band photo shoot - How did I do?

[serissolutions]

Well It was harder to do than I thought. The lighting was death!
There were no special effects style lights. It was small, cheesy, non-moving stage lights with no color.
Mostly shot at 1600, f4, 1/30/45 with my 70-300mm lens

Any good?

http://www.serissolutions.com/temp/ben3.jpg

http://www.serissolutions.com/temp/ben.jpg

http://www.serissolutions.com/temp/guitar2.jpg

http://www.serissolutions.com/temp/bpdStage.jpg

http://www.serissolutions.com/temp/bpdSinger2.jpg

http://www.serissolutions.com/temp/guitarb.jpg

http://www.serissolutions.com/temp/bpdSinger.jpg

[Les]

I like second one

[serissolutions]

Me too

[Steve Parr]

What's the f-stop range on your zoom?

When I shoot, I'm almost always at 1.8, and I really like most of the results I get.

These look pretty good, though. I like #6...

Steve

[serissolutions]

fstop was 4, which is the minimum.
I had a tough time man, Maybe it was the lens, maybe my lack of experience but none of them came out crystal clear.

[markubig]

2 & 6 look like ones you would see on the inside of the CD foldout. Well done!

[Carzee]

Well done.

Is this a retro thing? You know, its a bit retro having actual musicians with instruments in a band. I thought pop groups just need slick PR, Dr Zeuss lyrics, and 180seconds-worth of dance moves...

[symes]

# 2 is great...one that would work for just about anything you wanted to do with the band..

Good stuff

[tuggnet]

#2 is a keeper. #6 is a bit OOF. I had almost the exact same problems when I started shooting my daughter doing 1meter spring board. Low light and fast movement and I was shooting using my kit lens which was the 17-85 F4. This forum was great and suggested a faster lens. I got a 50mm F1.4 and through the magic of Disney (er Canon) my shots improved about 1000%!!!

[Steve Parr]

fstop was 4, which is the minimum.
I had a tough time man, Maybe it was the lens, maybe my lack of experience but none of them came out crystal clear.

Well, at f/4, shooting with just stage lighting, it's going to be a bit of a challenge. I'd tried shooting with a wide open 300D kit lens, and was so unhappy with the results I sold the lens. Seriously.

How long an exposure were these?

If you're getting shots like that at f/4, I'd recommend picking up the 85m f/1.8, and letting yourself go nuts...

Steve

[serissolutions]

Well, at f/4, shooting with just stage lighting, it's going to be a bit of a challenge. I'd tried shooting with a wide open 300D kit lens, and was so unhappy with the results I sold the lens. Seriously.

How long an exposure were these?

If you're getting shots like that at f/4, I'd recommend picking up the 85m f/1.8, and letting yourself go nuts...

Steve

Im a newbie so please excuse the dumb question.

But you say an f1.8 would work better, is this because the wider aperture lets more light in?

[Fer]

I think you did great!. I love number 2.

[RockSlut]

But you say an f1.8 would work better, is this because the wider aperture lets more light in?

Yes. More light = faster shutter speed. When you're shooting moving subjects you want a faster shutter speed to stop the motion.

In my experience shooting live bands it is very rare to be able to shoot at f/4. The only time that I would is either with flash, a day time show or at a gig with very serious stage lighting.

Most of the live photos that I take are at f/2.8 or f/1.8 depending on my lens choice of the night.

You've got some good captures there, though Albert. Rock and roll photogrphy is difficult at the best of times!

[serissolutions]

Excellent. Thanx for the tips.
My assumption is that f1.8 lenses cost an arm and a leg?

[RockSlut]

Excellent. Thanx for the tips.
My assumption is that f1.8 lenses cost an arm and a leg?

Actually, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens is one of the cheapest (and best value) lenses in the canon line-up. I don't buy pentax gear but I imagine that the pentax equivalent would not be too pricey. A fast prime such as the 50mm f/1.8 should be in every rock and roll photographer's gear.

f/2.8 zooms tend to be a bit pricier, however if there is a pentax mount version of the tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 maybe look at that. It a fast and sharp lens for a very reasonable price.

The lens choices (other than those above) for rock'n'roll certainly don't tend to be the cheapest available, that's for sure!

[jfrancho]

Everyone seems to strive for what you are getting here. I just don't care for them. There isn't any movement, they are frozen, none of the mood is captured. The fact that got them at those settings is testament to either the camera's low noise at such high film speed, or good ps work. Generalizations: Singers look like they're having a bowel movement, drummers can look even worse. Guitarists all have the same self absorbed pose. This trend must be related to sports photography, where we try to freeze the action at just the right time. This is a very cool way to portray athleticism. Thing is, most musicians aren't dumb jocks, and I think it is a little strange to portray them this way. Personally, I prefer a soft image due to slow shutter speed rather than a tack sharp nose with the rest exhibiting a portrait sized serving of bokeh. It's kind of funny though, these are the shots that most of the musicians like. So, in that respect, they must be pretty good.

[Steve Parr]

Im a newbie so please excuse the dumb question.

But you say an f1.8 would work better, is this because the wider aperture lets more light in?

Remember, there are no dumb questions, just dumb answers.

Hehehehe... I kill me...

Yes, the 1.8 will let in a lot more light, thereby allowing for a faster shutter speed...

Steve

[Steve Parr]

Excellent. Thanx for the tips.
My assumption is that f1.8 lenses cost an arm and a leg?

Heck no.

The 50mm f/1.8 is well under a hundred bucks, and I've learned that it was one of the wiser choices I've made in a lens. One of these days, I may step up to the 1.4, but the 1.8 is gettin' the job done right now.

Also, look at the 85mm f/1.8. It represents the single best purchase I've made in the last six months. It's become my primary lens, not only for band photography, but also for just walkin' around.

You can get both lenses and spend less than five bills, and you will be amazed at the results...

Steve

[serissolutions]

Everyone seems to strive for what you are getting here. I just don't care for them. There isn't any movement, they are frozen, none of the mood is captured. The fact that got them at those settings is testament to either the camera's low noise at such high film speed, or good ps work. Generalizations: Singers look like they're having a bowel movement, drummers can look even worse. Guitarists all have the same self absorbed pose. This trend must be related to sports photography, where we try to freeze the action at just the right time. This is a very cool way to portray athleticism. Thing is, most musicians aren't dumb jocks, and I think it is a little strange to portray them this way. Personally, I prefer a soft image due to slow shutter speed rather than a tack sharp nose with the rest exhibiting a portrait sized serving of bokeh. It's kind of funny though, these are the shots that most of the musicians like. So, in that respect, they must be pretty good.

Only thing I did in PS was increase contrast.
There was noise but its hard to see when the pics are reduced.

[jfrancho]

Have you tried the noise filter in ps. I took some shots of a friend playing bubble hockey in a bar with a S500 at ISO 400, very noisy, but the filter cleaned them up nicely.