File :-(, x, )
Tips for concert photography Anonymous
How do you take good photos at a concert?

Rob Sheridan seems to do a marvelous job, but then he's a professional probably with $6000+ cameras.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:03:12 14:18:44White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating320Lens Aperturef/5.7Exposure Bias-0.7 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length28.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width800Image Height570RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
example 2

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:03:15 17:39:49White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating320Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias-2 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width700Image Height495RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
wow definitely didn't expect EXIF data to be there. looks like a Canon EOS 5D
>> Anonymous
nothing can teach you like simply going and taking pictures at a concert.

the pictures that the op has shown are achievable by anyone.
>> Anonymous
there was a thread about this last week, browse the board a bit
>> Anonymous
In theory, wouldn't a high ISO speed do the job for you?
>> Anonymous
you'd think so, but both of those said:

ISO Speed Rating 320

so there must be something else. the F-stop is at 2.0, so that's not it...

Is the Canon EOS 5D just very good in low-light?
>> Jupi
     File :-(, x)
Is this spiffy enough?
>> Photon
Maybe its the metering.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I took a few when last week of Limp Wrist. Im gona play around with settings and shit.. for this photo i used flash on 1st curtain, ISO 80 and whatever shutter speed aperture so it was bright enough. check EXIF.. next time ill prob increase the ISO and make it less blurry.

any comments\advice?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot S3 ISMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFirmware Versionrmware Version 1.00Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:01:07 20:58:11RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardExposure Time0.3 secF-Numberf/2.7Lens Aperturef/2.7Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, Compulsory, Red-Eye ReduceFocal Length6.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2112Image Height2816Image Number100-0090
>> Anonymous
You are using the oncamera meter which will want to make everything too dark (except perhaps for modern matrix meters) so try downrating the film/sensor by about 2 stops to bring up some shadow detail.
>> Anonymous
>>33940
>>33951

See, those are nice and all, but they are still blurred. The first two pictures posted are clear and sharp and not at all grainy. Still at a loss as to how this was one. It's hard to see how the photographer got a good exposure using the settings in the EXIF data... the extremely small DOF might do it (1.2-2.0), but otherwise, dunno.
>> Jupi
     File :-(, x)
Yeah, I understand the picture I posted is blurred. Typically when my photos get blurred, it irritates me. But this one, I liked. :3

Unfortunately, I don't get to many concerts, but I do have one or two decent shots from a show I went to over two years ago. I had a different camera back then, and it was literally on its last leg. I think it was officially pronounced dead the next morning. Also, my lens was filthy, and I was unfortunately unaware of it until I looked at my pictures when I got home.
>> Anonymous
>>33943

I guess that's possible. But what would you meter off of? Look at the first picture, for example:>>33915. There's Trent at the microphone (wearing black and relatively unilluminated) and a stage light on the right (very bright white). What did he meter off of?

Off of Trent, the result would be overexposed light. Off of light, it would be underexposed Trent. Maybe off of the background lighting, in this case a neutral blue, but anyone who's been to a show knows that the lighting changes almost every second, so that's unreliable. Maybe the photographer uses some sort of off-camera metering technique that I'm not familiar with.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>33999
I never meter, I just set my camera to some manual setting and take a shitload of pictures, Some turn out some don't, But you can generally just kind of guess and the LCD gives you feedback.

even with the flash Everything is manual, pick a distance and calculate based on ISO and apperature (usually 1.4 or 1.8 anyway)

I really doubt these pictures are an example of the camera metering properly. (See example I took)

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern822Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2006:12:30 21:16:29Exposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramManualExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1434Image Height950RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
several things I can think of... first is you might want to vary focal lengths a bit when taking pictures at a concert. You'll need a variety, from 28mm all the way to mid-telephoto (I feel). And then (especially at long focal lengths) you'll have to worry about how the camera is supported. Tripod? Handheld? Handheld = blurs, especially at anything below 1/125. Tripods are going to somewhat limit your ability to react to the situation. Keep in mind that the noise that digital cameras produce is still pretty annoying especially at anything over maybe ISO200, plus the fact that you'll need to stop down your lens to improve its optical performance and cut some of the glare from the concert lighting, and you're looking at rather slow shutter speeds. And then regardless of how professional you are or how leet your camera is, you'll have to manually go over and fix the color curves of each and every picture you feel is worth saving. Hard work!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>34025
Your kind of going overboard on your analysis,
One, Lens quality barely matters in such dramatic lighting, So stopping down for quality is pointless.
2, DSLR's can go up to ISO 800 and 1600 with usable results.

3 VR and IS lenses can let you go into "unusuable territory"

>>34011
And you don't need a tripod, This picture i posted here, was taken at 1/40th of a second, With a 50mm f1.8, It was handheld, Above my head on the dance floor with people bumping into me and tons of bass shaking everything, But with digital you can just take like 5 or 6 pictures in a row and one will turn out. (That night i couldn't seem to mess up though, about 80% of my 1/40th turned out)
It was also ISO 800

Heres another (also ISO 800)

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsFocal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern818Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2006:12:30 20:08:19RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastSoftSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownExposure Time1/15 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramManualExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1000Image Height1504
>> Anonymous
>>34041

I'm sorry, I really don't think the picture's all that. It's nicely composed and everything, but it's one of those shots that looks brilliant on a contact sheet and then lets you down when you blow it up. Your eye wanders to the DJ and his setup and sees blurs, back to the type on the banner and sees more blurs, on to the girders at the back of the picture and it's just all a world of camera shake. This picture is unsatisfying for that reason.

Plus, the reason to stop down a lens in these conditions is that a small aperture opening tends to reduce the optical effects of stray light sources. In an environment like this, you're going to get all kinds of odd light from unexpected sources. That gives you ghosting, flare, glare, in unexpected places that reduce quality of the image.

Anti-shake systems may give you perhaps an additional stop (or two!) to play with, but bear in mind that these systems (iirc) do not correct motion perpendicular to the plane of the shutter. Other benefits to using a tripod/other camera mount include the ability to use very slow shutter speeds (1/8 and much much slower) to get other interesting effects. And finally, while 1/60 at 28mm may be acceptable, 1/60 at 200mm is not, due to the magnification amplifying the effects of any camera shake. So if you're looking to take some kind of closeup of the performer's face or something, and not just stick to the wide angle, I would strongly recommend _not_ hand holding.

As for the ISO thing I do happen to be particularly anal about grain and noise, but considering that digicam noise shows up especially well in the shadow parts of the image, which are prevalent at concerts, I would stay away from high ISOs while shooting concerts. Now then if you're going for the gritty/low budget look that of course doesn't matter at all. Or, you know, you could try shoot ing tmax 3200 instead, which I find quite aesthetically pleasing.
>> Anonymous
>>34086
The problem with what your saying again is there isn't enough light to take "perfect" concert photography, Without a flash, people blur like CRAZY at 1/8, With a flash you usually ruin the natural lighting that makes it soo much fun.

The picture I posted was taken at 1/15 and of course theres blur, Just its quite minor, And the motion blur from handholding is very minute (most of it is the DJ and crowd moving)
Also it is taken at ISO 800, and the noise isn't ridiculous either.

I think thats what I love about "available light" photography, like clubs and concerts is soo difficult and spontaneous that its really rewarding when you get a good shot. Unfortunately a lot of it becomes expensive equipment though, I rely on the ultracheap 50mm f1.8 (Which becomes 75mm on Nikon DSLR's) So that makes it tough aswell.