Help - I don't like my photography!

[Nouks]

After months or most probably years of not being happy with my own photos I decided to start this thread. Maybe I'll get some advice, inspiration or ideas here...

I'm one of those people being a perfectionist. While that allows me to stay focused and to keep improving my own photography, it also has a downside: not only the idea of most probably not ever being able to be satisfied with my own photography is really tiring, I'm a big technical junk aswell.

Over the last few years something went very wrong somewhere. I firstly started shooting lots and lots of photos during gigs, being able to drop the technical not too wonderful (read: out of focus, bad noise (which usually comes with) bad exposure, boring subject) and choose only the best from different series of photos (not burst).

But the thing is: I think I won't make a fool of myself when I dare to say my photos are technically okay. When making a selection, I usually first delete all drop-outs based on technical or visual criteria. But since my camera is definitely doing it's job really great and I became a (technical) better photographer during the last few years, I usually have got only a few photos to delete. Maybe 10% of my photos, most probably less, will be discarded based on technical or visual considerations.

That keeps me with another (+)90% of photos not only sharp, clean, well-exposed but with a nice expression and framing aswell. Taking my gear into consideration (I don't like using ISO 3200 for instance), my photos most probably are technically as good as they might possibly be. If the image quality isn't as nice as I want (and expect!) it to be, there are usually other factors (than my ability) to blame.

Nothing wrong with those keeping rates, you might think. Maybe not, but when making a selection it's usually the cause of lots of frustration because of not knowing which photo to choose because basically they're all the same and all as good as they might possibly get. What leads to fairly randomly picking a selection while deleting photos which are in fact good enough to be published, just to get rid of some overkill.

At this moments I usually wish I'd shot 100 photos instead of 400 with one photo plus 4 different alternative options...

But then, what's my problem with the photos I take.

My best shots usually are the really entertaining and exceptional moments of the show. This might be nice, especially when you're the only photographer that was able to catch that single moment, but it's mostly good luck and usually a fairly easy way of scoring.

Besides that my photos are okay, but I usually think they're boring. It's nothing special. And what frustrates me a lot, is my (dis)ability to be really aware of expressions, habits, movements and emotion in musicians or other performers on stage, but on the other hand, not being capable of catching it in a photo just how I'd like it to, which is really frustrating.

Taking photos during gigs could have gotten a bit too much routine. I tried to break the habit on a few ways, for instance by deliberately not standing on places or moving to spots I'd usually stand or move to, using just 1 GB of compact flash memory for the whole gig, fairly heavy postprocessing, using gear of other photographers (mostly René's) and shooting just for myself and not for publication.

While breaking the habit definitely leads to other photos than I usually would take, it's not an answer to all my uncertainties. While it usually leads to happiness when making a selection (it's different, but I definitely don't think it's less interesting), it also leads to disappointment when reviewing my own photos a few days after the whole processing because in fact - while firstly being satisfied - there hasn't changed a thing and I still think my photos are boring as hell.

So please, let me know what your thoughts are on these personal doubts?

Thanks for reading!

[bacchanal]

Even at my level I think gig photography can get a bit tedious, and of course, it is easy to see the obvious imperfections in your own photos. Once you have the technical side down, there often doesn't seem to be a lot of room for art. Like you said...it's anticipating and capturing the moments that really matters at that point. I've only been doing this a few years, and I'm not that good...but even I'm beginning to see that it isn't exactly easy to have an artistic vision or to constantly re-invent yourself as a gig photographer.

I think that one thing that you can do is to find something else that inspires you, even if it is just personal work. Try to find something that challenges you to create new compositions or that forces you to work in a certain way. Shoot landscapes or shoot macro, take on a photo-journalistic project...something that just has nothing to do with people standing on a stage a few feet away. If this trickles into your gig work, great. If not...at least you've kept your mind in a learning state.

Watch this:
http://www.zarias.com/?p=284

And good luck...you are an excellent photographer.

[Nouks]

Thanks for your kind words. I guess you make a good point on the re-inventing yourself as a gig photographer, but I don't feel like that's my goal anyway. I think it's a good thing to deliver steady quality and have a style that distinguishes you from other photographers. So re-inventing every gig would not only be impossible, but also not too smart, I think.

I've got a huge problem with personal work and that is the fact that I'm not an artist. That's not about not wanting to be (i'd love to be a bit more artistic), but more about not being able to. My creativity just disappeared some(where around 5) years ago. Even my graphic design study might have gotten stuck on that partly. I already thought of doing more personal work and I'll definitely try, but it's a hard thing to do for me.

I already knew that video. It's wonderful.

[nuffi]

Thanks for your kind words. I guess you make a good point on the re-inventing yourself as a gig photographer, but I don't feel like that's my goal anyway. I think it's a good thing to deliver steady quality and have a style that distinguishes you from other photographers. So re-inventing every gig would not only be impossible, but also not too smart, I think.

I've got a huge problem with personal work and that is the fact that I'm not an artist. That's not about not wanting to be (i'd love to be a bit more artistic), but more about not being able to. My creativity just disappeared some(where around 5) years ago. Even my graphic design study might have gotten stuck on that partly. I already thought of doing more personal work and I'll definitely try, but it's a hard thing to do for me.

I already knew that video. It's wonderful.

I don't as confident with this advice as I do with most of my other adisory posts, but as you are teh only other tog I've heard of who's got that essential rubber duck in their kit bag I feel like I should give it a go.

I totally think that you need to find another outlet beyond your gig work if this is how you're feeling about it. If you're not feeling very artistc, that is a big problem but not impossible to get around.

Try something in a photojournalistic vein... Not that dissimilar to gig-work, really. Something like a city walk. Or a zoo walk. You can get some really great and interesting photos if your patient and have a touch of luck. Or you can try your hand at architectural stuff, or skylines.....

But it seems you really need to try something different to freshen up. I really hope you find it!


One last thing I think I should let you know.... Most of the truly great artists, photographers included, really had to work hard to get to the point where they were making art. Hours constructing images taht simply fail, and attempting time and time again. Until one day it clicks.

[00dahc]

Post picture up so we can give guidance on what to work on or change.

[René Damkot]

Isn't advanced search a nice thing ;)

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=618263
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=556587
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=427552

IMO not too much change on quality is needed.
Anyone who regularly outshoots me is a pretty okay photographer (IMNSHO).

I think it's more of a mindset really.
I pick up ideas on stuff in Nouks work regularly, using different angles / approaches and such. I also think that the "re-inventing" is an idea, in that respect: try something a bit different. Not totally revamp your style (which will probably come across as "fake" anyhow), but look at other peoples work for inspiration / ideas.

That's why I think it's a good idea to visit museums / look at photography books: To get inspired.
Might help; an image that just resides in the back of your mind, might make you go "let's try this angle for a change"...

Other then that: I still think Nouks is one of the top 10 PA photographers on POTN, but you knew that already ;)

[johnms88]

I think your images are fantastic.

I'm gonna take a stab at what your problem might be, and I think you have the same problem that I do.
I think the reason you feel the way you do is because shooting concerts just is no longer difficult, new, or a learning experience for you. You can go to a show and come out with perfect images, every time. You can only do that so many times before it loses its spark. Also, I agree with what has been said in other posts, you are at the mercy of the performer. Some performers are just absolutely boring. Maybe you cant see the good expressions and such because there ARENT any.

Theres 2 things I would suggest.
First, try shooting a show with just one prime lense. This will force you to be careful and cognizant of everything going on and make you pay more attention to your framing and whatnot. Will limit the amount of shots you take, and if you are currently using zooms, maybe it can take part of your focus from the zoom ring and put it to your eye to see whats going on better.

Second, I agree with the fact that you should try some other types of photography. I don't know what gear you have, but maybe try and do some band promos and get real technical with lighting and stuff. When you add lighting, creativity only ends where you knowledge of the gear/knowledge of light theory ends.

[blackshadow]

I think your images are fantastic.

I'm gonna take a stab at what your problem might be, and I think you have the same problem that I do.
I think the reason you feel the way you do is because shooting concerts just is no longer difficult, new, or a learning experience for you. You can go to a show and come out with perfect images, every time. You can only do that so many times before it loses its spark. Also, I agree with what has been said in other posts, you are at the mercy of the performer. Some performers are just absolutely boring. Maybe you cant see the good expressions and such because there ARENT any.

Theres 2 things I would suggest.
First, try shooting a show with just one prime lense. This will force you to be careful and cognizant of everything going on and make you pay more attention to your framing and whatnot. Will limit the amount of shots you take, and if you are currently using zooms, maybe it can take part of your focus from the zoom ring and put it to your eye to see whats going on better.

Second, I agree with the fact that you should try some other types of photography. I don't know what gear you have, but maybe try and do some band promos and get real technical with lighting and stuff. When you add lighting, creativity only ends where you knowledge of the gear/knowledge of light theory ends.

I'll second this - your work is great.

I have been going through a similar feeling of dissatisfaction lately even though some of the photos I have been taking have been up there with my best ever work. I've been doing some promo stuff and learning to use off camera lighting more and am finding this to be really interesting.

I'm also doing some other shooting of events and this weekend plan on heading up to the bushfire areas to try and get some shots of the devastation up there.

I think a bit of variety or some different types of photography help freshen you up when you go into a concert environment again.

[Nouks]

Thanks for your replies. Fist off, you all seem to think I've got to do something else than performing arts. While PA definitely isn't the only kind of photography I practice on a regular basis, I agree it might help to do some other kinds more often. I'll think of a nice project to work on, but that will take some time I guess.

Further some direct responses to some of the things you said:

nuffi: thanks for making me laugh on the ducky-thing. I have to admit I don't know where my Purple went last months...

00dahc: René already did post some links to threads I started. To give you an idea of some recent work...

- Series "old" me but with some experiment on framing (festival, lots of bands): http://www.nouks.nl/20081219_N8RA/
- "Old" me on biiigggg festival: http://www.nouks.nl/20090117_NoSl/

And some experiment because of this whole issue....

- No Use For A Name (limited to one single spot because of not being able to move around while being ill, in this case limitation wasn't really a bad thing I guess): http://www.nouks.nl/20090129_NUFAN/
- TrenchcoaT (tried to catch some expressions I noticed, didn't succeed) http://www.nouks.nl/20090212_StFest/
- Marike Jager (almost same approach as TrenchcoaT I guess, with some fairly heavy PP'ing for a singer-songwriter like her AND with being somewhat less picky on image quality and some creative cropping) http://www.nouks.nl/20090219_MarJ/
- Black Dahlia Murder: http://www.nouks.nl/20090221_TBDM/

I think whole series might give you a better idea than a small selection posted on POTN :)

René: "Anyone who regularly outshoots me is a pretty okay photographer (IMNSHO)." Think that's a matter of opinion and taste. You might look at it that way, other people on which myself might not... I'm a lot pickier on over all image quality than you are, which absolutely isn't a really good thing on my photography. Besides that my camera does its job really well and yours doesn't, which helps...

"I also think that the "re-inventing" is an idea, in that respect: try something a bit different." It might be an idea, but I absolutely tried some different approaches and while it may have helped me on my view on PA photography, it didn't change my feeling about my photography.

Besides that; inspiration everywhere. I know exactly what kind of stuff inspires me, what kind of photography I like and what not. But while it may help with trying different approaches, it doesn't change my feeling about my photography.

johnms88: "I think the reason you feel the way you do is because shooting concerts just is no longer difficult, new, or a learning experience for you. You can go to a show and come out with perfect images, every time." This might be the problem indeed, but I don't dome out with perfect images every time: I don't even like my photos myself ;) Besides that, it might indeed be an issue of challenge...

Other things:
- Prime lenses: I'm not a zoom addict at all and sometimes I do shoot with only one or two primes, but I might give it a shot...
Oh, and maybe you'd like this: I've shot a new years party with just a Lensbaby: http://www.nouks.nl/20090101_OiN/
- Band promos: Would be a bit challenging without bands, I guess. If they ask me for it, I'd definitely do promo shots, but without bands no promo shots.

Richard - do you feel like you've got through that feeling of dissatisfaction again or are you still busy getting happy again?

And one more thing - the threads René linked to remind me of still having to reply to the most recent one :oops: Sorry guys....

[skifurthur]

I'm pretty sure I know how you feel. Since I work with a few bands (in)directly, I often shoot the same band multiple times in a tour. I am forever trying to change up my focus and composition, lest I get bored.

Some of things I have done is set specific parameters for a nights shoot. I have shot one body/one lens only. Focused on a specific player...not the star. Drastically change the ISO or aperature and only shoot with those settings. Sometimes I take a long, long walk and find subjects from odd angles and go outside the box.

I echo what others have said about your work. It's top notch and your dedication shines through your results.

When in doubt, expand your vision.

[René Damkot]

I know exactly what kind of stuff inspires me, what kind of photography I like and what not.

When in doubt, expand your vision.

That's kindof what I meant ;)

Edit: Want to borrow my Eos 1N for a while? That'll at least get rid of any "technical" perfectionism, and get the focus on the "gut feeling":lol:

[Nouks]

Thanks ski, you gave me some wonderful new limitations to try (and I definitely will).

Yesterday evening I took photos of a Dutch band just for hobby, in another venue than I usually visit. I packed my 20D and jobless 50 F1.8 and set a goal for myself to have no more than 30 photos on my CF-card during the evening. Deleting some pictures during shooting allowed, but not taking 34 photos and then deleting 4.

I posted some small images SOOC to my weblog:
http://www.nouks.nl/weblog/?p=153

Still needs to be edited, though.

Wednesday: local band, "old style" photography-me
Thursday: national band, 30-photo-rule and crappy 50 F1.8
Tonight: international bands, don't know which method to choose yet.

[bacchanal]

^^^ Nice idea...i like it!

[kmb]

I was asked (with PM) by the OP to write an answer to this thread...

This will probably be badly written, wildly incoherrent and whatnot, but I'm not sure I'm able to tell anybody else what they should do (I have rather strong thoughts that drive me and my style forward, but that does not mean everybody should or would think the same way). Please add "IMHO" or "IMO" where applcable, I'm not going to write that explicitly to every sentence.

I'm mostly going to write from the viewpoint that the photographer will want to become a (better) artist, in the not-most-loose sense of the word.

First of all, I'd like to point out that you can only be perfectionistic about some parts of photography. Hard to be perfectionistic on any art form, I'd say.

Technical perfectionism, when meaning image sharpness, noiselessness, accuracy of color reporduction etc, is NOT (should not be) a goal. It is (sometimes) a means to reach a goal. After all, if you think sharpness is a goal, you'd probably be better off photographing brick walls.

Sometimes technical imperfections such as noise, black-and-whiteness (lack of color is an "imperfection") make a photo less real, un-real, more about emotions and symbolics, since the photo does not look like what your eyes normally see when watching reality pass by.

So, a better definition for "technically good" would be "technically such that it supports the goals and vision of the artist".

Well, what would be the goal of a concert photographer? Again, I'm speaking of "artists" here, not "documentary photographers" who are expected to deliver technically good images in the former sense. One goal would be to incite an emotional response - this can be done through a number of mechanisms. I've begun to refer to a certain technique as "positive irritation" (often is the same thing as "quirkiness" or "tension"), meaning that if the photo is composed in a certain way, it will challenge the viewer, and make her engage with the content of the photo.

Okay, I'm not very good in defining what the "good goals" would be directly. But think about this: why are you going to concerts to photograph people? After all, you can haul them to a studio where you have perfect control over lighting, poses and so on. The answer is that you're going to concerts to photograph more than just people, exactly the same way the audience members (who often own the band's studio album or have at least listened there) are there for more than just the music. I'm not going to spoon-feed this to anybody, just think about it. I often personally like to include the audience if I can as it is just as an integral part of a live concert as are the musician (Try to imagine shooting a concert with absolutely no audience, just you as the photographer, the lighting guy and the band). So, the goals should have something to do with what is essential to concerts, maybe?

That is not to say you can't reach "the goal" with technically very good images (again, the former definition of "technical goodness"). But you might call it an accident then. The goal should be the goal, not some other secondary aspect (I know I'm not making any sense right now).

Getting bored with your images is probably the best thing that can happen - if you want to be more of an artist you're currently (if you just want to take good photos, then you're doing that already and boredom is bad).

Keeper rate of 90% is bad. Very, very bad. (again, you asked me, so this is my opinion ;)) It means you are not photographing situations where there is a slim chance of getting the shot. Take more chances. Aim for 1 exceptional photo ("exhibition worthy") per 5 gigs, not 100 "publishable" per gig. Again, if you're interested in being an artist who aims for stuff for exhibitions rather than newspaper publications.

The key to good concert photography, as I see it, is the same as to just about any other type of "action photography" (means photographer does not have control of the subject or many of the circumstances): composition, moments, angle chosen, shutter speed, aperture, elements and their relation in the photograph and so on. Read those again and think what they mean.

One very simple example of how to improve one's photographs is to increase the "grounds" in the photograph. There always is a middleground (where you focus). There most often also is a background (unless it's complete black or detailless smoke). But is the background meaningfull, or just random stuff that you would rather not have there? Does the background - how it is composed to the image - bring anything extra to the photograph? And seldom is there a foreground in the photos. Often, finding a meaningful relationship between two or more elements and composing them in a photo well will make a very good photo. And I don't see this a lot in concert photographs.

My biggest source of inspiration has been Henri Cartier-Bresson's street photos. Here are some of his photos (http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.PhotographerDetail_VPage&l1=0&pid=2K7O3R14T1LX&nm=Henri%20Cartier%20-%20Bresson). Many of HCB's photos have this wonderful tension, many elements composed the way they are make significant wholes and make you engage actively with the photo, rather than just passively viewing it.

Some "exercises" have been mentioned in this thread. Here's mine:
- Take a photograph of two musicians, one in front, one behind her (not of course directly behind). The first musician should be off-focus, the musician behind her should be in-focus. As it happens, I just today sold one photo like this for a CD's leaflet: Click (http://kuvat.huumakuva.net/albums/userpics/10002/08-07-13-140751-7238.jpg). This is of course just one compositional tool, the idea of the exercise is to make you think if what I was rambling about "composing elements" and things like that is the answer to less boring (for you) photos.
- Use a 16 mm lens (or full frame equivalent if your camera is not full frame) and try to fill the frame.
- Photograph a punk show at a small venue.
- Take a photo where you use slow shutter speed as an effect (moton blur), intentionally.

Well, that's what I can think of... If I said something that you think made sense, think about that and disregard the stuff that did not make any sense :).

[René Damkot]

Good post, with some nice insights.
Stuff you know, but need to be reminded of sometimes :)

Keeper rate of 90% is bad. Very, very bad.


Kinda like climbing: If you never fall, you're not trying hard enough :)

[johnms88]

Kinda like climbing: If you never fall, you're not trying hard enough :)

You are also still alive!!!!!!!! :p

[narlus]

Kinda like climbing: If you never fall, you're not trying hard enough :)

i think the analogy works better for skiiing...less potential for death :D


kalle's post was really good...i think it's easy to get caught in the 'sharp but cookie cutter image' trap...some venues, bands, and lighting schemes will obviously determine how far one can go...

Keeper rate of 90% is bad. Very, very bad. (again, you asked me, so this is my opinion :wink:) It means you are not photographing situations where there is a slim chance of getting the shot. Take more chances. Aim for 1 exceptional photo ("exhibition worthy") per 5 gigs, not 100 "publishable" per gig. Again, if you're interested in being an artist who aims for stuff for exhibitions rather than newspaper publications.

i'm gonna keep this in the forefront of my mind.

[Bobster]

Keeper rate of 90% is bad. Very, very bad. (again, you asked me, so this is my opinion ;)) It means you are not photographing situations where there is a slim chance of getting the shot. Take more chances.
so reminds me of another tog in my area, he does the same thing every gig i see him at.. and nothing he does works..

[skifurthur]

I just saw this article that may also be helpful. http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.02.08/breaking-photographer-s-block

Good post, kmb. Some of my best work has been born from breaking the rules. That came naturally for me since when I started this I didn't know the rules.

[blackshadow]

Shooting music/artists you don't enjoy can also be a good way to break out of a photographic rut as you tend to focus purely on your photography instead of enjoying the music.

[narlus]

Shooting music/artists you don't enjoy can also be a good way to break out of a photographic rut as you tend to focus purely on your photography instead of enjoying the music.

that's something i never hope to do.

[kmb]

kalle's post was really good...i think it's easy to get caught in the 'sharp but cookie cutter image' trap...some venues, bands, and lighting schemes will obviously determine how far one can go...

I've spent 90% of my concert photographing "career" in a place where you 90% of the time have to abandon all hope of getting the sharp/relatively noise free type of images, so that has sort of molded my thoughts and the way I approach concerts in general...

[Nouks]

Okay, I'm back in this thread again... ;)

First I want to tell you all something pretty weird...
Last two months or something I tried a lot of things to get rid of my "boring" photography. Decided to take other photos than I usually would, decided to Photoshop somewhat more, built a PS action especially for my No Use For A Name-shots which I even used for a singer-songwriter later on... Well, all things like that.

On the 6th of March I photographed Deathstars and Sonic Syndicate (http://www.nouks.nl/20090306_Deathst). While taking the photos, I decided *not* to try some other things I usually woudn't do. So in fact my photography was all the same as it would have been a few months ago.

When making my selecion, most of the photos I have chosen are the photos I would have chosen a few months ago aswell. Besides that I decided not to bin some photos I usually definitely would have deleted.

And guess what - while the basic photography was the same as a few months ago, it became a whole other series. René even told me I definitely bin the wrong images........ :oops:



Technical perfectionism, when meaning image sharpness, noiselessness, accuracy of color reporduction etc, is NOT (should not be) a goal. It is (sometimes) a means to reach a goal. After all, if you think sharpness is a goal, you'd probably be better off photographing brick walls.

Hmmm maybe I'll have to rephrase myself; I don't think it's a goal, but I do have the feeling the basics of a photo must be okay. Otherwise those imperfections will only deduct, no matter how good the timing or framing. While I know that might not be the best view for an artist, but in most cases I always will try to deliver a series of images in which the basic technical quality is as good as possible (considered the situations, of course) without losing interest for the image itself.

Sometimes technical imperfections such as noise, black-and-whiteness (lack of color is an "imperfection") make a photo less real, un-real, more about emotions and symbolics, since the photo does not look like what your eyes normally see when watching reality pass by.

Agree with the above, but even with a noisy or black-and-white image the technical basics (focus, exposure...) still can be okay. And while I think it would be a good thing for me to take good images in which the technical basics might be not so great (because of paying too much attention to it), I don't consider noise or black-white as "technical basics".

Well, what would be the goal of a concert photographer? Again, I'm speaking of "artists" here, not "documentary photographers" who are expected to deliver technically good images in the former sense. One goal would be to incite an emotional response - this can be done through a number of mechanisms. I've begun to refer to a certain technique as "positive irritation" (often is the same thing as "quirkiness" or "tension"), meaning that if the photo is composed in a certain way, it will challenge the viewer, and make her engage with the content of the photo.

I think I would like to be somewhere in between: I'm expected to deliver those technically good images a press photographer would be asked to deliver most of the time, and I think I definitely understand that part of the job, but it bores the hell out of me. Best of two worlds would suit me best, I think. In the cases I'm shooting just for myself and not for anyone else, I take the chance to experiment some more while I wouldn't have done that a few months ago, and I think that's be a good thing.

Okay, I'm not very good in defining what the "good goals" would be directly. But think about this: why are you going to concerts to photograph people? After all, you can haul them to a studio where you have perfect control over lighting, poses and so on. The answer is that you're going to concerts to photograph more than just people, exactly the same way the audience members (who often own the band's studio album or have at least listened there) are there for more than just the music. I'm not going to spoon-feed this to anybody, just think about it.

Thanks for noticing. Please remember I'm not trying to take studio-like shots on stage, I know with what kind of situations I've got to deal in a live situation and I like that limitations. I choose for the whole atmosphere and with that I've never complained about for instance not being able to deliver the quality I would have liked to.

I often personally like to include the audience if I can as it is just as an integral part of a live concert as are the musician (Try to imagine shooting a concert with absolutely no audience, just you as the photographer, the lighting guy and the band). So, the goals should have something to do with what is essential to concerts, maybe?

Haha - I know how that feels... Don't even have to imagine.
I like to include audience aswell, but I don't think it's always possible in a satisfying way. And I know that might a lot easier on your kind of concerts than on the average pop/rock band over here in The Netherlands. I've done so with for instance No Use For A Name or De Jeugd van Tegenwoordig (Dutch and f*cking crazy), but with the average singer-songwriter or simple rock band it's a really hard thing to do. That's why I like to shoot hardcore or (mostly death) metal though. Not because of the music, just because of the relation between band and audience.

Keeper rate of 90% is bad. Very, very bad. (again, you asked me, so this is my opinion ;)) It means you are not photographing situations where there is a slim chance of getting the shot. Take more chances. Aim for 1 exceptional photo ("exhibition worthy") per 5 gigs, not 100 "publishable" per gig. Again, if you're interested in being an artist who aims for stuff for exhibitions rather than newspaper publications.

Note what I already have written about "being somewhere in between".
Yes, one absolutely fantastic shot would be the goal when not having to deliver a series of photos... And yes, I have to agree on your comment on my keeping rate, but for other reasons I guess. I think it's a sign I can deliver my own standards on image quality, and by saying 90% would be good enough to be published, I didn't say 90% would be published... I try to keep my selections lots smaller than that ;)

One very simple example of how to improve one's photographs is to increase the "grounds" in the photograph. There always is a middleground (where you focus). There most often also is a background (unless it's complete black or detailless smoke). But is the background meaningfull, or just random stuff that you would rather not have there? Does the background - how it is composed to the image - bring anything extra to the photograph? And seldom is there a foreground in the photos. Often, finding a meaningful relationship between two or more elements and composing them in a photo well will make a very good photo. And I don't see this a lot in concert photographs.

Nice thing to keep in mind next time I'm visiting a concert.

My biggest source of inspiration has been Henri Cartier-Bresson's street photos. Here are some of his photos (http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.PhotographerDetail_VPage&l1=0&pid=2K7O3R14T1LX&nm=Henri%20Cartier%20-%20Bresson). Many of HCB's photos have this wonderful tension, many elements composed the way they are make significant wholes and make you engage actively with the photo, rather than just passively viewing it.

Thanks. I'll check this out soon.

Some "exercises" have been mentioned in this thread. Here's mine:
- Take a photograph of two musicians, one in front, one behind her (not of course directly behind). The first musician should be off-focus, the musician behind her should be in-focus. As it happens, I just today sold one photo like this for a CD's leaflet: Click (http://kuvat.huumakuva.net/albums/userpics/10002/08-07-13-140751-7238.jpg). This is of course just one compositional tool, the idea of the exercise is to make you think if what I was rambling about "composing elements" and things like that is the answer to less boring (for you) photos.

Funny; did this accidental with Deathstars. Actually made the selection, without having this exercises or your photography in mind :)

- Use a 16 mm lens (or full frame equivalent if your camera is not full frame) and try to fill the frame.
- Photograph a punk show at a small venue.

Already doing that a lot. Both the 16mm and the punk show in small venues. Photographed NUFAN, Black Dahlia Murder and 36 Crazyfists all for 200-300 people and 16-35 has been used a lot (with NUFAN i did ONLY use the 16-35).

- Take a photo where you use slow shutter speed as an effect (moton blur), intentionally.

Will try that :)

Shooting music/artists you don't enjoy can also be a good way to break out of a photographic rut as you tend to focus purely on your photography instead of enjoying the music.

I don't just do concerts of musicians or bands I do like. I do a lot of music I don't even know before entering the venue and don't specify on one genre. And sometimes I do take photos of bands of which in advance I'll know they're boring...

Ski; thanks for the article. I'll read it this weekend I think.

[kmb]

Just as a side note, many parts of my longer post were not a direct answer to your (OP's) concerns, so the parts where I expressed opinoins etc were not to say that you were doing it wrong. Even the part about perfectionism was just me rambling by myself more than a direct answer to you :). I don't particularly enjoy writing stuff like this (as opposed to talking about it), especially in English, easy to get misunderstood.

[Jacobredphoto]

Thanks for your kind words. I guess you make a good point on the re-inventing yourself as a gig photographer, but I don't feel like that's my goal anyway. I think it's a good thing to deliver steady quality and have a style that distinguishes you from other photographers. So re-inventing every gig would not only be impossible, but also not too smart, I think.

I've got a huge problem with personal work and that is the fact that I'm not an artist. That's not about not wanting to be (i'd love to be a bit more artistic), but more about not being able to. My creativity just disappeared some(where around 5) years ago. Even my graphic design study might have gotten stuck on that partly. I already thought of doing more personal work and I'll definitely try, but it's a hard thing to do for me.

I already knew that video. It's wonderful.

I am not a professional by any means. I believe that everyone hits a certain plateau of little to no creativity, I myself have had this slightly happen, a lot of times it involves going out and seeing something new, when you are photographing the same thing every night it begins to seem like work. Even if it is work you never want it to smother out what truly makes YOU a photographer. Re-inventing yourself is good, just don't use it as an excuse for not doing well. I do agree that re-inventing yourself every gig would be nearly impossible and not very ideal.

[Nouks]

Just as a side note, many parts of my longer post were not a direct answer to your (OP's) concerns, so the parts where I expressed opinoins etc were not to say that you were doing it wrong. Even the part about perfectionism was just me rambling by myself more than a direct answer to you :). I don't particularly enjoy writing stuff like this (as opposed to talking about it), especially in English, easy to get misunderstood.

I know. Doesn't mean I don't want to reply to it... ;)

For who might be interested in some recent work. I just started two threads in the Photo Sharing section. One with Black Dahlia Murder, one with Sonic Syndicate & Deathstars.