Left Standing - 3rd concert shoot

I just started shooting concerts in badly lit clubs a couple weeks ago. I have been experimenting with some different settings, while also trying to capture images that are not the traditional shot, getting my own style at the same time.

Here's an abstract shot of the guitarist. The entire band is so energetic, this particular club had horrible lighting, but I did get some... interesting shots...

Atheomerase wrote:
I just started shooting concerts in badly lit clubs a couple weeks ago. I have been experimenting with some different settings, while also trying to capture images that are not the traditional shot, getting my own style at the same time.

Here's an abstract shot of the guitarist. The entire band is so energetic, this particular club had horrible lighting, but I did get some... interesting shots...

From a "performance" perspective, that shot does absolutely nothing for me. From an "abstract" perspective, it does little more. There's just no way to tell what anything is. It's a bunch of color, and that's about it.

Could you widen the crop a bit?

I sort of agree with Steve ... there isn't enough coherence to have any clue what it is as a subject. As an abstract, the straight angles of the background white with what appear to be letters on a rectangle doesn't flow with the reds and lines on the left. I'd keep working on it ... it will get better.

Thanks for looking at the photo.

Regarding the crop, that is actually the entire photo, it was merely reduced.

The background is a black and white semi-sepia toned wallpaper

These were primarily shot with my 70-200/f.28 sigma. I like the speed of the glass, but I have to be so far away it's difficult to get the shots. Or just figure out the nuances of shooting with that lens in low light.

Here's another shot from that show:

Ah, that's more like it ... the old "shutter drag" technique.

Yeah, the shutter drag isn't intentional per se. I just need to learn how to shoot in a badly lit club with a 70-200/f2.8 lens, without flash. with flash, a large number of photos turned out, but why keep the flash going if i am going to try and capture the actual show.

Maybe if the guys weren't so mobile on stage it would be easier as well? but who wants to see a lackluster performance?

lol

its not gonna be easy... you'll prob need to look at a fast prime to freeze the action. shooting at a 70-200mm focal length isnt gonna help with camera shake either.

Yeah, this I know, but until I can afford a fast lens, like the 17-35/f2.8 that I want, I will be learning to use this lens

There is no good solution to bad lighting ... if there was we would have shared it with the thousand guys who passed through here before you! Fast primes are all we can suggest and they aren't useful any faster than f/1.8 because the DOF gets too shallow. ... I know as I have an 85mm f/1.2L and 85mm f/1.8. Just do the best you can and try whatever comes to mind. Some guys use flash but bounce it off almost anything including themselves or other folks with white shirts on. Some guys do 'shutter drag' and claim it is "art". Some use multiple remote flash heads. But we do require that you can tell what you taking a picture of from just looking at it as well as giving us the venue/band/event information. And if the bands you like are any good they will eventually play in venues with decent lights.

Just read your reply ... the 50mm f/1.8 is about $75 new ... it is probably the most pervasive concert lens around. Get this before any more zooms or f/2.8 lenses.

This is true about them playing better venues. That is just a horribly lit venue that they played one time. The other venues they generally play are better lit.

I was looking at the 85/1.8, as I shot with that on an old nikon 8008s I used, but with the 20d magnification, it would end up being such a long lens, I'm torn.

I just need to shoot more and see what minor adjustments I can make each show until I get photos I am happy with.

Get the 50mm f/1.8 ... it is a lens you need anyway. I have the 50mm f/1.4 but only because I can afford anything I want ... it is only marginally better.

Thanks for the suggestion, maybe I'll make that my next lens selection, instead of saving up for the 17-35 or 10-22 that I've been considering.

You need them all, but the $75 50mm f/1.8 is a "must have first" kinda lens.

Thanks for the advice on that one.... I had no idea you could get a lens for $75. LOL

I'm probably having the camera shake problem some. I have the Sigma 70-300 mm lens, sigma 28-70 and the 18-55 mm lens the camera came with. I enjoy concert photograpy with a point and shoot and now am relearning with a "real" camera. LOL I don't recall the speed on each lens, but it's not 1.8 for sure. The larger one is 4.0, I believe. I will definitely be looking into that lens.

Dwight, I'd agree with that, but only to a point. The IQ from the f/1.8 version is what makes the lens such a bargain. However, in low light, it hunts worse than my old man during deer season. For that reason, I rarely use mine in a concert setting...