First Concert Shoot-Bruce Springsteen:Critique Please

It had been a long time since I took any concert photographs. The situation arose, new camera (Rebel XT) and one lens 70-200 f2.8 IS L. Unfortunately I did not know much about the capabilities or about RAW, so these are all from the original JPG source.

I am serious about learning as much as I can to make my photographs as good as possible and figure I can learn a few things from all of you. So, if you can, please give me some feedback.

I have since shot a few other shows and I will show them soon.

1.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Some nice images. I like the first three best.
Looks like too much NR on #2.

Pretty intimate stuff... It's not often you get to see the up close captures of icons...

René Damkot wrote in post #3279313
Looks like too much NR on #2.

I would have to agree with you on that. Right after the show, in and effort to show something to others, I was a bit *over aggressive* in processing on an uncalibrated monitor (I learned that lesson, quickly) with that image and saved it without saving the original. All the original shots were ISO 1600 so noise was definately an issue. I tried to do my best with the source that was still available.

The change of lighting that night was drastic, often within the same song. Heavy red to dark blue to bright white. Tough show to be learning the ropes with.

I hope to hear from some others, as I know I have a lot to learn. Since this is becoming more and more a profit center for me, as Bruce Springsteen said, I gotta "learn my facts real good."

johnstoy wrote in post #3279670
Pretty intimate stuff... It's not often you get to see the up close captures of icons...

It was a last second gig for me, my experience is shooting extreme sports, and it was rather intimate, especially the second apperance of Mr. Springsteen. I was in a photo pit, literally with his music stand and mike no more than 4 ft from where I was located...and with only the 70-200 with me. I had to improvise quickly.

skifurthur wrote in post #3279738
It was a last second gig for me, my experience is shooting extreme sports, and it was rather intimate, especially the second appearance of Mr. Springsteen. I was in a photo pit, literally with his music stand and mike no more than 4 ft from where I was located...and with only the 70-200 with me. I had to improvise quickly.

Then was this in Jersey?
It's good that you had an "L" lens with you...

Off topic: I've got two nephews, they are extreme skiers, marathoners, in Utah and Wyoming... They are originally from here... I was marketing Dir. at the Resort Club of Vernon Valley/Great Gorge in 94-95...

Nice work!

If the whole headstock was in 3, i would love it that much more too . I also think that this would work in reverse (him in focus, guitar not), but it all depends what you have.

Some clients like the completely noiseless look... i have one Some grain is good IMO, and too much processing means no detail, but meh... whatever they want as long as they are signing the cheques

Well done.

Rob

Hi Ski - another BTX'ers checking in

No one here has ever asked me about my screen name

Great photos btw.

you can pick up a low light lens - something faster than f/2.8

johnstoy wrote in post #3280102
Then was this in Jersey?
It's good that you had an "L" lens with you...

Yes. The concert was located in New Jersey. It was the second night of the annual Light of Day charity benefit located at The Starland Ballroom, Sayerville, NJ on Dec 2, 2006.

The *L* was purchased for that event thinking that I would be a bit further from the action than I ended up being. Delivered to my home on Friday Dec 1st with that night's show starting a couple of hours later. Nothing like learning on the fly, huh?

Shooter-boy wrote in post #3280108
Nice work!

If the whole headstock was in 3, i would love it that much more too . I also think that this would work in reverse (him in focus, guitar not), but it all depends what you have.

Some clients like the completely noiseless look... i have one Some grain is good IMO, and too much processing means no detail, but meh... whatever they want as long as they are signing the cheques

Well done.

Rob

Thank you. Although I am rather critical of these photos, I realize they aren't terrible. The client did and does like them.

I shot another concert, Ryan Adams, a few nights later and while I had a bit of a feel for the game, I still used 1600 ISO. By week two with the combination lens/camera, I was shooting ISO 400.

Amen on the *signing the check* part.

Palladium wrote in post #3280135
Hi Ski - another BTX'ers checking in

No one here has ever asked me about my screen name

Great photos btw.

you can pick up a low light lens - something faster than f/2.8

Palladium, check your PMs.

Thank you as well. I'm sure I will go faster that f/2.8 in the future. For now, the combo of the 70-200 and the EF-S 17-55 IS is working for me in almost all cases.

The Canon and the Canon "L" quality is reliable... I got an "other brand" lens once... A Friday morning, before a show later in the day... It needed re-calibration (apparently some of those other band lenses occasionally do)... needless to say close to 400 show pictures were slightly out of focus...

Nice work there buddy, so lucky to get "the Boss" as a first gig....

skifurthur wrote in post #3280260
Thank you. Although I am rather critical of these photos, I realize they aren't terrible. The client did and does like them.

I shot another concert, Ryan Adams, a few nights later and while I had a bit of a feel for the game, I still used 1600 ISO. By week two with the combination lens/camera, I was shooting ISO 400.

Amen on the *signing the check* part.

If you aren't critical of your images, you will never grow as a photographer. I pull the nuts out of mine, and my clients/wife/friends etc are generally blown away. We as photographers look for every little detail, most people don't.

And yeah. While many of us do it for hobby, and probably ALL of us love doing it whether we are getting paid or not, for many of us the business of photography is very important too. It buys food, clothing, housing... and... AHEM! L's

Rob

I really like #4 because I like the expression you've captured on Springsteen's face; he looks serious and contemplative. IMO the emotion you capture is the most important thing, more important than the technical issues such as noise and aperture (though those are important too because they help to deliver the captured emotion).

I'm not sure if I like your choice to focus on his hand rather than on his face in #3. Yes, there's a lot of nice tension in that hand, but his face is showing some genuine emotion that I would have liked to have seen in focus. I do really like how you've framed that shot though. For that angle, the framing is perfect. I'd be curious if others think his face should have been focused on or if the focus on the hand works best for this shot.

ThomasOwenM wrote in post #3283020
I really like #4 because I like the expression you've captured on Springsteen's face; he looks serious and contemplative. IMO the emotion you capture is the most important thing, more important than the technical issues such as noise and aperture (though those are important too because they help to deliver the captured emotion).

Thank you.

ThomasOwenM wrote in post #3283020
I'm not sure if I like your choice to focus on his hand rather than on his face in #3. Yes, there's a lot of nice tension in that hand, but his face is showing some genuine emotion that I would have liked to have seen in focus. I do really like how you've framed that shot though. For that angle, the framing is perfect. I'd be curious if others think his face should have been focused on or if the focus on the hand works best for this shot.

I would have liked to see that photo as well. Unfortunately I didn't take a photo with that focus. A friend of mine who studied photograpy commented about # 3 and said she liked it because Bruce has a reputation as the blue collar hero and that focused showed his commitment, the wedding band, showed the collision of his two worlds; rock star/husband-family man. Yeah, that's what I was thinking when I took it.

It's been about 2 weeks since I posted these picture and I have been reading, tweaking, reading some more, tweaking some more, in an effort to improve on them. I know that I am not there yet, but I am hoping that I did improve on shots 1, 2 and 5. What do all of you think?

1.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO