The Devil Wears Prada - June 18, 10 - First Event with the 5D II

1.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Looking good. #5 looks a bit too distorted though.

i agree, 5 is awesome

neeko wrote in post #10422972
Looking good. #5 looks a bit too distorted though.

Curious what your favorite was and why?

#5 is as how captured with a 50mm I believe. The guitarist is actually positioned that way as part of thrusting his body and head up and down while playing.

I LOVE THIS BAND!

#4 is my favorite, the guy looks demonic! Nice shoot.

Fish shots are okay, in particular #2.

#4: Cropped of the hand! Pity. Otherwise great look.

#5: Bit too much motion IMO.
#6: OoF. I'd bin it.
#7 and 8: Same as #5 I think. (hard to see at this size)

René Damkot wrote in post #10459927
Fish shots are okay, in particular #2.

#4: Cropped of the hand! Pity. Otherwise great look.

#5: Bit too much motion IMO.
#6: OoF. I'd bin it.
#7 and 8: Same as #5 I think. (hard to see at this size)

Thanks Rene. Thanks for going photo by photo.

Fish shots: I think they are better than okay, but that's me, agree with 2 in particular. If you got links or fish eye images - full band - you consider better, please go ahead and post. I am always interested in challenging myself to do better and seeing examples of what to aim for.

#4 yeah, bummed that I just missed all of the hand.
#5, 7, 8 Not sure what "too much motion" means as a sense of motion/action is usually what we want to capture. I agree that the motion in 5 looks weird but that's part of the appeal to me. Not sure about 7 and 8 having too much motion.

#6 That was my initial reaction. The photo is actually in focus/pretty good focus - see the t-shirt lettering - the speed was not enough to freeze the "head banging" resulting in motion blur. Upon further reflection, I backed off my "must always be sharp = no blur" rule as I realized I like the sense of motion/action and emotion captured here. Rock n Roll as they say.

I didn't see the EXIF data on the photos. About what were your settings? I guess I might be inclined to crank up the ISO a bit to improve the shutter speed. Those are really good pics, but the motion blur is a bit distracting. I think a faster shutter speed would have helped.

I love the second photo, which Fisheye lens do you have?

Rock Photo Star wrote in post #10462590
Fish shots: I think they are better than okay, but that's me, agree with 2 in particular. If you got links or fish eye images - full band - you consider better, please go ahead and post. I am always interested in challenging myself to do better and seeing examples of what to aim for.

Most fisheye shots tend to look like "just another fisheye shot" IMO.
So you'ld need a pretty great shot to distinguish yourself from the rest. Not "just" shoot a band from straight on.

No examples 'at the ready', but Kalle does some nice things with UWA / fisheye.

It's much easier to get a good shot with a longer lens, since there's way less distraction / action in the frame.
A fisheye / UWA shows you a lot, so you need to make sure that there is a lot to see in the frame, and all that you see is "right". Quite a bit harder then shooting with a 200/1.8 wide open

Rock Photo Star wrote in post #10462590
#4 yeah, bummed that I just missed all of the hand.
#5, 7, 8 Not sure what "too much motion" means as a sense of motion/action is usually what we want to capture.

Not that I'm that anal about motion blur, but it should add to an image.
In a lot of cases, it doesn't if the key element (face) isn't sharpest. (Not a very strict rule, but I don't know how to describe it, other then "It should work")

Rock Photo Star wrote in post #10462590
I agree that the motion in 5 looks weird but that's part of the appeal to me. Not sure about 7 and 8 having too much motion.

Not sure either, but they just look a bit not-sharp to me.

Rock Photo Star wrote in post #10462590
#6 That was my initial reaction. The photo is actually in focus/pretty good focus - see the t-shirt lettering - the speed was not enough to freeze the "head banging" resulting in motion blur. Upon further reflection, I backed off my "must always be sharp = no blur" rule as I realized I like the sense of motion/action and emotion captured here. Rock n Roll as they say.

I was looking at the guitar neck, shirt and hair, and concluded focus was too deep.
But the motion certainly doesn't help

As I said: motion can definately help an image, but it's very tricky to get "perfect".
If I want to capture 'motion', I shoot a lot more then I usually do.

Review of concert at

http://clinkmusicmagaz​ine.com …t-ichthus-music-festival/