A good concert digital SLR
Tony Allen
shotting pictures at concerts. I'm looking at the Fuji S1 and the Canon
D30. Any input?? Which is a good low light camera?
Thanks,
Tony <'}}}><
Robert E. Williams
If the objective is to end up with good digital images of a concert,
shot in low light conditions, I would use a film camera with Kodak SUPRA
800 (Prof) and have the film scanned to a Kodak PHOTO CD.
SUPRA 800 has very high speed, good color rendition and fine grain. It
can also be pushed to ISO 3200 if necessary with good results. The SUPRA
line is also designed with scanning in mind. The PHOTO CD images are 6
Megapixels which is nearly twice as good as top of the line 3.3 MP
digicams. Digital cameras are notoriously noisy in low light conditions.
Don't try to force a round peg in a square hole.
Digital and film photography needn't be mutually exclusive. I think they
complement each other very nicely. As in this case, a combination of the
two technologies gives a result not attainable with either one
alone. Regards .....Bob Williams
D Buroker
800 with a 70-200 F2.8 lens. The way the artists move around, I don't
think a digital would handle it under those conditions, I did take a
couple of shots with the digital to see how it would come out, and ended
up with quite a bit of blur.
Don
VT
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:56:34 -0500, D Buroker <bur...@inwave.com>
wrote:
This does seem like sensible advice - but perhaps you can consider
this.......
It depends on what kind of concert photos you want - if you want
realistic and pin sharp photos - then absolutely use ISO800 such as
Fuji Superia 800 - or better yet Fuji Superia 400 - but _both_ with a
good external _flash_.
Just a little background where I am coming from - I shoot a lot of of
concerts and club dates - I am out almost 7 nights/week and sometimes
shoot more than one gig per night.
However I have recently found that available light photography with
digital can produce amazing results.
At first sight this just does not make any sense - since most consumer
digi-cams are rated at ISO100 equivalent at their highest resolution.
But just as an example I shot Little Feat on Friday Oct/13 at the
Variety in Atlanta, then followed by the Derek Trucks Band and Robert
Walter's 20th Congress on Saturday Oct/14 at the Roxy.
For all three bands I used my digi-cam with the flash turned off. Yes
some shots were blurred - but the stage lighting was so good (ie:
colorful and bright) that the majority of my shots were stunning (and
that's not said with conceit) - enough that several people close by in
the audience remarked on them and even asked to see them again (this
was from momentarily "reviewing" right after the shot was taken). All
the bands saw the results and they all asked for "copies" - I have
already supplied Robert Walter with 13 shots and he wants more that I
took from last night (Sunday Oct/15)....... Derek Truck whom I know
doesn't talk that much - but he was very enthusiatic about the shots
and his band members all asked for "copies" - Little Feat - again are
friends, and my conventional shots are already on their web site -
they are expecting to see these there soon........
So what is this high-end digital I was shooting?
Canon S100 Digital ELPH -
So small that I was hoping to avoid having to show anyone in the
audience, and explain what I was doing. And I know I was able to do
this even with the lowly Canon A5 Zoom (that's all of 1024x768)
Mostly before that I shot fast film with flash with very successful
results - with 400 or 800 the flash blends with the stage lighting so
that you got the best combination of capturing the stage lighting
ambience, yet fill-in and freeze the action to get pin sharp results
that still fit in with the mood.
But now digital brings a completely different paradigm to shooting
stage.
I have some shots which I consider "impossible" - one shot was of
Shaun Murphy of Little Feat with such strong back lighting that I
couldn't even see her face, and I _know_ if it were shot on film all
I'd get is a silhouette. But on digital I got good details on the
face - "impossible" - but like Bill Payne said - "how does it know?"
If you already have a digi-cam try it - it almost costs nothing to
experiment - it does need a good stage lighting - but ,most of us will
recognize this - when you say wow! the lights look great - that's
because they are.......
Then you'll be very pleasently surpised at the results - much better
than anyone has any right to expect.
You can see some of my more conventional concert/club shots on my web
site - under the link MUSIC - the shots of Bo Diddley and Walter
"Wolfman" Washington (when he opened for Robert Cray), and the Breeze
Kings at the Tabernacle were all shot with the lowly Canon A5 Zoom
with its weak & weedy flash.
--
Vincent
vtVi...@Prodigy.Net
D Buroker
but the stage lighting was so good (ie: colorful and bright) that the majority of my shots were stunning
I guess the point I am making is, you don't always have the lighting that you mention, and when you don't and there is a lot of action going on digital doesn't cut it.
Don
Dave Haynie
wrote:
>> but the stage lighting was so good (ie:
>> colorful and bright) that the majority of my shots were stunning
>You said the secret word "the stage lighting was so good".
I've shot quite a number of concerts with a variety of cameras. To
some extent, the lighting is always pretty good -- they do want you to
see them. On the other hand, it can be pretty tricky. You need a fast
lens -- f2.8 is about the minimum (but maybe I'm saying that because I
have an easily pocketed Pentax Auto 110 with 70mm, f2.8 lens -- that's
about 140mm in 35mm equiv); you're not likely to have a tripod, unless
you're there officially (even when photography is permitted, they're
not likely to let you bring along that tripod).
I would love to get digital in such a venue, because of the immediate
feedback, of course -- you have to do lots of shows to get it right
with film. There are a few big problems, though. One is the lens: I
was shooting a farily well-lit Peter, Paul, and Mary concert last
summer, at a pretty small venue, and yet, I really needed that 300mm
lens and ISO800 film (they go together -- fast film so the handheld
shots work). There aren't many digitals that can duplicate that focal
length, sensitivity, and reasonable f-stop.
>The festival
>I just shot I was shooting 1/60th at F2.8, before that I shot at the
>Horseshoe Casino in Tunica MS., that was a little better, I managed
>1/125 at F2.8 there, and by the way they won't let you use flash in the
>Horseshoe.
Most places won't. That was the rule at the aforementioned concert,
though you saw those little P&S flashes popping like photon-flavored
popcorn. And the funny thing is that such a flash at 50-100ft or more
is absolutely, totally useless. I have a flash that's good for a bit
over 100ft at ISO100 -- that's a 150 guide number, you don't find
anything like this built-in. And at most shows, you're going to be
substantially further away, and not in possession of your Sunpak 555.
Not to mention the fact that flashing a performer is about the next
rudest thing you can do to hurling bottles onto the stage. It may not
do you any good, but it's going to zap their eyes. Now imagine 10 or
20 of those going off every minute. That's why they're disallowed.
>I guess the point I am making is, you don't always have the lighting
>that you mention, and when you don't and there is a lot of action going
>on digital doesn't cut it.
Well, of course, action is the reason, other than long focal length,
you might want high shutter speeds. Of course, that's very dependent
on what action you're talking about -- sometimes a bit of blur is
necessary for a good photo, otherwise you miss the whole point of the
action. This, handheld, with a long lens, is what makes this kind of
photography really challenging. Digital, when it's advanced a bit
more, would absolutely rock in such circumstances.
Dave Haynie | frog pond media | dha...@jersey.net
"Whomever dies with the most cameras wins"
GO GREEN - VOTE NADER
Richard W. Woodley
Well, despite everything that has been said here, people are getting
great concert shots with Mavicas - I even got some very good ones with
my under 1 megapixel FD-91 at a fall fair with not the greatest
lighting. I can send samples if you e-mail me.
Also ask at http://www.mavican.nu and I am sure folks will be glad to
post samples on the photo board there.
In article <39EA74A7...@stny.rr.com>,
--
Richard W. Woodley: woo...@igs.net
personal home page: http://www.ncf.ca/~ab190/
digital photography web site: http://www.geocities.com/woodleyr/
Mavica FD-91 review:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FD91/FD91A.HTM
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
VT
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 06:26:57 GMT, dha...@jersey.net (Dave Haynie)
wrote:
>Not to mention the fact that flashing a performer is about the next
>rudest thing you can do to hurling bottles onto the stage. It may not
>do you any good, but it's going to zap their eyes. Now imagine 10 or
>20 of those going off every minute. That's why they're disallowed.
>
Of course every case is different - but what you said above is one of
the great myths in concert photography.
Whenever I can - especially in small clubs - I ask for the artist's
permission and explicitly tell them I'll use flash - I have yet to
have a single refusal - I have been stopped by security at venues or
sometimes the road crews - but I usually get the artists to have a
word with them between sets - then all's clear. However nowadays I'll
tell the security at the venue that I am shooting and I have
permission to use flash and many of the road crews now know me - so I
now avoid the problem.
I'll give examples -
Little Feat - the first time I ever shot them I asked for permission
with the artists - individually - to the person they said they didn't
mind in the least. Then after the show - Paul Barerre made a point to
tell me that the flash didn't bother him at all - Shaun Murphy
actually deliberately "posed" for shots and grinned an acknowledgement
when she saw the confirming flash.
Walter "Wolfman" Washington - loved being photographed and would
acknowledge the flash - he even came to thank me for taking pictures
after the show.
Col. Bruce Hampton (Aquarium Rescue Unit etc) plays tricks with his
microphone stand and he can tell when I've caught him in action and
points in acknowledge to the flash.
You'll be surprised how many artists will play upto the flash........
I also realize that despite the fact I shoot a lot I can't possibly
have sampled a large enough group and perhaps I have just been lucky
and have only dealt with nice artists - but I think my exposure is
probaly as high if not higher than many other "professional"
photographers at the venues I meet, because I shoot virtually 7 nights
per week, and have been asked to be the "official" photographer at
several notable events and festivals.
Now I do realize that sometimes flash is intrusive to the audience -
and because of the assumption/myth - many in the audience can "resent"
flashes - I do try to be as considerate as possible - in other words I
actually take less shots - this has in the long term has worked out
better for me - I wait for the right shot - sometimes it seems to me
to be just ages and ages before I'd take the shot (and sometimes I
don't even shoot) - but think of it this way - why would I take a shot
that's just so-so? I want that shot to be the once-in-a-lifetime shot
- I know obviously I don't always get that - but that's what I aim for
and therefore only will take the shot when it is as good as I see it -
therefore far fewer shots than the other photographers at the venue.
The converse is true too - occassionally I have taken a flash shot and
have a person in the audience say - that was a great shot - it is
always gratifying to get that - so you can see not everyone resents
flash.
These days I also tell the audience around me that I am shooting for
the artists - and most of them are very considerate and will make room
for me - and I make a point to mouth a "thank you" when they've made
space - flash then is not even an issue.
At big (outdoor) festivals photo passes are issued and special areas
are provided for photographers - and it is expected for flash to be
used to fill-in the hard shadows - occassionally promoters have asked
for no flash (I am not sure if that came from the artists) but those
are few and very far between.
But my suggestion is to ask the artists permission to take photos -
then ask them if it's OK to use flash - you may be pleasently
surprised at the reply.
VT
>I guess the point I am making is, you don't always have the lighting
>that you mention, and when you don't and there is a lot of action going
>on digital doesn't cut it.
Every situation and venue is different - but I was really surprised at
the available light results from digital - they are much, much better
than one would have the right to expect - since the digi-cam I have is
only ISO100 and the max aperture is f/2.8 to f/4.0 - I know for
certain I could not get a shot with that on film - but I do a lot
better with my "humble" digital.
Some situations when the backlighting is so strong that when I've shot
with film (no flash) - all I got was bascally great lights but a
silhouette of the subject - has turned out amazing on digital - with
surprising detail in the face ("how does it know?" :-)
My point is try it - it costs virtually "nothing" - But I do shoot
both film and digital at any event. Film nowadays is used almost
exclusively Fuji Superia 400 with flash (as mentioned the balance
between ambient stage lighting and auto flash gives me very pleasing
results) and digital almost exclusively for avialable light (no flash)
shots.
I can attest that the digitals are "spectacular" - (and all I used is
a humble Canon S100 digital ELPH - I wish I could do this on film for
"better" prints - but I can't) - yes many shots will have some degree
of subject blur - but the shots capture the mood and feel and are
closer to a "painting" and to me capture the real essence of the
concert (film with flash will give me (freeze) the details that I
didn't get with digital, that's why I'll shoot with both)
...... now if that's not enthusiasm and encouragement to try it - I
don't know what is.......
ph...@rs-plaza.com
still would recommend going for the canon D30,
better build, vertical grip, E-TTL + wireless flash support
and IS lens option.
For most parts, I shoot indoor rock concerts with flash only.
recommend:
canon D30
a parfocal length lens, since the autofocus is not always usable with
bad lighting. with a nice smooth manual focus.
(tokina 28-80mm 2.8 example, though I recommend Cannon,Nikon,Minolta
lenses, because of warranty/service issues.)
a E-TTL flash + softener (with IR focus assist)
+ one wireless flash
you do loose the wideangle, since I would not want to change lenses,
especially with a dust sensitive sensor.
no flash shoots are cool, but only if the monkeys hold still....
whitebalance becomes really tricky with stagelights.
thanks, Robert Schultz concert/art Photographer
http://www.rs-plaza.com/photo ( will update/rebuild soon)
In article <39EA74A7...@stny.rr.com>,
Tony Allen <aal...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
Richard W. Woodley
Only problem is that Joe Average Amateur is not likely to get a chance
to ask Mick Jagger if its okay to take pictures.
In article <39ec636d...@news.prodigy.net>,
> --
> Vincent
> vtVi...@Prodigy.Net
>
> http://vtVincent.HomePage.com/
>
--
Richard W. Woodley: woo...@igs.net
personal home page: http://www.ncf.ca/~ab190/
digital photography web site: http://www.geocities.com/woodleyr/
Mavica FD-91 review:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/FD91/FD91A.HTM
VT
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:26:59 GMT, vtVi...@prodigy.net (VT) wrote:
>
>On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 23:24:12 -0500, D Buroker <bur...@inwave.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>I guess the point I am making is, you don't always have the lighting
>>that you mention, and when you don't and there is a lot of action going
>>on digital doesn't cut it.
>
>Every situation and venue is different - but I was really surprised at
>the available light results from digital - they are much, much better
>than one would have the right to expect -
For those interested - here are some shots from my Canon S100 Digital
ELPH shot at a couple of venues - they are on the respective bands'
web sites and have been scaled down to about 400x533 for web use, but
you'll see for yourself how digital reacts in low/available light.
Col. Bruce Hampton & the Code Talkers -
http://www.thecodetalkers.com
(the cover "painting" was an available light photo - which the
webmaster "doctored")
The other photos are accessed by the "Photos" button link, then click
on the link for House of Blues, Orlando, FL 10/20/00 - that takes you
to:
http://www.blrmusic.com/pages/HOB-1020.htm
with thumbnails for 12 photos.
King Johnson - a local Atlanta band featuring Oliver Wood (brother to
Chris Wood of Medeski, Martin and Wood) -
http://www.mindspring.com/~kingjohnson/new.htm
5 thumbnails - some of these are available light (no flash) and others
are with night/slow-synch flash. The night club is the Northside
Tavern in Atlanta and the light is very low - much, much too low for
any shot without flash on conventional film even using ISO-800.
Enjoy.