine but didn't have another MBP in stock so gave me a loaner macbook. I struggled working with it so eventually walked in with that and had a conversation with the manager. Had had several via phone in the days previous.

Anyway - during the conversation i managed to casually drop that globalfamousclientA and localfamousclientB really depend on me being able to deliver instantaniously and I was desperate. I informed them that I had found another shop locally who had what I needed and could they please refund me.

They were under no obligation to do that but agreed instantly.

I hated to do it but I had no choice.

They still have my business and the shop manager will always have a chat with me and will bend over backwards for my friends.

[René Damkot]

Bit late to join the discussion, but here's my €0.02:

If I want to take pictures of a band because I like the band, I send them a link afterward to the site where I put them on the web. I also mention that copyright of the images stays with me, and they can contact me if they want to use any.
Same goes if I take images at the venue where I am 'house photographer'.

I don't mind if I have to pay for a concert, I am happy if I can bring my camera.

I don't mind providing a high res file for *personal* use, but I don't let any of my images be *used* (website, poster, CD inlay, whatever) without some form of compensation.
For a small, no name, no budget band, that compensation might be as little as a tshirt, cd or even a beer, but not for free. No more.
IMO it's also a quistion of what is the value you put on your own work...

Still, a lot of images end up on my space or whatever, without any contacting whatsoever...
I still have to take time to go into that. For now, nothing is put online without a watermark. That way at least my name gets exposure if an image is used wihtout my knowing.

On the 'dropping names': I think having some well known 'faces' in a portfolio might help, since a lot of people know that person, and have seen more images of him/her. (The point should be that your image compares favorably to other images off course ;)).
Another point is that 'big names' also means 'big venue' generally, so having those images shows you know how to work at, and have the equipment/ experience for, say, that big festival with 20000 fans behind you and a lot of pressure added.

[shesgotthepic]

On the 'dropping names': I think having some well known 'faces' in a portfolio might help, since a lot of people know that person, and have seen more images of him/her. (The point should be that your image compares favorably to other images off course ;)).
Another point is that 'big names' also means 'big venue' generally, so having those images shows you know how to work at, and have the equipment/ experience for, say, that big festival with 20000 fans behind you and a lot of pressure added.

I totally agree. It's the actual of dropping names I don't like. I'm much more impressed by a guy who says "you can view my work at link" than someone who sends me a long list of artists he's shot.

Kalle is IMHO one heck of a photographer who has some impressive shots in his portfolio. Not many bands there I've heard of but damn fine shots.

I really don't care if the photograpjer has shot unknowns or hugely famous. It's the quality in the picture and the attitude that counts.

And yes - knowing how to cope with 20k people behind you is good ;-)

She

[blackshadow]

Bit late to join the discussion, but here's my €0.02:

If I want to take pictures of a band because I like the band, I send them a link afterward to the site where I put them on the web. I also mention that copyright of the images stays with me, and they can contact me if they want to use any.
Same goes if I take images at the venue where I am 'house photographer'.

I don't mind if I have to pay for a concert, I am happy if I can bring my camera.

I don't mind providing a high res file for *personal* use, but I don't let any of my images be *used* (website, poster, CD inlay, whatever) without some form of compensation.
For a small, no name, no budget band, that compensation might be as little as a tshirt, cd or even a beer, but not for free. No more.
IMO it's also a quistion of what is the value you put on your own work...

Still, a lot of images end up on my space or whatever, without any contacting whatsoever...
I still have to take time to go into that. For now, nothing is put online without a watermark. That way at least my name gets exposure if an image is used wihtout my knowing.

On the 'dropping names': I think having some well known 'faces' in a portfolio might help, since a lot of people know that person, and have seen more images of him/her. (The point should be that your image compares favorably to other images off course ;)).
Another point is that 'big names' also means 'big venue' generally, so having those images shows you know how to work at, and have the equipment/ experience for, say, that big festival with 20000 fans behind you and a lot of pressure added.

Spot on Rene - I couldn't have said it better myself - I agree with every point you made in this post.