File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
So my friend, who is a producer/manager/promoter/jack-of-all-trades for a bunch of local bands, wants me to do some photography for his bands' gigs. I'm pretty excited, as I get a free pass into the shows, plus I have free reign to go pretty much everywhere to get the best shots.

I'm wondering, though, what gear would be best? I have an XSi/450d with the 18-55mm kit lens and a 50mm f/1.8 II. Should I get any other gear, or will this work fine? I was thinking of maybe picking up a wider aperture (~2-2.5) lens with some zoom. These shows aren't TOO dark, but they're still fairly low-light. What would you guys recommend?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 20DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Compression SchemeJPEG Compression (Thumbnail)Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006-05-28T22:51:29+01:00Exposure Time1/160 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias-0.7 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length200.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width440Image Height343RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
Ditch the new lens, get a speedlight flash thingymebob. The flash will compensate for the small apt.
>> Anonymous
>>287319
But won't a flash wash out the stage light color? I'm aiming to keep as much of the original lighting there as possible.
>> Anonymous
A faster lens would be good, but don't think you *have* to use it at the maximum aperture. Work with motion blur, time your shots right so it's not there, and enjoy some depth of field, if that's what you want. But you can make a kit and 50/1.8 work just fine. The main thing is technique: shooting rhythm, handholding, focusing, exposure. Get those right and you'll do fine, assuming you're not a shitty photographer all around, but shooting concerts is demanding of your skills in all those areas. Don't give up any control: exposure manually, shoot raw, expose for the shadows for cleaner files with better tones but don't blow anything you don't want blown.

I'd skip a zoom on the wide and normal end if you're getting another lens or more lenses; if you're close enough or in a good enough position to use one of those, you're close enough to move to compose. Save any zoom use for teles where you can't get into a better spot.

Don't be an ass and go strobing a concert. It doesn't exist for the sake of your pictures, no one appreciates it, and if the venue has its lighting actually designed you're taking a big shit over someone else's work. Concerts are hard to shoot, definitely, but don't take the rude and uncreative way out.
>> Anonymous
Guys spend ages lighting a stage and then you wash it all out with your flash. Great.
>> tizzou !!HuouSd+PYUs
Getting a flash depends on how you shoot. One of my friends uses his avidly and the shots are good but they are different from typical stage light shots (see them here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sleepxwalker/sets/72157600064115226/)

If you don't like that style, upgrade your kit lens to the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, unless you want something really bright you could get the EF 24mm 1.4L
>> Anonymous
Use the 50mm and a monopod.

Set the camera to Av mode, at f/2.0, and ISO 800.

Prefocus on where the singer's mic stand is, and when the lighting is good, burst mode shoot. Do this a few times, then repeat the process for each band member.

Doing anything else is overthunking the job.
>> Anonymous
>>287348
This will get passable but drearily cliched and boring results interchangeable with those of any other band and photographer, and probably some mis-exposures from using Av in a situation where the lights are rapidly fluctuating.

Monopods fail; a tripod with the legs folded up does the same thing in most situations (including this one) and if he's got the run of the place he can go anywhere. Behind the speakers is so awesome; you're right up close but out of everyone's way.

Prefocusing is good advice, but that's standard practice for any situation. Burst mode is BS.

>Doing anything else is overthunking.

"Think while you shoot."- Martin Munkácsi

> the job

A) Doesn't sound like he's getting paid.
B) If he was, wouldn't that impose at least an equal, if not a higher, obligation on him to not half-ass it, not be lazy, and produce genuinely good work?
>> Anonymous
>>287358
>>This will get passable but drearily cliched and boring results interchangeable with those of any other band and photographer

So, do 287348 to insure that you at least get the standard shots, and THEN do other complicated shit /p/ will recommend that you can fuck up.

This way, when you fail, you still have your passable but drearily cliched shots.
>> Anonymous
Don't use a flash, it bothers the fuck out of the musicians and everybody else in the room.

Use the 50mm and shoot at around f/2.8, don't be afraid to get in close and don't be afraid to shoot at other than eye-level.

Go ahead and use your kit lens for a wider angle if you're up close, but keep it at 18mm and shoot at f/3.5.

A zoom would be nice, I use a 70-200 f/2.8 regularly for tight shots such as OP pic.

Shoot manual at ISO 800 and shutter speed around 1/100 so you can hand-hold. Try not to go below 1/100. If your pictures are well lit then consider turning down the ISO for less noise. If your pictures are too dark don't be shy with the ISO. If you're already at 1600 and too dark... slow down the shutter, 1/80 and 1/60 can work nice... but be careful as you're prone to blur. Experiment and see what works.

If you MUST shoot Av then use spot metering. Evaluative and Matrix metering will try to expose for the shadows and that is not what you want to do. Drop the center focus point on your subject so the meter reads and exposes for that. Av always gets it wrong though so don't bother.
>> Anonymous
>>287391
Also, don't worry about slightly under-exposing. If you can shoot 1/100 at ISO 800 at f/3.5 then you're doing fine. Just be wary of the DOF and be careful with your focusing if you're shooting f/2 or lower.
>> Anonymous
im doing a fetish fashion show on saturday night.. from my limited testing id say completely ditch the 18-55 for the gigs. dont bother with flashing either.

ive got a 50mm 1.4 and the 17-55 2.8.. hopefully the 2.8 will be enough but unlike shooting a gig im not wanting any blur in any photos really.. would be very nice to not have to use the 50mm personally but its definately your best bet

a lens to look at in the future for yourself would be the ef-s 17-55 2.8 or ef 24-70 2.8 IMO.
>> Anonymous
>>287314

If the lighting at the show has any color, try to avoid a flash. Sometimes you won't be able to avoid it though.

I've done a few shows using an original Digital Rebel, a 50mm f/1.4 and a 580EX II. Even when not using the flash, the focus lights on the flash are a lifesaver. I think all EX flashes have them, so even a cheaper/older one will give you the assist lights.

Prepare to use ISO1600! It is rough, but if you do it right it actually works out fairly well.
>> Anonymous
>>287429
I've seen people use the ST-E2 without a slaved flash just for the AF-assist
>> Anonymous
>>287398
I really want that 17-55mm f/2.8, but it's $1000!!

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

inb4 poorfag.
>> Anonymous
Don't use flash, use the stage lighting (unless its nearly pitch black). Flash will just make your pictures look like some fan snapshot.

I would recommend the 50mm all the time (unless the stage is being lit by beacons, in which case the kits lenses 3.5 aperture will be usable.

Remember that anything shutter speed below the focal length amount is going to be prone to hand shake (so don't go below 1/50th with the 50mm... unless your sure of your technique, then 1/30th can be possible).

As far as possible lenses down the line. There's wide and there's tele. Depends on what you want (focus on the musicians faces, or the whole stage). Canon's "L" Primes are great for this.
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
Get as clooooose as you can and from as many angles as you can without being a dick and blocking the way... for too long a time. Also, learn to get used to shutter priority as well. Blurred photos are fucked but underexposed ones can still be used just like the OP photo.
>> Anonymous
>>287656
QFT. As long as you're shooting in RAW, underexposure can be saved, but blurriness can't.
>> tizzou !!HuouSd+PYUs
>>287651
Get the tamron 17-50 f2.8
>> Anonymous
>>287694

don't buy the Tamron 17-50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikHtZoDkInk
>> Anonymous
>>287715
oh noes! a bit of noise!

Better forget the actual optical properties of the lens is fantastic for the price!
>> Anonymous
>>287728

bitches don't kow about my slow DC focus motor with uncoupled focus ring from 1979
>> Anonymous
>>287730
bitches don't know about people in this thread recommending manual pre-focusing because of the low light
>> tizzou !!HuouSd+PYUs
>>287723

It's sharp and constant as well as kinda fast
>> Anonymous
>>287733

whatever helps you sleep at night, man.

people who buy low quality off brand shit like to convince themselves they did the right thing
>> Anonymous
>>287735
at least the off shit brand is better than that pile of shit 17-85
>> Anonymous
OP here, I decided I'll get the 2.8 Tamron until I can afford the bigger and better one next year. Just curious, though, should I get the 17-50mm or 28-75mm? The price difference is only about $40-50
>> Anonymous
>>287908
Depends: do you want a wide-to-shortish-medium-tele zoom, or a normal-to-longish-medium-tele-zoom?
>> Anonymous
>>287911
I guess I'll get the 17-55mm, as the place where the band is playing isn't big at all. Like it's a fairly small place. Plus, I can be pretty close to the band.

Yay me, I just saved $40
>> ANTMY !qDIAcd3vJM
>>287314

Quit while your ahead.
>> tizzou !!HuouSd+PYUs
>>287735

hm.....

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=396&S
ample=0&FLI=3&API=3&LensComp=410&CameraComp=396&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&A
PIComp=1
>> Anonymous
>>287940
...I don't follow